The head of the UK "Lap Dancer's Association" says that lap dances are not s3xually stimulating. Well, all right then.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:59 AMThe unending (and infuriating) irony of this election will be that the Democrats won this election by first tanking the economy and then (with the aid of the MSM) blaming the hapless Republicans for it. Tom Blumer explains:
The recession, once it becomes official, will thus richly deserve designation as the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) recession. Further, Obama's and the Democratic Party's performance on the economy must be benchmarked from June 1, 2008 -- not Election Day, not Inauguration Day, and not, as traditionally has been the case, from October 1 of the new president's first year in office.
Evidence of the POR triumvirate's virtually unilateral damage to the economy began appearing as early as the fourth quarter of 2007, the first quarter of negative growth in six years. The POR recession itself began in June. The historically steep downward revision in second-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) growth from an annualized 3.3% to 2.8% in the government's final September announcement was more than likely due to deterioration that occurred in the final month of the quarter.It's not at all a coincidence that June was the month in which it became crystal clear that despite sky-high oil prices, Pelosi, Obama, and Reid were hostile to the idea of drilling for more oil -- offshore or anywhere else. Pelosi insisted that "we can't drill our way out of our problems." In the speaker's world, this means that you don't drill at all. Reid declared that we have to stop using oil and coal because "it's making us sick." Obama seemed pleased that gas prices were so high, saying only that "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment" instead of the sharp spike. What a guy.As would be expected, the country's businesses, investors, and consumers, never having witnessed a political party dedicate itself so completely to starving its own national economy, reacted very negatively to all of this. I said at the time that "businesses and investors are responding to their total lack of seriousness by battening down the hatches and preparing for the worst." Subsequent events have validated that observation.
As commenter Carl Pham pointed out recently, the American people bought fire insurance from an arsonist.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:53 AMPaul Hsieh (M.D.) has some thoughts on the inevitable issues with "universal health care."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:14 AMLileks has a meditation on modern art:
It's not the humanism that ruined art, it was humanism that divorced itself from the possibility of transcendence. Which would be bad enough if it hadn't decided to splash around in the gutters as well.
Ah, but why was it influential? It recontextualized the commonplace and made us see it as Art, a process that continues to this day every time you see a book with a title like "The Art of Bread" or "The Art of Toad Sexing" or whatever else has to be elevated to the status of marble sculpture to make the user feel they're living a rarified life. It played a joke on the Stuffy Academics, which is something the adolescent temperament never tires of doing. This is not encouraged any more, since the Academics are on the side of Truth and Modernity, however defined today. Although I once knew an architecture student who took perverse and boundless glee in shocking his teacher by putting a pointy roof on the house each student had to design. A pointed roof. In other words, a useful roof, a functional roof that didn't collect rain water. Everyone else had a flat roof, of course. Machine for Living and all that. This was just around the time Post-Modernism made it okay to quote history, as long as everyone saw you wink, or could understand that your overscaled grotesque excretions were meant ironically.An instructor might not know what to make of a house with a point roof, but if you called it "House In The Time of Reagan" he'd understand.
Read all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:30 AMIt's looking like Gates is going to stay at the Pentagon. I think that's good news from a space perspective, because I've heard that he's been trying to light a fire under the Operationally Responsive Space folks. It would be a shame to replace him with an unknown in that regard. There should (at least in theory) be a lot of synergy between military and civil space transport needs, in both orbital and suborbital. I hope that the new administration will be able to do better coordination on that than the Bush administration did.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:16 PMI got up early today and had an eye exam (still have two functional ones). They were dilated in the process, so it will be a while before I spend much time on the computer. Meanwhile, here's an interesting discussion on arming ships against pirates in modern times. We seem to have managed to deal with this a lot better in the past. I think that we should bring back letters of marque, for not just pirates, but lawless terrorists in general.
[Early afternoon update]
A related question: why don't we hang pirates any more?
...the number of attacks keeps rising.
Why? The view of senior U.S. military officials seems to be, in effect, that there is no controlling legal authority. Title 18, Chapter 81 of the United States Code establishes a sentence of life in prison for foreigners captured in the act of piracy. But, crucially, the law is only enforceable against pirates who attack U.S.-flagged vessels, of which today there are few.What about international law? Article 110 of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Convention -- ratified by most nations, but not by the U.S. -- enjoins naval ships from simply firing on suspected pirates. Instead, they are required first to send over a boarding party to inquire of the pirates whether they are, in fact, pirates. A recent U.N. Security Council resolution allows foreign navies to pursue pirates into Somali waters -- provided Somalia's tottering government agrees -- but the resolution expires next week. As for the idea of laying waste, Stephen Decatur-like, to the pirate's prospering capital port city of Eyl, this too would require U.N. authorization. Yesterday, a shippers' organization asked NATO to blockade the Somali coast. NATO promptly declined.
As I noted, there seems to be a problem with the modern approach.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:10 AMShe may be Constitutionally ineligible. Sometimes commenter Jane Bernstein notes via email that Article 1, Section 6 clearly states that:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.
Emphasis mine. Federal salaries, including the schedule for a Level 1 Cabinet officer (such as Secretary of State) were increased at the beginning of the year, by executive order. IANAL, but by the letter of the law, it would seem that she cannot be appointed to that position.
There are two potential outs.
One is trivial--she isn't a "he," she's a "she," so she could amusingly argue that the section doesn't apply to her. I suspect that this would probably fail on Fourteenth Amendment (and perhaps other) grounds, though, as well as common sense.
The other would be to argue that the intent was to keep Congress from creating or increasing salaries of a position in order to provide a new or better job for one of its members, and to eliminate this potential conflict of interest. Since the increase was done by Executive Order under a previously passed law, she could argue that Congress didn't increase the pay in this instance. However, the letter of the law wouldn't allow this interpretation--it doesn't say anything about the emoluments increasing by act of Congress--it just says that if they increase (for whatever reason) she cannot have the position.
If true, the good news is that it would also apply to John Kerry. And it doesn't apply to Barack Obama, since he wasn't appointed--he was elected.
[Update a few minutes later]
Also, if the logic is correct, it would apply to Rahm Emmanuel, as well as any other potential congressperson or Senator angling for an appointment.
[Update on Monday afternoon]
More thoughts from Eugene Volokh.
[Bumped to the stop]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:48 AMFirst, over at the Gray Lady, he has an editorial on NASA's cost-overrun culture:
...the Mars Science Laboratory is only the latest symptom of a NASA culture that has lost control of spending. The cost of the James Webb Space Telescope, successor to the storied Hubble, has increased from initial estimates near $1 billion to almost $5 billion. NASA's next two weather satellites, built for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have now inflated to over $3.5 billion each! The list goes on: N.P.P., S.D.O., LISA Pathfinder, Constellation and more. You don't have to know what the abbreviations and acronyms mean to get it: Our space program is running inefficiently, and without sufficient regard to cost performance. In NASA's science directorate alone, an internal accounting in 2007 found over $5 billion in increases since 2003.
As Allen Thompson points out in comments over at Space Politics, one could simply substitute names and nyms of (black) programs here, and write exactly the same piece about NRO. But I'm not sure that I'd agree with Dr. Stern's characterization that it is a NASA culture that has "lost control of spending." Was there ever any golden age in which the NASA culture had control of spending? After all, the agency was born in the panic of the Cold War, and developed a cost-(plus)-is-no-object mentality from its very beginning. The operative saying during Apollo was "waste anything but time." Sure, there have been occasional instances of programs coming in under schedule and within budget, but as Dr. Stern points out, the managers of those programs are often punished by having their programs slashed to cover overruns.
No, there is not now, and never has been a cost-conscious culture at NASA, for all the reasons that he describes. And this is the biggest one:
Congress should turn from the self-serving protection of local NASA jobs to an ethic of responsible government that delivers results.
Yes, it should. Well said. And with all the hope and change in the air, I'm sure that this will be the year that it finally happens.
OK, you can all stop laughing now. My sides hurt, too.
Unfortunately, that is not going to happen until space accomplishments become much more nationally important than they currently are, from a political standpoint. For most on the Hill, the NASA budget is first and foremost a jobs program for their states or districts. We can't even control this kind of pork barrelery on the Defense budget (including NRO), which is actually a real federal responsibility, with lives at stake if we fail. Why should we think that we can fix it for civil space? Only when we are no longer reliant on federal budgets will we start to make serious progress, and get more efficiency in the program.
Speaking of which, Dr. Stern also has a piece in The Space Review on how NASA can make itself more relevant to the populace and its representatives in DC:
The coming new year presents an opportunity to reemphasize the immediate societal and economic returns NASA generates, so that no one asks, "How do space efforts make a tangible difference in my life?"
The new administration could accomplish this by combining NASA's space exploration portfolio with new and innovative initiatives that address hazards to society, make new applications of space, and foster new industries.Such new initiatives should include dramatically amplifying our capability to monitor the changing Earth in every form, from climate change to land use to the mitigation of natural disasters. Such an effort should also accelerate much needed innovation in aircraft and airspace system technologies that would save fuel, save travelers time, and regain American leadership in the commercial aerospace sector. And it should take greater responsibility for mitigating the potential hazards associated with solar storms and asteroid impacts.
So, too, a more relevant NASA should be charged to ignite the entrepreneurial human suborbital and orbital spaceflight industry. This nascent commercial enterprise promises to revolutionize how humans use spaceflight and how spaceflight benefits the private sector economy as fundamentally as the advent of satellites affected the communications industry.
As he notes, this needn't mean a larger NASA budget--just a better-spent one. I particularly like the last graf above, obviously. I don't agree, though, that it is NASA's job to monitor the earth. It's an important job, but it's not really in NASA's existing charter, and I fear that if it takes on this responsibility, it will further dilute the efforts on where its focus should be, which is looking outward, not down. It should be left to the agency that is actually responsible for such things (or at least part of them, and expanding its purview wouldn't be as much of a stretch)--NOAA. If, for administrative reasons, NOAA is viewed as incapable of developing earth-sensing birds (though they couldn't do much worse than NASA and NRO have recently), NASA could still manage this activity as a "contractor," but it shouldn't come out of their budget--it should be funded by Commerce.
Anyway, I think that we could do a lot worse than Dr. Stern as the next NASA administrator. We certainly done a lot worse.
[Early afternoon update]
The NYT piece is being discussed at NASAWatch, where John Mankins has a useful comment.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:30 AMTyler Cowen has some history:
The good New Deal policies, like constructing a basic social safety net, made sense on their own terms and would have been desirable in the boom years of the 1920s as well. The bad policies made things worse. Today, that means we should restrict extraordinary measures to the financial sector as much as possible and resist the temptation to "do something" for its own sake.
In short, expansionary monetary policy and wartime orders from Europe, not the well-known policies of the New Deal, did the most to make the American economy climb out of the Depression. Our current downturn will end as well someday, and, as in the '30s, the recovery will probably come for reasons that have little to do with most policy initiatives.
There was also this little item that caught my eye:
A study of the 1930s by Christina D. Romer, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley ("What Ended the Great Depression?," Journal of Economic History, 1992), confirmed that expansionary monetary policy was the key to the partial recovery of the 1930s. The worst years of the New Deal were 1937 and 1938, right after the Fed increased reserve requirements for banks, thereby curbing lending and moving the economy back to dangerous deflationary pressures.
Why?
Because of this news:
ABC News has learned that President-elect Obama had tapped University of California -Berkeley economics professor Christina Romer to be the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, an office within the Executive Office of the President.
It seems like a much better pick than those of us concerned about an FDRophilic president could have expected. Maybe we won't replay the thirties.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 AMRemember that civics test? Well, this should inspire confidence in our political "leadership":
US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).
But they did fare better. What does this say about our so-called "elites"? Forget about a literacy test for voters. How about one for candidates?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:14 AMIowahawk has discovered the most exciting new car model to be premiered by Congressional Motors. Behold, the Pelosi:
Sporty mag-style hubcaps and an all-new aggressive wedge shape designed by CM's Chief Stylist Ted Kennedy slices through the wind like an omnibus spending bill. It even features an airtight undercarriage to keep you and a passenger afloat up to 15 minutes -- even in the choppy waters of a Cape Cod inlet. Available a rainbow of color choices to match any wardrobe, from Harvest Avocado to French Mustard.
Inside, a luxurious all-velour interior designed by Barney Frank features thoughtful appointments like in-dash condom dispenser and detachable vibrating shift knob. A special high capacity hatchback holds up to 300 aluminum cans, meaning fewer trips to the redemption center. And the standard 3 speaker Fairness ActoPhonic FM low-band sound system means you'll never miss a segment of NPR again.
I'm sure there will be a long waiting list.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:03 AMMark Steyn has the best take yet on the supposed Palin "gaffe":
...that's Sarah Palin's real stroke of genius in these difficult times for the global economy. For, in an age when the government picks which banks to nationalize and which banks to fail, and guarantees mortgages that should never have been issued, and prepares to demand that those taxpayers with responsible and affordable pension plans prop up the lavish and unsustainable pension programs of Detroit, Governor Palin has given us a great teaching moment and a perfect snapshot of what my Brit reader would recognize as pre-Thatcher "industrial policy":
When the government decides it can "pick winners" and spare them from the realities of the market, everyone else gets bled to death.Thank you, Sarah. It's the first election ad of Campaign '12.
It's a shame we can't do something about the turkeys at MSNBC and the Huffpo.
Talk at NASA about "human rating" an Ares V?
The decision to undertake the study reverses a major decision NASA took after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and subsequent accident investigation, that crew and cargo would be launched on separate vehicles. The Ares I, with its solid rocket booster first-stage and the new upper stage powered by the J-2X engine, was selected to orbit the Orion crew exploration vehicle.
That decision never made as much sense as everyone thought it did. It was one of the false lessons "learned" from Shuttle. And, as always, it raises the issue of what "human rating" really means. Generally, given the way the requirements often end up getting waived for NASA's own vehicles, but not for other players, like the "Visiting Vehicle" rules for ISS, it's simply an arbitrary barrier to entry for commercial providers.
[Monday morning update]
I should clarify that this discussion is about launch only. For in-space operations, it does make sense to separate passengers from cargo, and it probably makes sense to have robotic freighters as well, due to the long trip times and lack of need to handle emergencies with crew.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 AMAs Clark notes, this isn't directly related to space transportation regulation, but you can see it coming:
The proposed regulation, titled the Large Aircraft Security Program, would require owners of those aircraft to obtain permission from TSA to operate their own personal aircraft every time they carry passengers. Additionally, all flight crews would be required to undergo fingerprinting and a background check, all passengers would have to be vetted against the government's terrorist watch lists, and numerous security requirements would be imposed on airports serving these "large" aircraft. EAA adamantly opposes this regulation and urges all members to respond to TSA...
"...We thank the TSA for agreeing with the many industry group and EAA members' requests for an extension, providing an additional two months to study and react to the proposal," said Doug Macnair, EAA vice president of government relations. "This proposal would be an unprecedented restriction on the freedom of movement for private U.S. citizens. It would also, for the first time, require governmental review and authority before a person could operate his/her own personal transportation conveyance.
First they came after the private aircraft pilots, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a private aircraft pilot.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:13 AMIrene Klotz has an interview with the (hopefully) outgoing NASA administrator:
I would be willing to continue on as administrator under the right circumstances. The circumstances include a recognition of the fact that two successive Congresses -- one Republician and one Democrat -- have strongly endorsed, hugely endorsed, the path NASA is on: Finish the station, retire the shuttle, return to the moon, establish a base on the moon, look outward to the near-Earth asteroids and on to Mars. That's the path we're on. I think it's the right path.
I think for 35 years since the Nixon administration we've been on the wrong path. It took the loss of Columbia and Admiral Gehman's (Columbia Accident Investigation Board) report highlighting the strategic issues to get us on the right path. We're there. I personally will not be party to taking us off that path. Someone else may wish to, but I do not.
What Dr. Griffin doesn't understand is that, in his disastrous architecture choices, and decision to waste money developing a new unneeded launch system, it is he himself who has taken us off that path.
I also have to say that I think that this particular criticism by Keith Cowing is (as is often the case) over the top and ridiculous. It's perfectly clear what he meant--that with all of the other problems facing the country right now, Shuttle retirement per se isn't going to be a top priority. But it is an issue that will no doubt be dealt with by the transition team.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AMI scored 32 out of 33 on this test (I missed the last one--Doh!). Unfortunately, most people don't do that well.
I really think that we should bring back literacy tests for voting. They shouldn't have gotten rid of them because they were being used to racially discriminate--they should have just ended the racial discrimination.
[Friday evening update]
I have to say that readers of my blog, even the non-USians (or at least the ones commenting), are way ahead of the curve. Nice to know.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:11 AMWho could be against "reasonable" restrictions on web speech?
Not Eric Holder.
And here's more on his antipathy to the Second Amendment:
After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C. handgun ban and self-defense ban were unconstitutional in 2007, Holder complained that the decision "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."
Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old's home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez "was not taken at the point of a gun" and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted "very sensitively." If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling "Get down, get down, we'll shoot" is example of acting "very sensitively," his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns.
Fighting the confirmation of this man should be the Republicans' first battle against the Obama administration. The last thing we need is the second coming of Janet "Burn Baby Burn" Reno.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AMPut this one in the "dog bites man" file:
An interesting piece on changes to police tactics. The traditional response was bring up the SWAT team, plan it out carefully, then go in. As the matter was better understood, this switched to whoever gets there first goes in immediately -- seconds passing means people dying. To my mind, this is a powerful argument for allowing teachers to be armed. The article ends:
"The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.
Now why would that possibly be?
They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed.
As soon as they're confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves."
Unfortunately, too many in the media and the gun-control community are too stupid to recognize it as obvious. You might think that this startling result could be the basis for a more sensible policy, but judging by the election results, I fear not. Particularly if someone like Eric Holder becomes Attorney General.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:23 PMGeraghty is on the job (several posts--just keep scrolling). He'd be a disaster on guns, drugs (that one is Jacob Sullum), civil liberties, and basic integrity. And here's Larry Tribe's critique on his thuggish behavior and legal opportunism in the Elian Gonzales affair.
[Update late afternoon]
Jim now has all the permalinks in one post.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:52 AMFreeman Dyson continues to refuse to be part of the "consensus":
Wearing an effusively-colored tie that set off his gray suit, Mr. Dyson began his talk at the Nassau Club by encouraging the audience to interrupt him as he spoke, since, he declared, "it's much more fun to have an argument than do a monologue."
In the absence of audience interruptions, Mr. Dyson had an argument anyway with the scores of people (like Al Gore) who weren't present to defend their belief in the dire consequences of global warming. ("There's no accounting for human folly," Mr. Dyson said when asked about Mr. Gore's Nobel Prize.) Saying that on a recent trip he and his wife found Greenlanders to be delighted with their warmer climate and increased tourism, Mr. Dyson suggested that representing "local warming by a global average is misleading." In his comments at both the Nassau Club and Labyrinth, he decried the use of computer modeling to make "tremendously dogmatic" predictions about worldwide trends, without acknowledging the "messy, muddy real world" and the non-climatic effects of increased carbon dioxide. "There is no substitute for widely-conducted field operations over a long time," he told the Nassau Club audience, citing the "enormous gaps in knowledge and sparseness of observation" that characterize the work of global warming experts.
Why can't some people get with the program? Thankfully, though, mz will be along any minute to call Professor Dyson "stupid."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:29 AMFrom Henry Spencer:
In its early years, the only form of manned space exploration it favoured was an (international) Mars expedition. All other ideas that involved humans in space were counterproductive and undesirable, to hear the Planetary Society tell it.
This obsession with Mars was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now. However, some of the reasons advanced against it strike me as poor - sufficiently poor that they weaken attempts to argue for a more systematic and balanced space effort.An exclusive focus on Mars does have one thing going for it. If you believe that any resumption of manned space exploration will inevitably end the way Apollo did, with follow-on programmes cancelled and flight-ready hardware consigned to museums as soon as the programme's first objective is met, then choosing the most interesting single destination makes sense.
However . . . haven't we learned anything from doing that once? To me, it makes far more sense to try to build a programme that won't crash and burn as soon as it scores its first goal. That means systematically building capabilities and infrastructure, and doing first things first even if they aren't the most exciting parts.
Unfortunately, we don't seem to have the societal patience necessary to do the unexciting parts, at least if the government is paying for it. Which is why we have to get private industry going ASAP.
[Early afternoon update]
I mentioned yesterday that Paul Spudis wasn't impressed with Lou Friedman's thoughts. He's similarly unimpressed with The Planetary Society's new roadmap.
[Another update a few minutes later]
Jeff Plescia has been leaving this message in comments at various places (I've seen it at NASA Watch and Space Politics]
As a participant in the workshop sponsored by the Planetary Society at Stanford University in February, 2008, I feel obliged to make some comments with respect to what is said in portions of the Planetary Society document "Beyond the Moon A New Roadmap for Human Space Exploration."
Page 5 contains the statement:
"Among the conclusions of this group is that 'the purpose of sustained human exploration is to go to Mars and beyond,' and that a series of intermediate destinations, each with its own intrinsic value, should be established as steps toward that goal. The consensus statements and viewpoints expressed by this group of experts form the basis for the principles and recommendations contained in this document."This statement is a blatant and intentionally dishonest misrepresentation of the recommendations and sentiments of the group.
We had extensive discussions about what the conclusion of the workshop might be. While the conclusion reported in the Roadmap was clearly the predisposition of several members of the group, particularly the organizers, it was definitively and clearly not the consensus of the group as a whole. In fact, when these words (or words to the same effect) were suggested, the group clearly indicated to the organizers that they should not be used because they were inaccurate. However, the organizers chose to ignore the group's wishes at the end of the workshop, at the International Astronautical Congress and in the Roadmap in portraying the results of the workshop. This has occurred despite the fact that members of the group pointed out after the workshop press release that such statements were inappropriate and incorrect.
For what it's worth. Thanks, Lou.
Maybe it's like the climate change "consensus," from which many scientists are now running.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:36 AMJonah Goldberg explains why we should fear that Barack Obama will emulate Franklin Roosevelt:
there can be a chasm between being right and merely appearing to be right. Why anyone stakes greater value on the appearance than reality is a mystery to me.
But as Obama clearly recognizes, that was a big part of the FDR magic. FDR came into office promising "bold, persistent experimentation" -- and delivered. Raymond Moley, an early member of FDR's "brain trust," saw the New Deal for what it was. "To look upon these programs as the result of a unified plan was to believe that the accumulation of stuffed snakes, baseball pictures, school flags, old tennis shoes, carpenter's tools, geometry books and chemistry sets in a boy's bedroom could have been put there by an interior decorator," Moley wrote later.Yet Americans thought it was all part of a plan, even though experimentation and planning are in fact near opposites. Why? Because FDR always projected such confidence, even as he made things worse. But this isn't another column about how FDR prolonged the Depression. Been there, done that. I'd rather be forward-looking.
In fact, I want to be experimental, too. So here's my idea: Just stop.
Stop talking about bailouts and stimuli. Stop pondering ever more drastic action. Give it a rest. Let it be.
One of the main reasons there's all of this "money on the sidelines" out there among private investors is that Wall Street doesn't know what the government will do next. Will it bail out the auto industry? The insurance companies? Which taxes will go up? How far will interest rates go down? How long will the federal government own stakes in the banks? Will more stimulus checks go out? If so, how big will the deficit get?
Don't just do something--stand there!
One of his readers says that this also explains the current market volatility:
Free market economics involves the application of immutable laws, and it's those laws that allow us to forecast the effect of current events on various companies and the stocks and bonds they've issued. But investors will only play the game if they believe the rules aren't going to change in the middle. When government begins 'experimenting', it makes it harder for investors to generate a long term forecast. This drives long term investors away from the market, or converts them into short term traders. The result is a massive increase in volatility as investors shorten their investment outlook because they can't predict what's going to happen far enough into the future.
Volatility is an indication of instability. It's not a sign of a healthy economy but of an economy which has lost its way. High volatility isn't what you expect from the worlds largest market, but from the emerging economy of a third world country. As you can see from the attached chart, when Roosevelt began his 'bold persistent experimentation' it drove away long term investors and that caused volatility to dramatically increase. It will almost certainly have the same effect when Obama does it.Since he's so determined not to learn from the mistakes of the past, I would expect him to repeat them. I'm betting that his poking and prodding will add to unemployment, reduce economic growth, and wreak havoc with the federal deficit. There is little doubt that he's the wrong man at the wrong time. I'm just hoping that he is as devoid of principles as the Clintons, and that he finds a way to break his campaign promises or we're in for a long painful recession, and maybe worse.
We can only hope, since we lost an opportunity to do any more than that a couple weeks ago.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:20 AM...to the charlatans like Jim Hansen. Here are two useful books. First, Cool It
Yup. As many reviewers note, "climate change" isn't really about science--it's just the latest ideology to come along for the collectivists to use in their latest attempt to bend us to their will.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:42 AMIn response to my previous post on the subject, from Eric Scheie:
If we see the two anti-freedom strains as "your money or your sex," it becomes quite obvious that it's easier -- a hell of a lot easier -- for the government to grab your money than your genitalia.
Yet even though the anti-sex people are by no means a majority in the GOP and cannot possibly implement their schemes, more people fear the Republicans.A great con job, if you ask me.
Yup. And it continues on.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:21 AM...to be the public's representative for space exploration?
As Paul Spudis (who I recently discovered has a blog or two) notes in comments over there, it's a deadly combination of insufferable arrogance and unsurpassed ignorance. Though I think he gives Lou too much credit when he calls it an accomplishment. It comes naturally to him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:58 AMIs that really the loss-of-crew probability for an ISS trip with Ares/Orion?
I could buy that number for a lunar mission, but if that's just for a crew changeout, they seem to be managing to spend billions on a new launch vehicle that is less safe than Shuttle.
How could it be? As one of the commenters speculates over there, they may have pulled a lot of redundancy out to save weight when they ran out of margin on both the launcher and the capsule. Also, as I think I've mentioned before, it may be that they've figured out that the Launch Abort System actually adds more risk than it removes, given the dozens of hazards it introduces, over half of which can happen on an otherwise nominal mission.
Anyway, if true, it's just one more reason to abort this monstrosity now, before it wastes any more time or money.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:44 AMRob Coppinger has some suggestions to the Obama administration for NASA policy. I agree that Ares I should be mercy killed ASAP, but I disagree that we need an Ares anything else. We need to stop focusing on heavy lift and start developing the capability to store propellant on orbit, which will allow us to launch escape missions of arbitrarily large mass.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:51 AMHere's a fellow Flintite (Flintian) explaining why her former employer shouldn't be bailed out:
The strength of the union and the weakness of management made it impossible to conduct business properly at any level. For instance, I had an employee who punched in his time card and then disappeared. The rules were such that I had to spend hours documenting that this man was not in his three foot by three foot work area. I needed witnesses, timed reports, calls over the intercom and a plant wide search all documented in detail. After this absurdity I decided to go my own route; I called the corner bar and paged him and he came to the phone. I gave him a 30 day unpaid disciplinary lay off because he was a "repeat offender". When he returned he thanked me for the PAID vacation. I scoffed, until he explained: (1) He had tried to get the lay off because it was fishing season; (2) The UAW negotiated with GM Labor Relations Department to give him the time WITH PAY.
I supervised a loading dock and 21 UAW workers who worked approximately five hours per day for eight hours pay. They could easily load one third more rail cars and still maintain their union negotiated break times, but when I tried to make them increase production ever so slightly they sabotaged my ability to make even the current production levels by hiding stock, calling in sick, feigning equipment problems, and even once, as a show of force, used a fork lift truck and pallets and racks to create a car part prison where they trapped me while I was conducting inventory. The reaction of upper management to my request to boost production was that I should "not be naïve".Another employee in the plant urinated on the feet of his supervisor as a protest to discipline. He was, of course, fired...that is until the union negotiated and got his job back.
Eventually I was promoted to a management position where I supervised salaried employees at HQ. As I left the plant I gave management a blunt message. I told them that I expected the union to act like the union, but I was disappointed that management didn't act like management.
I saw a lot of this in the 1970s when I worked summer jobs in the shop, and my relatives who are still there tell me it goes on to this day. Of course, it's hard to put all the blame on management, when the Wagner Act made it impossible for them to do much about it, because it allowed the UAW to credibly threaten their company with bankruptcy if they didn't knuckle under. This crisis was caused by government, and bailing out the UAW will not solve it.
Also, Jim Manzi explains why we (the taxpayers) can't just buy the three auto companies for their current market value (only seven billion) and save ourselves the many more billions that a bailout would cost. It's kind of amazing that the stock has any value at all (GM's in fact doesn't). Equity in these companies currently has negative value because running them requires putting more cash into them, with no certainty, or even likelihood of return, at least with their current union contracts and cost structure. They are the proverbial white elephants.
This, by the way, is the reason that the notion of selling the Shuttle or the ISS to anyone else is a non-starter. No one could afford them, even if you gave them away.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:07 AMWhich in fact I'll probably be offering in the next days and weeks, since I actually know several of them quite well.
If you want to know how to get the VSE back on track, you could do a lot worse than to simply go back and reread the Aldridge Commission Report. Mike Griffin doesn't seem to have done so, or if he did, he largely ignored its recommendations, with the one exception being developing a heavy lifter (which was the one main thing that the commission got wrong).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:58 AMJack Schmitt has resigned from The Planetary Society over their destinational dispute. As I noted the other day, to argue about destinations at all is to miss the point.
I agree with most of his points, other than the need for heavy lift. And I absolutely agree that making it an international venture would be the kiss of death, at least in terms of meeting schedules or making it affordable, other than setting up propellant depots that can take deliveries from a wide range of sources, including international and commercial. But the Mars hardware and expeditions should be national in nature. We need competition, not "cooperation."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:36 AM...from the global warm-mongers.
I have nothing to say, other than that James Hansen gets entirely too much respect. And by "too much," I mean more than none.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:05 AMI have thoughts on "Change!" and free markets this morning, over at PJM.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:14 AMAlan Boyle has a good roundup of the current state of play, with lots of links. As I've noted before, people who merely argue about destinations are missing the point.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 AMAs long as I'm dredging up golden oldies on space, I might as well do one on politics as well. I've talked to and emailed (and Usenetted) a few "moderate" Republicans who were turned off by McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, because they thought the choice was simply pandering to the religious right, and they bought the caricature of her sold by the MSM. I don't agree with that (I think that there was a confluence of factors, including the desire to pick off some of Hillary! supporters), but I really do think that a) he thought that she would be a reformer like him based on her record and b) he did and does have a high regard for her intelligence and capabilities, because most people who meet her, Democrats and "liberals" included, seem to.
Anyway, I really don't understand this fear of the religious right, though I am neither religious, or "right" (in the social conservative sense). I explained why in a post about six and a half years ago. I think that it's relevant today, and in fact wish that I'd reposted it before the election (not that the fate of the nation hinges in any way on my posts).
Instantman, in reference to an article about women and the sexual revolution, says:This kind of stuff, by the way, is the reason why a lot of Democrats who are basically in agreement with the Republican party are still afraid to vote for Republicans.This seems to be a common attitude among many libertarians (and to the degree that labels apply, I think that one fits Glenn about as well as any), particularly the ones who approached that philosophy from the left (i.e., former Democrats). I once had an extended email discussion (back during the election) with another libertarian friend (who's also a blogger, but shall remain nameless) about how as much as he disliked the socialism of the Democrats, he felt more culturally comfortable with them. Again, this is a prevalent attitude of products of the sixties. You know, Republicans were uptight fascists, and Democrats were idealistic, free-living, and hip.
While I'm not a conservative, my own sexual and drug-taking values (and life style) tend to be. I just don't think that the government should be involved in either of these areas. But my voting pattern is that I'll occasionally vote Republican (I voted for Dole over Clinton, the only time I've ever voted for a Republican for President), but I never vote for a Democrat for any office. The last time I did so was in 1976, and I'd like that one back.
There are at least two reasons for this.
First, I've found many Republicans who are sympathetic to libertarian arguments, and in fact are often libertarians at heart, but see the Republican Party as the most practical means of achieving the goals. There may be some Democrats out there like that, but I've never run into them. That's the least important reason (partly because I may be mistaken, and have simply suffered from a limited sample space). But fundamentally, the Democratic Party, at least in its current form, seems to me to be utterly antithetical to free markets.
But the most important reason is this--while I find the anti-freedom strains of both parties equally dismaying, the Democrats are a lot better at implementing their big-government intrusions, and there's good reason to think that this will be the case even if the Republicans get full control of the government.
This is because many of the Democratic Party positions are superficially appealing, if you're ignorant of economics and have never been taught critical thinking.
Who can be against a "living wage"? What's so bad about making sure that everyone, of every skin hue, gets a fair chance at a job? Why shouldn't rich people pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes?--they can afford it. Are you opposed to clean air and water? What's wrong with you? How can you be against social security--do you want old folks to live on Kibbles and Bits?
To fight these kinds of encroachments on liberty requires a lot of effort and argument and, in the end, it often loses anyway. Consider for example, the latest assault on the First Amendment that passed the Senate today, sixty to forty. Many Republicans voted against it. I don't think any Democrats did.
[Thursday morning update: Best of the Web notes that two Democrats did vote against it--John Breaux and Ben Nelson. Good for them. They also have a hall of shame for the Republicans who voted for it.]
On the other hand, the things that libertarians like Glenn and Nameless fear that conservatives will do (e.g., in matters sexual), are so repugnant to most Americans that they'll never get made into law, and if they do, the legislators who do so will quickly get turned out of office. So, you have to ask yourself, even if you dislike the attitude of people who are uncomfortable with the sexual revolution, just what is it, realistically, that you think they'd actually do about it if you voted for them?
The bottom line for me is that Democrats have been slow-boiling the frog for decades now, and they're very good at it. I tend to favor Republicans, not because I necessarily agree with their views on morality, but because I see them as the only force that can turn down the heat on the kettle, and that they're very unlikely to get some of the more extreme policies that they may want, because the public, by and large, views them as extreme.
Nothing has happened in the interim to change my views in this regard. The real disappointment was that the Republicans gave us the worst of all worlds this election--a Democrat (in terms of his populist economic thinking and his own antipathy to the free market, despite his Joe-the-Plumber noises about "spreading the wealth") at the top of their ticket, with a running mate who was perceived (falsely, in my opinion) as being a warrior for the religious right. But that's what happens when you stupidly have open primaries, and allow the media to pick your nominee.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:30 PMIn retrospect, you could tell that the American experiment was over back in the eighties, when it became a bi-partisan notion to appoint czars of things. If the Republicans are serious about showing that they're for small government, they'll start opposing this on principle, whether it's for energy or drugs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 AMExploding the myths of Clintonomics:
The bull market took off precisely when then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan took his foot off the brakes and hit the gas in 1995. It was also then that Republicans took control of Congress -- further blunting the effects of the Clinton tax torpedo that had taken effect the previous year.
Clinton also benefitted from innovations long in the making, including the Pentium chip released in March 1993 and Microsoft's Windows program released in August 1995. These together made the Internet boom possible.As for the budget surpluses, they came as a complete surprise to Clinton economic forecasters, whose static models only predicted their tax hikes on the rich would narrow the budget gap, not get it into the black.
Their "deficit-reduction plan" didn't create the surpluses at all. They were a direct result of a tidal wave of capital-gains revenues generated by the GOP-led stock boom.
Relieved that Washington would no longer threaten to take over 14% of the economy by socializing medicine or raise taxes even higher, the market took off like a shot at that point. And capital gains tax receipts exploded, flooding federal coffers.
Clinton's own long-term budgets predicted no surpluses of any kind during his administration and beyond.
Bill Clinton never had a plan to end deficits. The Republicans and economic circumstances did it for him. But I'm sure that this myth that Bill Clinton balanced the budget will prevail in the minds of the media and Democrats, just as the false myth that Roosevelt, and not the war, got us out of the Depression continues to prevail many decades later. They have to rewrite history to justify their continued plunder. And of course, the near-term danger is that President-Elect Obama and the Congressional majority will use this mistaken history as a justification for tax hikes in a recession, which could be economically ruinous.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AM"...I know how to fail. Just pick the wrong people, and you are doomed."
Yes, at this point, I'd say you're a poster boy for that bit of acquired wisdom.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 AMKatherine Mangu-Ward, in an essay on Tor Books, says that the link remains strong.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:45 PMPeter Robinson explains
Item: Since my dinner with Milton Friedman, a Republican president and Republicans in Congress--I repeat, Republicans--enacted a prescription drug benefit that represents the biggest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. They also indulged in a massive increase in discretionary domestic spending and passed the biggest farm bill in history, a massive transfer of resources to the 2% of the population still engaged in agriculture.
Item: In the campaign that just concluded, the GOP--again, I repeat, the GOP--nominated a man whose proudest legislative achievement was a campaign finance reform, the McCain-Feingold bill, that represented a direct assault on freedom of speech.Item: During the campaign, the Republican nominee--again, the Republican--told voters that the federal government should "give you a mortgage you can afford" while attacking businesspeople as "greedy."
This reminds me of the story of the woman who came up to Franklin after the Constitutional Convention, and asked him what he had given us. His response: "A Republic, madame. If you can keep it."
It would have worked just as well to say "A free-market economy, if you can keep it." We haven't been able to, partly because we have slowly transitioned from a Republic to a democracy, and one in which the people have figured out that they can use their votes to transfer wealth from the productive to themselves.
I'll have more on this topic next week at PJM.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:23 PMWith a new administration coming in, there's a lot of speculation about potential shifts in civil space policy, ranging from whether or not Mike Griffin will stay on as administrator, and if so, who will replace him, to whether or not we have the right architecture to achieve the outgoing president's Vision for Space Exploration, or even whether the VSE itself is still valid. Yesterday, the Planetary Society seemed to convert itself to the Mars Society, with its statement that we should bypass the moon, so now we can't even decide what the goal is.
I'm having a sense of deja vu, because we're rerunning the debate we have every few years over space policy, and as always, we are arguing from a set of assumptions that are assumed to be shared, but in many cases are not. I find that the longer I blog, the harder it is for me to come up with new things to say, particularly about space policy. Almost five years ago (jeez, how the time flies--was it really that long ago that we celebrated the Wright Centenary?), I wrote a piece in frustration on this subject. Sadly, nothing has really changed. A vision isn't a destination. I'll replay the golden oldie, because I think that it might be useful to guide the current debate, assuming anyone of consequence reads it.
Jason Bates has an article on the current state of space policy development. As usual, it shows a space policy establishment mired in old Cold-War myths, blinkered in its view of the possibilities.NASA needs a vision that includes a specific destination. That much a panel of space advocates who gathered in Washington today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of powered flight could agree on. There is less consensus about what that destination should be.Well, if I'd been on that panel, the agreement would have been less than unanimous. I agree that NASA needs a vision, but I think that the focus on destination is distracting us from developing one, if for no other reason than it's probably not going to be possible to get agreement on it.
As the article clearly shows, some, like Paul Spudis, think we should go back to the moon, and others, like Bub Zubrin, will settle for no less than Mars, and consider our sister orb a useless distraction from the true (in his mind) goal. We are never going to resolve this fundamental, irreconciliable difference, as long as the argument is about destinations.
In addition, we need to change the language in which we discuss such things. Dr. Spudis is quoted as saying:
"For the first time in the agency's history there is no new human spaceflight mission in the pipeline. There is nothing beyond" the international space station."Fred Singer of NOAA says:
The effort will prepare humans for more ambitious missions in the future, Singer said. "We need an overarching goal," he said. "We need something with unique science content, not a publicity stunt."Gary Martin, NASA's space architect declares:
NASA's new strategy would use Mars, for example, as the first step to future missions rather than as a destination in itself, Martin said. Robotic explorers will be trailblazers that can lay the groundwork for deeper space exploration, he said."...human spaceflight mission..."
"...unique science..."
"...space exploration..."
This is the language of yesteryear. This debate could have occurred, and in fact did occur, in the early 1970s, as Apollo wound down. There's nothing new here, and no reason to think that the output from it will result in affordable or sustainable space activities.
They say that we need a vision with a destination, but it's clear from this window into the process that, to them, the destination is the vision. It's not about why are we doing it (that's taken as a given--for "science" and "exploration"), nor is it about how we're doing it (e.g., giving NASA multi-gigabucks for a "mission" versus putting incentives into place for other agencies or private entities to do whatever "it" is)--it's all seemingly about the narrow topic of where we'll send NASA next with our billions of taxpayer dollars, as the scientists gather data while we sit at home and watch on teevee.
On the other hand, unlike the people quoted in the article, the science writer Timothy Ferris is starting to get it, as is Sir Martin Rees, the British Astronomer Royal, though both individuals are motivated foremost by space science.
At first glance, the Ferris op-ed seems just another plea for a return to the moon, but it goes beyond "missions" and science, and discusses the possibility of practical returns from such a venture. Moreover, this little paragraph indicates a little more "vision," than the one from the usual suspects above:
As such sugarplum visions of potential profits suggest, the long-term success of a lunar habitation will depend on the involvement of private enterprise, or what Harrison H. Schmitt, an Apollo astronaut, calls "a business-and-investor-based approach to a return to the Moon to stay." The important thing about involving entrepreneurs and oil-rig-grade roughnecks is that they can take personal and financial risks that are unacceptable, as a matter of national pride, when all the explorers are astronauts wearing national flags on their sleeves.
One reason aviation progressed so rapidly, going from the Wright brothers to supersonic jets in only 44 years, is that individuals got involved ? it wasn't just governments. Charles A. Lindbergh didn't risk his neck in 1927 purely for personal gratification: he was after the $25,000 Orteig Prize, offered by Raymond Orteig, a New York hotelier, for the first nonstop flight between New York and Paris. Had Lindbergh failed, his demise, though tragic, would have been viewed as a daredevil's acknowledged jeopardy, not a national catastrophe. Settling the Moon or Mars may at times mean taking greater risks than the 2 percent fatality rate that shuttle astronauts now face.Sir Martin's comments are similar:
The American public's reaction to the shuttle's safety record - two disasters in 113 flights - suggests that it is unacceptable for tax-funded projects to expose civilians even to a 2% risk. The first explorers venturing towards Mars would confront, and would surely willingly accept, far higher risks than this. But they will never get the chance to go until costs come down to the level when the enterprise could be bankrolled by private consortia.
Future expeditions to the moon and beyond will only be politically and financially feasible if they are cut-price ventures, spearheaded by individuals who accept that they may never return. The Columbia disaster should motivate Nasa to set new goals for manned space flight - to collaborate with private groups to develop a more cost-effective and inspiring programme than we've had for the past 30 years.Yes, somehow we've got to break out of this national mentality that the loss of astronauts is always unacceptable, or we'll never make any progress in space. The handwringing and inappropriate mourning of the Columbia astronauts, almost eleven months ago, showed that the nation hasn't yet grown up when it comes to space. Had we taken such an attitude with aviation, or seafaring, we wouldn't have an aviation industry today, and in fact, we'd not even have settled the Americas. To venture is to risk, and the first step of a new vision for our nation is the acceptance of that fact. But I think that Mr. Ferris is right--it won't be possible as long as we continue to send national astronauts on a voyeuristic program of "exploration"--it will have to await the emergence of the private sector, and I don't see anything in the "vision" discussions that either recognizes this, or is developing policy to help enable and implement it.
There's really only one way to resolve this disparity of visions, and that's to come up with a vision that can encompass all of them, and more, because the people who are interested in uses of space beside and beyond "science," and "exploration," and "missions," are apparently still being forced to sit on the sidelines, at least to judge by the Space.com article.
Here's my vision.
I have a vision of hundreds of flights of privately-operated vehicles going to and from low earth orbit every year, reducing the costs of doing so to tens of dollars per pound. Much of their cargo is people who are visiting orbital resorts, or even cruise ships around the moon, but the important things is that it will be people paying to deliver cargo, or themselves, to space, for their own purposes, regardless of what NASA's "vision" is.
At that price, the Mars Society can raise the money (perhaps jointly with the National Geographic Society and the Planetary Society) to send their own expedition off to Mars. Dr. Spudis and others of like mind can raise the funds to establish lunar bases, or even hotels, and start to learn how to operate there and start tapping its resources. Still others may decide to go off and visit an asteroid, perhaps even take a contract from the government to divert its path, should it be a dangerous one for earthly inhabitants.
My vision for space is a vast array of people doing things there, for a variety of reasons far beyond science and "exploration." The barrier to this is the cost of access, and the barrier to bringing down the cost of access is not, despite pronouncements to the contrary by government officials, a lack of technology. It's a lack of activity. When we come up with a space policy that addresses that, I'll consider it visionary. Until then, it's just more of the same myopia that got us into the current mess, and sending a few astronauts off to the Moon, or Mars, for billions of dollars, isn't going to get us out of it any more than does three astronauts circling the earth in a multi-decabillion space station.
There's no lack of destinations. What we continue to lack is true vision.
All that is old is new again.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:09 PMThat's the word from Michael Yon, reporting from Baghdad.
No thanks to the Democrats, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who tried to keep it from happening. I see that they still can't bring themselves to utter the word "win" with respect to the war. They continue to talk about "ending" it. Well, it looks like George Bush did that for them, and he won it as well. But winning wars is bad, you see, because it just encourages the warmongers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 AMVice-President-Elect Hairplugs wants to be a hands-on VP:
Biden has said he'd like to use his 36 years of experience in the Senate, including leadership of the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees, to help push Obama's agenda in Congress. It's longtime insider's experience that Obama lacks and a role that has not been Cheney's focus.
I'm having trouble thinking of a single foreign policy issue in his career on which Joe Biden has been right.
It's also kind of frightening to think of him as responsible for space policy, as veeps have traditionally been. Particularly milspace.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:32 AMStephen Green says that President-Elect Obama isn't off to a very good start.
And Brian Doherty is concerned about the cult of personality. Really? He just noticed?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 AMIowahawk has become Internationalhawk, perturbing Anglo-American relations with a new column on a British web site:
In the matter of politics you have "Tories" and "Labour" where we have "Republicans" and "Democrats"; just as our "lawyers" must pass the "bar exam," I'm sure your "barristers" must pass some sort of "pub quiz." In America we call our stupid white racists "crackers," where I believe you refer to them as "scones" or "crisps" or something. But these minor language quirks are nothing compared to the many things we have in common. For example, did you know we also have a new Stalinist dictator, and he also turns out to be Brown?
Politically incorrect, as always.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:45 AMRich Lowry has been talking to Rick Davis:
The split over Palin, of course, poisoned everything at the end. One of the dividing lines was between her communications team and the policy advisers. The communications team seemed to consider her a dolt, while the policy people--like Steve Biegun and Randy Scheunemann--were impressed with her and her potential. As one McCain aide told me, "It's the difference between considering her someone who lacks knowledge and someone who is incompetent, and they [the communications aides] treated her as the latter."By many accounts, the relationship between Palin and the staff assigned by the campaign to travel with her on her plane was dysfunctional and even hostile from the beginning. "She would have been better served if she had asked a couple of people to be removed from her traveling staff," says one McCain aide.
Some McCain loyalists think the Bushies assigned to Palin let her down and then turned on her. This is a representative quote from someone from McCain world holding that view: "Look, she wasn't ready for this, obviously. Their job was to make her ready for this and they failed. So they unloaded on her. If they had an iota of loyalty to John McCain, they wouldn't have done it."
It was a mistake to bring "Bushies" into the campaign, given the competence level of "Bushies" as a general rule (unfortunately, the president seemed to value loyalty over competence, though there were notable exceptions). Yes, they won a couple previous campaigns, but only barely. Of course, there was something dysfunctional about a McCain campaign that didn't see this happening and do something about it. And then there's this:
On putting Palin out in big, hostile network interviews at the beginning: "Our assumption was people would not let us release her on Fox or local TV."
On the Couric interview, which Davis says Palin thought would be softer because she was being interviewed by a woman: "She was under the impression the Couric thing was going to be easier than it was. Everyone's guard was down for the Couric interview."On the clothes fiasco: "We flew her out from Alaska to Arizona to Ohio to introduce her to the world and take control of her life. She didn't think 'dress for the convention', because it might have just been a nice day trip to Arizona if she didn't click with John. Very little prep had been done and if it had, we might have gotten picked off by the press. We were under incredible scrutiny. We got her a gal from New York and we thought, 'Let's get some clothes for her and the family.' It was a failure of management not to get better control and track of that. The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing, what it was worth or where it was going. No one knew how much that stuff was worth. It was more our responsibility than hers."
What does that first graf mean? What "people" did they think wouldn't let them release her on Fox or local television? And as to the second, all I can say is...WHERE DID THEY FIND THESE IDIOTS?! They thought that hyperliberal hyperNOWist hyperidiot Katie Couric was going to be "soft" on her? In a taped, easily edited interview that could be dribbled out over days? On what planet have they been living? These are people who are supposed to understand media relations?
They deserved to lose, and as I've said before, I'm not unhappy that they did. But I'm quite unhappy that Senator Obama didn't.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:30 PMHere's a cure for that. Let's hope he's wrong. Part of the problem is that, because panics like this are to some degree psychological, pieces like this don't help, even if they're valid. It's sort of like the Heisenberg principle--the very act of diagnosing the problem can exacerbate it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:54 AMNever before have so many been so proud of so little:
The findings, published in the November issue of Psychological Science, support the idea that the "self-esteem" movement popular among today's parents and teachers may have gone too far, the study's co-author said.
"What this shows is that confidence has crossed over into overconfidence," said Jean Twenge, an associate professor of psychology at San Diego State University.She believes that decades of relentless, uncritical boosterism by parents and school systems may be producing a generation of kids with expectations that are out of sync with the challenges of the real world.
"High school students' responses have crossed over into a really unrealistic realm, with three-fourths of them expecting performance that's effectively in the top 20 percent," Twenge said.
Don't they realize that half of them are below median intelligence? Probably not, because they got an "A" in math, even though they didn't understand it.
One of the perverse and tragic problems with incompetence is that it generally includes an inability to recognize it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:16 AMI don't generally think much of Chris Hedges, and the comments are nutty, but I largely agree with this piece:
The illiterate and semi-literate, once the campaigns are over, remain powerless. They still cannot protect their children from dysfunctional public schools. They still cannot understand predatory loan deals, the intricacies of mortgage papers, credit card agreements and equity lines of credit that drive them into foreclosures and bankruptcies. They still struggle with the most basic chores of daily life from reading instructions on medicine bottles to filling out bank forms, car loan documents and unemployment benefit and insurance papers. They watch helplessly and without comprehension as hundreds of thousands of jobs are shed. They are hostages to brands. Brands come with images and slogans. Images and slogans are all they understand. Many eat at fast food restaurants not only because it is cheap but because they can order from pictures rather than menus. And those who serve them, also semi-literate or illiterate, punch in orders on cash registers whose keys are marked with symbols and pictures. This is our brave new world.
Can democracy survive for long, with such an electorate? Of course, he doesn't finger the primary culprit--our fascist public school system which manufactures exactly the sort of people who will keep it in power.
[Late afternoon update]
Are individualists losing the IQ war with the left?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:04 AMGeorge Abbey as NASA administrator? If that were to happen, it would be one of the worst effects of the Obama win, at least for those who care about our future in space.
[Update early afternoon]
Here was my take on the Abbey/Lane paper at the time it was first published, over three years ago:
I'm reading the space policy paper by (former JSC Director George) Abbey and (former Clinton Science Advisor Neal) Lane.It gets off on the wrong foot, in my opinion, right in the preface:
Space exploration on the scale envisioned in the president's plan is by necessity a cooperative international venture.I know that this is an article of faith with many, but simply stating it doesn't make it an incontrovertible fact. In reality, this is a political decision. If it became important to the nation to become spacefaring, and seriously move out into space, there's no reason that we couldn't afford to do it ourselves. The amount of money that we spend on space is a trivially small part of the discretionary budget, and even smaller part of the total federal budget, and a drop in the bucket when looking at the GDP. Even ignoring the fact that we could be getting much more for our money if relieved of political constraints, we could easily double the current budget.
The statement also ignores the fact that international cooperation in fact tends to increase costs, and there's little good evidence that it even saves money. It's something that we tend to do simply for the sake of international cooperation, and we actually pay a price for it.
Neither the president's plan nor the prevailing thrust of existing U.S. space policies encourages the type of international partnerships that are needed. Indeed there is much about U.S. space policy and plans--particularly those pertaining to the possible deployment of weapons in space--that even our closest allies find objectionable.While I don't favor doing things just because other countries find them objectionable (with the exception of France), this issue should not be driving our space policy, as I pointed out almost exactly three years ago. What the authors think is a bug, I consider a feature.
In the introduction itself, I found this an interesting misdiagnosis:
In January 2004, President George W. Bush announced a plan to return humans to the Moon by 2020, suggesting that this time U.S. astronauts would make the journey as a part of an international partnership. However, the recent history of the U.S. space program--the tragic Columbia accident, a squeezing of the NASA budget over many years, the cancellation of the Hubble Space Telescope upgrade mission, a go-it-alone approach to space activities, the near demise of the U.S. satellite industry due to U.S. policy on export controls, and international concern about U.S. intentions regarding the military use of space--points to serious obstacles that stand in the way of moving forward.Again, they state this as though it was obviously true (and perhaps it is, to them). But they don't actually explain how any of these things present obstacles to returning to the moon. The loss of Columbia was actually, despite the tragedy to the friends and families of the lost astronauts, a blessing, to the degree that it forced the nation to take a realistic reassessment of the Shuttle program. We aren't going to use Shuttle to go back to the moon, so how can they argue that its loss is an obstacle to that goal?
Similarly, how does squeezing of past NASA budgets prevent future intelligent spending in furtherance of the president's goal? While lamentable if it doesn't occur, repairing Hubble was not going to make any contribution to the Vision for Space Exploration. And while the state of the satellite industry is troubling, again, there's no direct connection between this and human exploration. I've already dealt with the spuriousness of the complaints about international cooperation. In short, this statement is simply a lot of unsubstantiated air, but it probably sounds good to policy makers who haven't given it much thought.
They sum it up here:
U.S. policy makers must confront four looming barriers that threaten continued U.S. leadership in space: export regulations that stifle the growth of the commercial space industry, the projected shortfall in the U.S. science and engineering workforce, inadequate planning for robust scientific advancement in NASA, and an erosion of international cooperation in space.There are some barriers to carrying out the president's vision, but so far, with the exception of the export-control issue, these aren't them, and they don't seem to have identified any of the other actual ones.
From there, they go on to give a brief history of the space program, with its supposed benefits to the nation. They then go on to laud the international nature of it. When I got to this sentence, I was struck by the irony:
The International Space Station best portrays the international character of space today.If that's true, it should be taken as a loud and clear warning that we should be running as far, and and as fast, from "international cooperation" as we possibly can.
The largest cooperative scientific and technological program in history, the space station draws on the resources and technical capabilities of nations around the world. It has brought the two Cold War adversaries together to work for a common cause, and arguably has done more to further understanding and cooperation between the two nations than many comparable programs.What they don't note is that it is years behind schedule, billions over budget, and still accomplishes little of value to actually advancing us in space, other than continuing to keep many people employed at Mr. Abbey's former center, and other places. But, hey...it promotes international cooperation, so that's all right. Right?
The piece goes on to describe the four "barriers," of which only one (export control) really is. While it's troubling that not as many native-born are getting advanced science and engineering degrees as there used to be, there will be no shortage of engineers, since the foreign born will more than pick up the slack. It's perhaps a relevant public policy issue, but it's not a "barrier" to our sending people back to the moon.
The most tendentious "barrier" is what the authors claim is inadequate planning and budgets for the vision:
President George W. Bush's NASA Plan, which echoed that of President George H. W. Bush over a decade before, is bold by any measure. It is also incomplete and unrealistic. It is incomplete, in part, because it raises serious questions about the future commitment of the United States to astronomy and to planetary, earth, and space science. It is unrealistic from the perspectives of cost, timetable, and technological capability. It raises expectations that are not matched by the Administration's commitments. Indeed, pursuit of the NASA Plan, as formulated, is likely to result in substantial harm to the U.S. space program.Even if one buys their premise--that expectations don't match commitments, that all depends on what means by the "U.S. space program," doesn't it? They seem (like many space policy analysts) to be hung up on science, as though that's the raison d'être of the program. Leaving that aside, they (disingenuously, in my opinion) attempt to back up this statement:
The first part of the NASA Plan, as proposed, was to be funded by adding $1 billion to the NASA budget over five years, and reallocating $11 billion from within the NASA budget during the same time frame. These amounts were within the annual 5 percent increase the current Administration planned to add to the NASA base budget (approximately $15 billion) starting in fiscal year 2005. This budget, however, was very small in comparison to the cost of going to the Moon with the Apollo program. The cost of the Apollo program was approximately $25 billion in 1960 dollars or $125 billion in 2004 dollars, and the objectives of the NASA Plan are, in many ways, no less challenging.This is a very misleading comparison, for two reasons.
First, as the president himself said, this is not a race, but a vision. Apollo was a race. Money was essentially no object, as long as we beat the Soviets to the moon. The vision will be budget constrained. NASA's (and Mike Griffin's) challenge is to accomplish those few milestones that were laid out in the president's plan within those constraints. It will cost that much, and no more, by definition.
Second, simply stating that the goals of the plan are no less challenging than Apollo doesn't make it so. While the goal of establishing a permanent lunar presence is more of a challenge, it's not that much more of one, and we know much more about the moon now than we did in 1961, and we have much more technology in hand, and experience in development than we did then. In short, any comparison between what Apollo cost and what the vision will cost is utterly spurious. The only way to get an estimate for the latter is to define how it will be done, and then do parametric costing, using 21st-century cost-estimating relationships, on the systems so defined (a process which is occurring, and is one not informed in any way by Apollo budgets).
The U.S. Congress has made clear with its NASA appropriation for fiscal year 2005 that it has serious questions about the NASA Plan.No surprise there. But that's merely a reflection of specific items (i.e., pork for their districts) that were cut, and says nothing in particular about the overall ability of NASA to achieve the plan with the budget. In fact, an annual appropriation is just that--it provides no insight whatsoever into what Congress might think is required in the out years, when the real budgetary issues would emerge, if they do at all.
Overall, this section strikes me as less a serious policy discussion than a political slap at the administration, by one of the first high-level NASA officials to be canned by it, and by a disgruntled physicist (and science advisor from the previous administration) unhappy that science is not the be-all of the program.
I've glanced through the rest of the thing, but I think I've covered the major flaws in it already. What's actually most notable to me is that they completely ignore the potential for private passenger flight, and commercial space in general (other than bemoaning the impact to the satellite industry of export restrictions). Given how badly they've misdiagnosed the problems, their prescriptions have little value. In terms of providing a basis for administration policy, my own recommendation is that it be simply filed away--in a circular receptacle.
I see little reason to revise that review today. George Abbey shouldn't be allowed anywhere near space policy (though perhaps, at seventy six years of age, it's not something that he wants, or could handle at this point). It certainly wouldn't be change we can believe in. Or change at all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:43 AMThat's how Beldar describes John McCain's post-election behavior:
John McCain has failed this test of his own character.
The would-be commander-in-chief surely still had the clout to summon the top twenty-five or so campaign aides into a room for a "Come to Jesus" meeting, a "we aren't any of us leaving this room until I know who leaked those comments" meeting, a "you aren't any of you ever going to work in politics again until we find out who's to blame for this" meeting.Instead, he goes on Lenno and shrugs his shoulders, minimizing the whole episode. That didn't make anyone famous. That affirmatively encouraged this crap to continue, not just in this campaign but in future ones.
I practice a profession in which secrets are important. I understand the concept of fiduciary duty. I've employed people, professionals and staff alike, who -- simply by virtue of working for me -- have been made subject to the same bright-line, absolute standards that I'm subject to. Very, very rarely, someone in my employment has breached that trust -- and my reaction has been ruthless and thorough and instantaneous. Yes, there have been a few times when I've enjoyed firing someone, and have gone out of my way to make sure that anyone who cared to make future inquiries about hiring that person would find out exactly why they were fired.
McCain's background as a military officer ought to have acquainted him with high ethical standards and the need for their consistent and vigorous enforcement. He almost flunked out of the Naval Academy at the end of every year he spent there, based on conduct demerits, but he never once had an Honor Code violation.
Senator, this was an Honor Code violation by someone on your staff. And you just blew it off. There was no shame in losing the election. But there is definitely shame in this.
Also, thoughts on the willful gullibility of people who believe the idiotic lies about Sarah Palin:
People joked about "Bush Derangement Syndrome," and about "Palin Derangement Syndrome" as its successor. But at some point this kind of thing stops being a joke and becomes a genuine cognative disability -- an inability to process and deal in a rational fashion with objective data because of a bias that is so intense that it blocks out reality.
I can't explain it. I just hope it's a temporary, acute problem rather than something long-term or possibly organic, like the sort of brain tumors or lesions of which Dr. Oliver Sachs writes in his book, "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat." I'm not being at all snarky here. Rather, I'm entirely serious, because I have considered Dr. Joyner a friend, and I am genuinely concerned for his mental health. He, Andrew Sullivan, and others in their camp are completely persuaded that they can see a degree of ignorance in Gov. Palin which is utterly inconsistent with anyone's ability to function as the governor of any state, but to which hundreds of thousands of Alaskans were absolutely blind for many years despite a much better opportunity to assess Gov. Palin first-hand. That kind of thinking represents a break with reality, one that's not funny at all, but genuinely sad.
[Via David Blue, who has a number of other reasons to be glad that John McCain didn't win the election. But they don't, unfortunately, constitute reasons to be happy that Barack Obama did. We were screwed either way, primarily because the media selected both candidates.]
[Update a few minutes later]
I wonder how many people actually voted for John McCain (that is, voted for him because they liked him, and thought he would be a good president)? I suspect that the vast majority of McCain voters were either voting against Obama, or for Palin, or both, but they weren't voting for McCain. It seems to me that those people who actually like McCain, either personally, or on his eclectic policies, probably like Obama even more (e.g., many in the media). So hardly anyone voted for him. And this is also the reason that the Republican turnout was relatively low. The candidate had no attraction to them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 AMNow, more than ever. Self-styled "progressives" seem to continue to be unaware of their own shameful intellectual history.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:50 AMSome useful thoughts from Rod Long, over at Cato Unbound.
As he points out, there is a broad-based mythology that defending capitalism is equivalent to defending "big business" when, by its nature, big business abhors capitalism (at least as understood by true free marketeers). Of course, I agree with Jonah Goldberg that we latter should abjure the term "capitalism," both because it is such a misunderstood word with a wide variance of definitions, and because it is fundamentally a Marxist concept.
A "free-market economy" (something that hasn't existed to a large degree in this country for many decades) is what should be defended and supported, and we should continue to push to get the country to move back in that direction to find our way out of our current travails (which really started back in the Depression Era). Just as one example, there's an interesting discussion over at Megan McArdle's place, here and here, on GM's straits (about which I've also had thoughts over the years, as someone who grew up with it). I think that, as one of the commenters over there notes, the roots of the destruction of the American auto industry lie in the Wagner Act:
GM and the UAW are a perfect illustration of bad government in action.
At some point, a collective decision was made that the unions should be given such expanded powers that they could destroy the company if they wanted (see the above post describing how a strike at a key plant could idle the whole company). What happens here? Well, naturally the union tries to extract as much as they can from the company with the tools available. The union doesn't profit from increasing profits and building a healthy company, it profits from building an overstaffed company that exists to benefit its employees. The union would have been better served if it divvied up the right to collect a union payout from GM among the workers of the time and let them sell the claims. Then the union could simply negotiate the maximum dividend possible for the holders of these claims. This way you have a rationally run company with the benefits going to the larger voting block (the workers) than the shareholders who are all presumably evil capitalists.What would have been much more honest and worked better would have been outright nationalization of GM when the rules were set up that the UAW could destroy the company. Instead you've got unclear property rights and consequent ill management.
It took a long time to kill the industry, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't the cause. Arsenic or mercury can kill over a long period of time as well, though death might actually occur from some other ailment that the toxin-ridden body is ill equipped to fight.
The toxin in this case may be a lot of things (perhaps even including "capitalism" by some warped fascistic definition) but it is an abomination to a free market, and it has destroyed the American auto industry.
[Update a few minutes later]
IBD says let GM go bankrupt:
Far from vanishing, many of GM's assets would be quickly purchased by competent foreign automakers eager to expand their capacity in what is the world's largest auto market. Happily, the list of well-run car companies, from Toyota to Nissan to Porsche, is long.
How this helps Michigan, the auto sector and smaller firms reliant on the latter's health is pretty clear. With capable auto executives finally overseeing GM's poorly deployed assets, the value and utility of each would rise, thus perpetuating the existence of jobs in the sector, all the while ensuring that other businesses that exist due to GM will enjoy more stable commercial relationships with competent management.So while the cries of certain Armageddon would be ear splitting in the event of a GM failure, the U.S. auto sector would actually emerge much healthier thanks to a change in ownership that would be the certain result of GM going under.
The problem of course, is that this will be another Enron, in that many people will be thrown out of work, and lose pensions (I should note, for the record, that as a Michigan native, I have close family members who may be in this situation). The political pressure to maintain the status quo will be intense, and unfortunately, given the fact that despite all of the talk about "change," the status-quo-ante types (at least when it comes to static economic circumstances) have just entrenched their power in Washington, that's probably the way it will go. If GM is going to get federal money, it should go toward buyouts of long-term employees, and then let the market work to redeploy its assets toward more useful purposes than maintaining an expensive company-town welfare state, that makes cars on the side.
[Update mid morning]
Matt Welch says to the barricades to defend free markets. Except that he uses the confusing word "capitalism."
I should add, that I consider George Bush's biggest failure not the events leading up to this crisis, but his response to it, in which (as Matt points out) he capitulated to those advocating government solutions to government-caused problems. Of course, it's on a par with "compassionate conservatism" and "comprehensive immigration reform" and "no child left behind" and "prescription drugs" and myriad other issues, large and small, on which he showed himself to be anything but a conservative (let alone a libertarian). Had he been a Democrat, the Dems would have been cheering all of his actions as the greatest thing since LBJ and the Great Society.
Speaking of compassionate conservatism (and the tone deafness of George Bush and Mike Gerson and others to how rightly offensive the phrase was to actual conservatives), imagine how well the Democrats would take to a nominee who ran on a platform of "logical liberalism."
[Early afternoon update]
Iain Murray has more thoughts on free markets and their relationship to liberty:
...as Jonah says, markets are more than this information delivery system. Where the Chicago School has gone wrong is in focusing purely on economic efficiency. As my boss Fred Smith said way back in 1983, "The Chicago School's case for antitrust policy . . . rests solely on economic efficiency, as if rights had nothing to do with the matter -- as if business had no right in principle to dispose of its property as it sees fit, but only a conditional freedom so long as it helps maximize some social utility function. That is to say, no business is entitled to its property if that property can be redeployed so as to expand output. With 'conservative,' 'pro-business' economists taking this view, who needs social democrats." In other words, if we value property rights, the free market is an essential consequence. And that is why market socialism never works, because it devalues property rights. Liberty demands property rights which demand free markets. We only interfere with that chain in defiance of history.
It is not a coincidence that communist nations are the most unfree on earth.
[Early evening update, particularly for Instapundit readers, who might want to look around the site]
I've talked in the past about the fact that my father was a GM exec, but I've never noted what he did there.
Here's a little background, which may be apocryphal, because I only knew it from my mother, but they met after the war in New York (he was from Brooklyn). She was a former WAC who had served in Egypt, and had decided to see a little more of the world before heading back to her home in Flint, Michigan.
He was standing on a soapbox in the Village, haranguing the crowd on the benefits of Marxism. As an economics major, raised on Keynes, she fell in love.
They married, and finished their graduate degrees, at various places (NYU, UCLA, other, his in Psych--Industrial Psych, hers in Econ). In the fifties he tried door-to-door in Lansing after moving to Michigan with his upper Midwest bride, but when he got an offer at A.C. Spark Plug in her home town (as a result of her brother, my uncle, being an engineer there) he took it, and settled into a middle-class lifestyle, during the best years of the company, in which he raised his family.
He moved up though the white-collar world at AC, in "personnel" (these days, it would be HR, which is one of the reasons that he could get me summer jobs there during college), until he got an offer to go to work for corporate in Detroit, a job for which he commuted sixty miles a day each way from Flint, and we never had to move. I know that this is no big deal of a commute in southern Cal, but for me, it was amazing. He died at an age slightly older than me (right now, for those reading in the future) that I can count on one hand, and not half of it, from a heart attack (his second--he had had his first about a decade earlier, in his forties). That was almost three decades ago.
His job?
Head of labor relations, and negotiator (perhaps chief negotiator, though (as Doctor Evil said) I can't vouch for that), with the UAW.
[Bumped to the top, because there's a lot of new stuff]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:40 PMI've no idea whether or not this is true:
Hello everyone, As you know, I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to "The War Zone." I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General.
As he finished, the vehicles took him to the Clamshell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the Americans back home that he is their candidate for president.
It seems as well sourced as the dirt being dished about Sarah Palin. And more credible.
I'll be amused to see what happens the first time someone salutes him as Commander-in-Chief. (Draft dodger) Bill Clinton was an instant joke to military insiders when he ineptly returned his first one. If the Obama campaign is smart, they'll know about that history, and have him practice beforehand. Not that there's any requirement to return it, of course. But Reagan seems to have started a presidential tradition. Obama can end (or at least deviate from) it if he wants. But would it be politically wise?
[Update early evening]
Mea culpa maxima. I should have checked Snopes before posting.
Nonetheless, everything else I wrote stands. It was more credible than the Sarah Palin dirt, and I still await the first salute.
And I also await Snopes' investigation of the Sarah Palin smears.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:39 PMSome thoughts on Obama, Weatherpeople, and Sarah Palin, from Camille Paglia:
...my concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign. Obama may not in recent years have been "pallin' around" with Ayers, in Sarah Palin's memorable line, but his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed...
...Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the State University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don't know their asses from their elbows.
Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.
I think she gives the press too much credit for their ability to wake up.
[Update late morning]
It may have been politically incorrect for Michael Barone to say it, but I think he's right when he points to Palin's greatest sin in the eyes of much of the media and the left:
"The liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby," Barone said, according to accounts by attendees. "They wanted her to kill that child. ... I'm talking about my media colleagues with whom I've worked for 35 years."
Barone, a popular speaker on the paid lecture circuit, is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and principal coauthor of "The Almanac of American Politics."About 500 people were in the room, and some walked out.
Guess the truth hurts. That was obvious to me at the time as well, with all of the criticism of her for having the baby. She was a huge threat to the pro-abortion (and yes, that's what much of it is) movement.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:15 AMWhich president will Barack Obama want to emulate? He has said that he admires Reagan, but only for his transformational qualities, not for his political beliefs. But if he persists in his apparent desire to implement some combination of Hoover and FDR policies (raising taxes on the productive, protectionism, enforcing high wages), he'll end up making a bad situation much worse, and end up being a one-termer for sure.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:12 AMWould that it had been so. In honor of Veterans' Day, here's an interesting story of a recording captured to preserve the memory of the war that was to end all wars. Unfortunately, that part didn't work out.
[Update mid morning]
On the ninetieth anniversary of the Armistice, three British veterans are still alive. The oldest is 112, the oldest man in the country. Did he ever imagine, in the midst of the war, that he would survive another nine tenths of a century beyond its end?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:42 AMJeff Foust has some thoughts about issues facing the new administration. It may in fact be an opportunity to undo the damage in the 1990s when Congress arbitrarily put space hardware on the munitions list. Duncan Hunter won't be in a position to stop it now, being firmly in the minority.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AMThe other day I pointed out a report on the general military acquisition problems. Today at The Space Review, Dwayne Day discusses the military space problem in particular. As he notes, Pentagon space makes NASA look like a model of efficiency. NASA at least has the excuse that what it does isn't really important. The same is not true of our defense systems, but the bureaucracy and porkmeisters act as though it is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:09 AMIt's the seventieth anniversary of Kristallnacht.
While many Americans would also claim they were unaware of the atrocities committed by the Nazis during the Holocaust, the events of November 9-10 were well documented. The New York Times ran a front-page story on November 11: "A wave of destruction, looting and incendiarism unparalleled in Germany since the Thirty Years War and in Europe generally since the Bolshevist Revolution swept over Great Germany today as National Socialist cohorts took vengeance on Jewish shops, offices and synagogues for the murder by a young Polish Jew of Ernst vom Rath, third secretary of the German Embassy in Paris." Another Times story was headlined, "All Vienna's synagogues attacked."
FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT made no immediate comment after Kristallnacht, referring questions about it to the State Department. Only after five days of widespread public outrage did he take any action: recalling the US ambassador from Germany and stating in a press conference, "The news of the past few days from Germany has deeply shocked public opinion in the US. Such news from any part of the world would inevitably produce a similar profound reaction among American people in every part of the nation. I myself could scarcely believe that such things could happen in a 20th century civilization..."Roosevelt agreed to allow 15,000 German Jews already in the United States to remain, but resisted all calls to increase the overall quota of immigrants from Nazi-occupied countries. Equally significant, his failure to take any action against Germany, or to mobilize an international coalition to challenge Hitler, sent the message that the world would not intervene to save the Jews. How much he could have done given the isolationist and xenophobic mood of the American public at that time is debatable, but the consequences of his inaction were catastrophic.
If President Obama continues to show signs of coddling Ahmajinedad and the Iranian mullahs, he will be sending a similar signal. If this history ever repeats itself, it won't be farce--it will be tragedy anew, because we inexcusably forgot it.
[Update a few minutes later]
Synagogues around the world are being asked to keep their lights on tonight, in remembrance.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:22 AMIn Minnesota. It looks like this election is being stolen, right before our eyes.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:07 PMThis sort of thing is why I'm not inclined to believe any of the Palin smears. It's really astounding how polarized people are about her.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:44 AMSenator Nelson is urging Barack Obama to keep Mike Griffin on:
"He called Lori Garver and said that until they had a surefire choice, they should continue with Griffin. And he thinks Griffin is doing a good job," said Bryan Gulley, a Nelson spokesman. Gulley would not say who Nelson would support if or when Obama picks a new NASA administrator.
Well, obviously, you don't want to leave the post vacant, or put in a loser. But it should be a high priority to find a good replacement for him, not to mention come up with a new policy (the two will no doubt go together). The Ares/Orion debacle is entirely Mike Griffin's baby at this point. I know that if I were named the new administrator, I'd can Ares, ramp up COTS and COTS D, and get started on R&T, and then (not much later) RDT&E for a propellant depot, and let ULA, SpaceX and others worry about earth to orbit. With a prop depot, the weight margins on Orion and Altair become essentially unlimited, so I'd start designs over from there.
But for many reasons, I'm not going to be named administrator. I just hope that whoever is has their head screwed on right.
Oh, and I should also add (as I commented over at Bobby Block's site) that people who should know better (like Senators who have actually flown in space) seem to continue to ignore the reality that extending Shuttle doesn't give us independence from the Russians, because the Shuttle can't act as an ISS lifeboat. All it does is cost billions more while putting crew at high risk. Until they get Dragon or Orion, or something else, we are going to have to continue buying Soyuz if we want to continue to have US astronauts at ISS.
[Saturday morning update]
There's more discussion on this topic over at Space Politics.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:05 PMThe Wall Street Journal likes the Rahm Emanuel pick. I actually agree--he will be a restraining influence on some of the wackier elements of the party (perhaps including the new president himself, who made too many noises about trade restrictions during the campaign for my comfort).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:05 AMOne of my ongoing themes is that space is not politically important. Apparently the incoming administration agrees. It isn't mentioned anywhere at the transition web site. I poked around in "Technology," "Energy and the Environment," and couldn't find anything about civil space, or NASA. The only discussion of space that I could find was under "Defense":
Ensure Freedom of Space: An Obama-Biden administration will restore American leadership on space issues, seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. He will thoroughly assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best options, military and diplomatic, for countering them, establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets and accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack.
A "worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites" would be unenforceable--it's pie in the sky. And there's no way to "harden U.S. satellites against attack" unless we come up with much lower costs to orbit. Does the new administration consider Operationally Responsive Space to be part of the solution? And will they take it seriously?
In any event, space policy in general seems to be a tabula rasa, other than campaign promises, so maybe there's an opportunity to write some and get it added to the site.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AM...is unlibertarian.
I agree. I don't understand why gay couples want to invite the government into their lives to that degree.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:14 AM...in an Obama administration. Alan Boyle has a sneak preview. (I actually linked to this yesterday, but only in the context of the suborbital regulation issue.)
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:54 AMIt's a mess:
Right now, the current trends are not good. The US Navy is smaller than it has been in decades, currently has no viable shipbuilding programs for surface combatants, and has credibility issues in Washington. The US Army has a clear modernization strategy, but faces a maintenance overhang, challenges with both program management of its $160 billion Future Combat Systems meta-program and the very premises behind it, and other issues. The USAF has become concerned about its institutional future, even as its aircraft continue to see their average ages rise and respected outside organizations slam its procurement plans as fantasy. A recent Pentagon Defense Business Board report that examined programs from 2000 - 2007 throws the problem into stark relief: cost increases on 5 major weapons programs accounted for $206 billion, or 22%, of the total jump in spending for new arms so far this decade. The Defense Procurement Death Spiral is biting, hard, across the board.
NASA has similar problems. Norm Augustine
saw a lot of these problems coming a couple decades ago. I wish that I could believe that an Obama administration will take defense seriously enough to do something about it.
For now. Thoughts on red and blue maps, from Lileks.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:26 AMThat's what Jeff Foust says to do about Oberstar.
I agree with everything Jeff wrote, except for the part about his likely interest in this issue. I'm pretty sure that he hasn't forgotten it, even if he has given up on it for now on the Hill.
And as I noted in comments over there, I don't think that it's "panicking" to attempt to nip a problem in the bud. It's a lot easier to put the kibosh on it now than it would be after he was formally selected and announced. Clark Lindsey seems to share my view.
I would also note that I didn't mean to imply that I thought this meant anything at all about an Obama administration's general attitude toward commercial space. I doubt if whoever is considering Oberstar is even aware of the issue.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:17 AMThis was written about Richard Holbrooke, who is likely to be a major player in the new administration (despite the fact that he outed Valerie Plame):
I'm violently opposed to the idea of Richard Holbrooke as Secretary of State and only slightly less set against George Mitchell, and it is entirely personal. I don't care if they're qualified. They represent that which makes life in Washington hell. They are archetypes of the Washington Male...
The Washington Male has absolutely and profoundly no sense of humor... And greater love hath no man than this: that of the Washington Male for the Washington Male. A really pure Washington Male can be wrong about everything he does and says for decades without harboring a single twinge of self-doubt...
But it seems to me to apply even more to Vice-President-Elect Biden. I don't know how familiar with geography Sarah Palin is, but ignorance can be cured. Rampant idiocy cannot.
[Evening update]
A commenter corrects me. It was indeed Richard Armitage (another Democrat) who outed Valerie Plame, not Richard Holbrooke. In my oncoming senility, I confused my Democrat candidate Richards for SECSTATE.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:53 PMDisregarding my sore winner anonymous trolls, many friends of mine no doubt voted for Barack Obama, and I think it's crazy to let something like that affect a friendship. I don't understand the thinking that if someone disagrees with you politically, you must be excommunicated. I lost a friend from high school, because she decided I was evil because I thought that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power in 2002.
We do have to work together to make the new administration successful, but we may just not agree on what constitutes success.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:44 PMIt seems likely. We're going to have to join forces against the fascists who are taking over Washington. Lots of good discussion in comments.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:39 PMFrom Iowahawk:
Less than fifty years ago, African-Americans were barred from public universities, restaurants, and even drinking fountains in many parts of the country. On Tuesday we came together and transcended that shameful legacy, electing an African-American to the country's top job -- which, in fact, appears to be his first actual job. Certainly, it doesn't mean that racism has disappeared in America, but it is an undeniable mark of progress that a majority of voters no longer consider skin color nor a dangerously gullible naivete as a barrier to the presidency.
It's also heartening to realize that as president Mr. Obama will soon be working hand-in-hand with a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard like Senator Robert Byrd to craft the incoherent and destructive programs that will plunge the American economy into a nightmare of full-blown sustained depression. As Vice President-Elect Joe Biden has repeatedly warned, there will be difficult times ahead and the programs will not always be popular, or even sane. But as we look out over the wreckage of bankrupt coal companies, nationalized banks, and hyperinflation, we can always look back with sustained pride on the great National Reconciliation of 2008. Call me an optimist, but I like to think when America's breadlines erupt into riots it will be because of our shared starvation, not the differences in our color.
Barack will bring us together.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:32 PMMore space transition news. This could be a horrific disaster:
Potential Secretary of Transportation: James Oberstar, member of the House of Representatives since 1975.
Oberstar overseeing the FAA would mean safety regulation on the commercial spaceflight industry that would strangle it in the cradle. If they have any influence, Lori, George and Alan need to work as hard as they can to get a different candidate.
[Update early evening]
Clark Lindsey has more thoughts.
[Update a while later]
A commenter suggests that Bill Richardson, who has spent a lot of effort as governor on getting a commercial spaceport in his state, won't be happy about this (at least if he understands the implications). He could be a key leverage point with the incoming administration.
[Late evening update]
Alan Boyle is following up on the story.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:00 AMNormally, the selection of a NASA administrator is low priority in a presidential transition, because (as I point out often) space is not very important, politically. That may be different this year, though. The GAO has identified Shuttle retirement as an urgent transition issue.
Which brings up an interesting point. In addition to the snow princess, who are "Hefferen, Ladwig, Whitesides, and Monje"? I know that "Ladwig" is Alan and "Whitesides" is George, but I've never heard of the other two.
I will also say that I am somewhat reassured by the involvement of Lori, Alan and George in the transition, if they are, because they all understand the importance of commercial solutions. I would also add that if President-elect Obama wants to (at least for bipartisan appearance' sake) appoint some token Republicans, NASA would be a good ostensibly non-political place to do it. I wonder what Alan Stern's political affiliation is?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:45 AMA man shot up his neighborhood in celebration of the Obama victory.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:53 AMTo start fighting the "Fairness" Doctrine.
Yes, I know that then-Senator Obama said that he didn't support it, but do you think that he'd really veto it if it came to his desk? Really?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:39 AMI have never thought of Lori Garver as a snow princess.
Will she be the next administrator, though?
I also have to say that I found this comment disturbing:
Seems highly likely Orion will become ISS only for now.
Let's sincerely hope not. That would be a major blow to commercial services. Better to just end it, and ramp up COTS.
[Afternoon update]
She's married, with kids. Shouldn't she be the Snow Queen (not to be confused with the Ice Queen)?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:39 AM...if true:
It seems that the conspiracy theorist, windpower opponent (at least when it's in his family's backyard), expert climatologist and proto-McCarthyite, RFK Jr., is being considered for the EPA. I guess he must be an example of the pragmatic approach that we keep reading so much about...
Change!
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:07 PMEthiopians are starving because they decided to cash in on biofuels. How much of this was due to government policies?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:55 AMJeff Foust has a post on some key races, though he talks about how they will affect "space." I think we'll do fine in space, regardless of election outcomes. It's NASA, and NASA human spaceflight supporters who should be worried.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:48 AMYuval Levin has some thoughts about Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel as WH Chief of Staff:
The White House chief of staff is not a chief strategist or a chief advocate. He is a manager of people and of process. Above all else, he sets the tone internally, and shapes the president's decision process and the feel of the upper tiers of the administration. Obama is especially in need of someone who will lead him to decisions, because he appears to be intensely averse to making difficult choices--which is the essence of what the president does. His inclination is to step back and conceptualize the choice out of existence, looking reasonable but doing nothing. To overcome this, he will need a chief of staff with a sense of the gravity of the choices the president faces, and one capable of moving the staff to decision, keeping big egos satisfied and calm, and resisting the pressure to be purely reactive to momentary distractions. None of this spells Rahm Emanuel. There is definitely a place for a Rahm Emanuel type of brilliant ruthless shark in a White House staff, but not in the Chief's office.
I think that this is a result of Obama's never having been a real executive, or run anything. He didn't run his campaign--Plouffe and Axelrod did. He was simply the front man. As Yuval notes, it's not a good portent. Get ready for Carter II.
[Update a while later]
Does anyone seriously believe that this pick represents "change" or a "new kind of politics"?
[Mid-afternoon update]
Oh, goodie. More "change" and "new kind of politics." I just heard that John Podesta is leading the selection of the transition team and cabinet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:42 AMI was too tired last night to attempt to say much of anything intelligent, let alone eloquent. But I'll start by repeating my congratulations to President-elect Obama. From snippets that I've heard this morning, his acceptance speech was appropriately gracious to his opponent, but I have to confess that I didn't hear the whole thing because I had gone to bed. My impression is that it didn't differ a lot from his stump speech, except he left out the lies about his opponents.
As I noted last night, one thing that I am not unhappy about, and is a large silver lining in a larger dark cloud, is that we have elected an African American (in this case, quite literally) to the highest office in the greatest nation on the planet. I always expected the first black president to be a Republican (or at least a conservative of some stripe), because I didn't anticipate a Barack Obama, who between his apparent (not at all to me, but clearly to many) charisma and the aid of a fawning press that refused to discuss his history with any seriousness, managed to transcend not just his skin tone, but his far-left political history. I hope that Michelle is finally proud of America, and that we can finally get past race. But I fear that we're not yet there, for those who are more comfortable continuing to play the easy role of victim. Either way, Barack Obama is the next American president, which means, for better or worse, that he is my president. (As usual) I agree with Lileks:
I'm off to the Mall to sell razor blades so people can scrape off their "Question Authority" bumper stickers. Just remember: Dissent is still the highest form of patriotism. Except now it will be practiced by the lowest form of people.
Seriously, though: congratulations to President-elect Obama. Right or wrong - and I hope for more of the former, obviously - he's my President now, dammit, and I'm not going to spend four years treating him with the contempt the Kos side heaped on Chimpy McPretzelchoker. He could turn out to be a horrible President. He could turn out to be a great one. History pushes people in unexpected directions.
I am on long-standing record as calling him unelectable in this nation. How did I get it wrong?
I don't think that his election was at all inevitable. It was a combination of many factors--the country going crazy in the wake of the financial crisis, the overwhelming amount of money brought to bear (much of it raised illegally) in his support, the truly egregious bias of the press, and an awful campaign by John McCain. I have to confess that I also expected the Clintons to do more than they did to sabotage him. It's surprising, in retrospect, that it was as close as it was.
With regard to McCain's campaign, Jennifer Rubin has a list of the many things that McCain did wrong, though I don't know if he could have won it. But he could have made it a lot closer, and helped staunch the bleeding down ballot even more. The one thing she didn't mention (though she hinted at it with some of her particulars) was that he should have been running against the most unpopular institution--Congress--which makes George Bush look like a rock star in popularity by comparison. He should have pointed out all of the things that have happened in the two years since the Democrats took over the Hill. Indeed, he should have simply pointed out that it was the Democrats who were running Congress, because much of the electorate seemed to be unaware of that fact. He shouldn't have voted for the bailout bill. But he couldn't do it, because he is John McCain. He is a great man, but a mediocre candidate, and would not likely have been a great president.
I'm glad that part of the reason that he lost is because of his own atrocious (and yes, that's the word for it) and unconstitutional McCain-Feingold legislation, and that by completely blowing past it, Barack Obama has rendered it meaningless and irrelevant for future elections, even if it's not actually rescinded. I would also note that while I do think that the Obama campaign violated federal campaign finance laws on a massive scale, by deliberately disabling AVS on their on-line credit-card donations, I also think that they're bad laws. I hope that we can change them to remove contribution limits, but require full disclosure. Frankly, I don't even care if foreigners want to contribute to American political campaigns, as long as we know who is doing it and how much. That is information that the voters deserve to know, and should be a legitimate campaign issue. The Clintons played the same dirty game, with Riady and the Chinese, but the media refused to dig into it and point it out.
And as I've noted before, because the press refused to air Obama's dirty Chicago laundry during the campaign, we're going to have another Clinton-like presidency, in which scandals from the past continue to pop up. Will he pardon Tony Rezko? Why didn't anyone ask him? Will he replace Patrick Fitzgerald (indeed, every US Attorney, as Bill Clinton did)? I also fear that (as with the Clintons) the thuggery displayed in the campaign--against Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, anyone in Missouri who had the temerity to "lie" about the Obama campaign--will continue in the new administration, except this time with the full power of the Justice Department and the FBI behind it. It is going to be an interesting four years.
I'm glad that it wasn't the blowout that many hoped for, and many feared. He won convincingly, but not sufficiently to have a mandate (particularly considering how gauzy his campaign promises were). Neither the House or the Senate had the gains expected by the Dems, and while having Stuart Smalley in the Senate would be entertaining (though not deliberately so on his part), I'm glad to keep one more vote to staunch a Democrat tide. I'm also glad that any changes on SCOTUS are likely to replace leftist squishes, and not true liberals (such as Roberts, Scalia and Alito), thus preserving the status quo rather than shifting it further against freedom.
I don't envy the president elect. I pointed out when he won the nomination that it was almost an accident--he wasn't supposed to win this year; it was just a practice run. Now, he's in another moment of the dog who finally caught the car that he's been chasing--what does he do with it? He's got the choice of going with his leftist instincts (I'm assuming that he really does have these, and isn't as completely cynical as he would have to be in order to have hung out with vile people with whom he completely disagreed politically, such as Ayers, Dorhn and Klonsky) and alienating much of the country (which truly doesn't understand what they just elected), or moving to the center and being more politically successful, but outraging the Kossacks and Moveoners at his betrayal. That, too, will be interesting to watch.
My biggest feeling right now, frankly (and I'm sure that it's one shared by almost everyone), is relief that this ridiculously long campaign is over. It's time for defenders of human freedom to regroup, take stock of the world as it is, rather than as we'd like it to be, and figure out how to move it from the former to the latter. Whether the Republican Party will be the appropriate vehicle for this remains to be seen, but as has been clear to me for most of my adult life, the Democrat Party will never be. They remain children of Rousseau, though they don't realize it, and I will continue to follow Locke.
[Update a while later]
Steven den Beste says it's not the end of the world, and has some predictions, one of which is quite disturbing. I loved this ending line:
...no one will be spinning grand conspiracy theories about this administration's Vice President being an evil, conniving genius who is the true power behind the throne.
If I were a praying man, I'd pray for Senator Obama's health every day. I'm continuously amazed at people who think that Joe the Biden is presidential material, or even of above-average intelligence. Or even average.
[Another update a couple minutes later]
John McWhorter says that it should be the end of racism as a political issue, and makes the same point that Thomas Sowell has been making for years:
The new frontier, however, is apparently people's individual psychologies: Not only must we not legislate racism or socially condone it, but no one is to even privately feel it.
The problem is we can't entirely reach people's feelings. The social proscription has changed a lot of minds, especially of younger people who never knew the old days. But an America where nobody harbors racist sentiment? The very notion goes against everything we know about human hardwiring: Distrust of the other is inherent to our cognition.Psychology has provided us with no method for rewiring brains to eliminate that. After describing one of countless studies revealing subliminal racial bias, Nicholas Kristof recently intoned "there's evidence that when people become aware of their unconscious biases, they can overcome them."
Oh, really? "Can," OK--but how often do they? How do we reach everybody? Do we mean overcoming bias so thoroughly that a test looking for what's "out there" would not still reveal it? It's a utopian pipe dream.
Now, if this racism of the scattered and subliminal varieties were the obstacle to achievement that Jim Crow and open bigotry were, then we would have a problem. But yesterday, we saw that this "out there" brand of racism cannot keep a black man out of the White House.
Might it not be time to allow that our obsession with how unschooled and usually aging folk feel in their hearts about black people has become a fetish? Sure, there are racists. There are also rust and mosquitoes, and there always will be. Life goes on.
It should be time, but as I said, it's a lot easier to continue to play the victim, and blame white racism rather than community pathologies for your problems. I was glad to hear Barack Obama tell young men to pull up their damn pants, and hope he continues to do so. I hope that he comes up with a job in the administration of some sort for Bill Cosby.
My ongoing fear of the Rousseauians is that they believe that they can remake man. They believe in thought crimes, and will attempt to both detect them, and stamp them out.
[Update a few minutes later]
One other thought on racism. Does anyone imagine that, with his resume, Barack Obama would be president elect if he were Barry O'Toole, a white guy?
[Mid-morning update]
Tim Ferguson has thoughts on the battle for individualism.
[Update a few minutes later]
I (as is often the case) agree with Mark Steyn:
Obama was wrong about the surge, and McCain was right. But, because he was right, Iraq went away, and his rightness and Obama's wrongness didn't matter. And, in his closing address in that final debate, McCain was left using tough, hard words like "honor" and "sacrifice" that seemed utterly ridiculous after an hour and a half in which the candidates had been outcompeting each other to shower federal largesse for those behind with a couple of mortgage payments. But that gets to my basic point: You don't want "issue" candidates. You want candidates who can place whatever the headlines happen to throw at you within an internally consistent worldview.
For what it's worth, I never want to hear the word "maverick" again as long as I live. As I said a while back, that's an attitude, not a philosophy.
I'm not unhappy that John McCain lost. He's an admirable man, but much less so as a politician. I'm just unhappy that the Republicans couldn't come up with someone better, and that the Democrat won.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:42 AMThis is an historic moment for our nation. We have elected an American of African descent president of the nation.
More thoughts in the morning.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:22 PMI'm watching a rally in DC with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
What has Harry Reid done to justify his increase of the majority of the Senate?
What has Nancy Pelosi done to justify her increase in her House majority?
Why did no one in the MSM ask these questions during the campaign?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:58 PMIf you haven't, get the heck out there and vote, and don't get bandwagoned. Remember, if everyone who had wanted Fred Thompson, but didn't think he could win, had voted for him in the primaries, he probably would have won.
[Update mid morning]
I already said this earlier, but don't pay too much attention to exit polls. They tend to skew Democrat, and they were pretty far off in 2004 (which is why some moonbats thought that Kerry must have won Ohio--they thought that the exit polls were right, and the actual vote tally was wrong).
[Update at 9:25 PM EST]
Ohio seems to be lost to McCain. I'd say that's the end of the game.
The battle now is to keep the ability to filibuster the Senate.
The nation has gone nuts.
[Note: this post will be at the top until polls close in Hawaii, so scroll down for any new stuff today]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 PMOr for those just drinking. Here are some candidate-appropriate suggestions. I hate to confess that I would prefer the Obama Mama, because I am partial to dark rum (a nasty habit acquired from too many years in the Caribbean).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:55 PMA thirteen-year-old girl in Somalia was stoned to death for being raped.
Just a reminder of the kind of people with whom we are at war, even if the Democrats don't want to believe that we're at war.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:58 AMJohn Hare has some thoughts on boxes, and thinking in or out of them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:48 AMIt's all in the name of Obama's True Belief in Global Warming. He says it himself -- he'll take coal off the table as an "ideological matter." Even if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, he's opposed to pursuing it.
He wants to put a huge penalty on companies that emit carbon -- which means that starting up new coal-powered electrical plants will be prohibitively expensive. In Obama's own words, "It will bankrupt them.""Cap and trade" plans have already been tried, and they don't work -- they cost too much, and people find ways to get around them. But Obama promises us that he'll take that failed idea and be "as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's" plan.
In other words, if it doesn't work, let's do more of it!
This is Obama the New Puritan. We've found his real religion: Political and Environmental Correctness.
It's more important to him to eliminate coal than to find practical solutions. Why? Because coal is "bad." Our groupthinking "intellectual" elite thinks they are post-religious -- but they believe in sin and hate the sinners.
As I said, deeply misguided. But the people get the government they deserve.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:12 AMAdvice from Instapundit on the election outcome:
You don't have to love the "other guy." You don't have to hold back on fighting against policies you don't like. You don't have to pull punches. But once someone is duly and legally elected president, you do owe some respect to the office and the Constitution. And to your fellow Americans.
I'm not an Obama fan, particularly, but a lot of people I like and respect are. To treat Obama as something evil or subhuman would not only be disrespectful toward Obama, but toward them. Instead, I hope that if Obama is elected, their assessment of his strengths will turn out to be right, and mine will turn out to be wrong. Likewise, those who don't like John McCain or Sarah Palin might reflect that by treating Palin and McCain as obviously evil and stupid, they're disrespecting tens of millions of their fellow Americans who feel otherwise. And treating a presidency held by a guy you don't like as presumptively illegitimate suggests that presidents rule not by election, but by divine right, so that whenever the "other guy" wins, he's automatically a usurper.
I concur. I have made no secret of my belief that Barack Obama is a fascist. But unlike most people, I don't believe that fascists are intrinsically evil. I just think that they're deeply misguided. If he wins, I expect to be fighting most of his initiatives, probably unsuccessfully, given the likely new composition of the Congress, but he will be, as every president has been before, my president, for good or ill. In four years, we'll have an opportunity to replace him. It's conceivable that in four years, I won't want to, but it seems extremely unlikely. And the world will go on.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 AMFrom Lileks:
If you are opposed to higher taxes on the rich - well, let's back up. If you start out by questioning the definition of "rich," you're one of them. "Rich" is like "racist" - the surest sign of the guilty is the failure to admit your problem. If there are a lot of people who make less money than you do, you're rich, and it doesn't matter how you got where you are, or whether that poor fellow over there who works for Wal-Mart - and don't worry, we'll belittle him as a three-toothed inbred cousin-marrying NASCAR Oxycontin-popping gun-nut in just a minute - made some life choices that may have affected his earning potential; the existence of disparity is sufficient to prove that something is wrong. Or at least suggest that something must be done. As a wise man said: half the people in the country live below the median income level. Half. In this day and age.
So if you don't want to help them - that's what you mean when you oppose taxes, after all - you're selfish. If you protest that you'll have to spend less, or invest less, or save less, or give less to charity, well, you had better start making more money, then. Go on; out to the woodshed; squat over that straw nest and pop out some more golden eggs, or whatever it is you do. Incidentally, you should spend less, because you spend money on things you don't need, and we don't have to know what they are to know you don't need them, just like we don't have to visit your house or neighborhood to know that the former is too big and the latter too far away. You should invest less - put your money in Main Street, not Wall Street. (This does not include spending money on Main Street on things we think you don't need. It means investing it. Consult a professional; we're not clear on the details.) You shouldn't save less, because saving is a virtue. Also, we can tax the interest.Charity? Don't worry about it. Taxes have the same moral power as charity. As Sen. Obama said in the parable of the peanut butter sandwich, sharing is called "Socialism" by some wingnuts. He was correct to scoff: It's not whether you give of your own free will or whether you are compelled to give; it's the giving that counts, not the rationale.
Actually, the most important part is the separation of you and your property; that provides a deep glow of inner satisfaction you cannot possibly imagine, unless you have experience at the communion rail handing out the wafers. It's quite astonishing how the self can be so exalted by selflessness.
Plenty more where that came from, over at his new screedblog. And nobody screed like James.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:38 AMNot that this is anything new:
Denying access to the minority (in this case Republican) poll watchers and inspectors is a violation of Pennsylvania state law. Those who violate the law can be punished with a misdemeanor subject to a fine of $1,000 and prison of between one month and two years.
Those on site as describing it as "pandemonium" and there may be video coming of the chaos.Some of the precincts where Republicans have been removed are: the 44th Ward, 12th and 13th divisions; 6th Ward, 12th division; 32nd Ward, Division 28.
"Election board officials guard the legitimacy of the election process and the idea that Republicans are being intimidated and banned for partisan purposes does not allow for an honest and open election process," said McCain-Palin spokesman Ben Porritt in a statement to Townhall.
Expect a lot of this kind of thing today. Especially in the Windy City.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 AMOf all the dumb reasons to vote for Barack Obama (and they are legion, even if there are a few smart ones interspersed), one of the dumbest is simply because the media is telling you he's inevitable. The bandwagon effect is a classical logical fallacy, that many fall for nonetheless (because most people are untrained in logic).
Don't let them herd you like a sheep into voting for someone just because you want to vote for the winner. If you're going to drink the redistributionist koolaid, at least do it because you actually believe it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AMBecause long ago, it (and other parts of the upper midwest) embraced Obamanian policies. If things go the wrong way tomorrow, the nation will be Detroit writ large.
[Update a while later]
This reminds me of a post I wrote about the rise and fall of General Motors a while ago. As I noted there, my dad was a GM exec, and I grew up in southeast Michigan (well, to the degree that I've grown up at all...). In 1973, about the time I graduated from high school, we were deep in a recession (a real one--not what the people whining about today's economy are describing, with 20+ percent unemployment in Flint), and the golden era was over, never to really return to what it had been.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:42 AMThe Orion spacecraft program was reviewed with the wrong configuration. There's more here:
So an older, immature design of the Orion capsule is brought up for review and passes muster, when it fact it lacks many of the features a flight worthy capsule would have (e.g., a weight that would be liftable, a means of landing that won't kill the occupants) along with several that a real vehicle wouldn't have (e.g., extra amounts of hot water for BroomHilda's cauldron).
That's not the way the process is supposed to work.Unfortunately, the IG's office, not known for their brilliance or their ethics, took the ESMD Viceroy's non-concurrence with their findings and said, "ok, so sorry to have bothered you," and moved on.
Can't anyone here play this game? How much longer before this misbegotten program augers in?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:22 AMVirginia Postrel has some thoughts:
In an interview Fairey assured Smith that his imagery "anti-propaganda propaganda" that, he suggested, is "coming from a position of moral integrity." In other words, he believes it, or at least believes it's in a good cause. The Obama posters were, of course, based on the famous propaganda image of Che Guevara. John McCain may suggest that Obama is a socialist. Fairey, a man of the left, literally paints Obama as a communist--which may involve much wishful projection as the belief in other quarters that the candidate is a secret free-trader.
Although campaign posters are surely a form of propaganda, the Obama imagery is so empty of specific exhortation that we do better to think of it as a manifestation of the candidate's glamour--a seductive illusion in which the audience sees whatever they themselves desire. Glamour is manipulative, but not coercive. It requires the audience to suspend its skepticism and the object to maintain his mystery, a tacit form of cooperation. Give the object the power to compel devotion, and glamour is suddenly neither sustainable nor necessary.
Yes, though there's actually a more accurate, more encompassing word than "socialist" or "communist" for this kind of political iconography (relating back to the thirties). It starts with an "F."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:53 AMBill Whittle has some waning-days election thoughts:
If we are mark'd to lose, we are enow
To do our party loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
Let he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not vote in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to vote with us.
This day is call'd the eve of Elect-ian.
He that votes this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Republican
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is the fourth of November'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his hands,
And say 'With these I moved yon levers on election day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What votes he did cast that day.
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that shares his vote with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen and lady pundits now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their book deals cheap whilst any speaks
That voted with us upon election day.
As he says, the asteroid is only inevitable if we believe it is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:38 PMUnder the Obama regime, true followers of the one will tattoo their own arms.
Way to go for the Jewish vote...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:28 PMFrom Robert Heinlein:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck."
[Via Instapundit]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:25 AMUsually, when a politician makes a gaffe, they try to explain it away, or say "what I meant was..."
Lawrence Eagleburger has a novel approach. He just said to Stuart Varney on Cavuto's show that "I was stupid," to explain his gaffe. He made up for it, by 1) pointing out that the Democrat presidential nominee is much less prepared than she is, and wrong on the foreign policy issues and 2) apologizing for to the McCain campaign and governor Palin.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:34 PMI think that Team Obama may end up regretting that they made fun of Sarah Palin's wink.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:21 PM...of Hyde Park:
The piper from Hyde Park has tougher work, not with rats with sharp teeth but with evil Republicans deserving of a death more painful than drowning. Humorless, self-righteous and immensely proud of himself, he employs his gift of "a unique ability to identify with children" to lure the grown-up children. His success as a spinner of "fairy tales," as Bill Clinton called them in a fit of unexpected candor, is a tale of credulity run amok. Americans who look like grownups swoon like pimpled teenagers at the mention of his name, and brook no criticism however mild or reasoned the reservations. Polite questions are verboten, as Joe the Plumber learned. Scholars will write about this weird delirium in decades to come; the prudent are saving string for their Ph.D. theses. For now it's prudent to hunker down and observe the disciplined march to the river.
Let's hope they stop at the river bank on Tuesday.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:45 AMMoral support for McCain supporters from Hizzbuzz:
The ONLY way McCain loses this race is if the media, operating as a full-fledged wing of the Obama campaign, breeds enough Eeyores amongst you to keep enough people home for Obama to squeak out wins. Hillary Clinton should have won Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, by larger margins that she did. Ohio should have been a 13-point win, Pennsylvania should have been a 12-point win, and Indiana should have been a 9-point win. Eeyores staying home, saying, "Oh bother, TV say me stay home, me sad, need dydee changed!" is what cost Hillary those extra points.Don't be Eeyores on Tuesday! Get those Eeyore butts off your couches, away from toxic TV, and GO VOTE. Get everyone you know to vote -- tell them if they don't, then Obama will turn America socialist, and we're going to start with their house and bank account when we begin redistributing wealth. That should motivate them.
I don't know if McCain will pull it out, but it's going to be a lot closer than many have been predicting.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:24 AMDavid Bernstein and Ilya Somin make it.
I agree with Bernstein generally, but this is a key point, I think:
Libertarians have been heavily involved in some of the most important constitutional Supreme Court litigation of the last two decades, either in terms of bringing the case, being among the most important advocates of one side's constitutional theory, or both. Among the cases in this category are Lopez, Morrison, Boy Scouts v. Dale, U.S. Term Limits, Grutter, Gratz, Kelo, Raich, Heller, and probably a few more that I'm not thinking of offhand. With the minor exception of Justice Breyers' vote in Gratz, in each of these cases, the ONLY votes the libertarian side received were from Republican appointees, and all of the Democrat appointees, plus the more liberal Republican appointees, ALWAYS voted against the libertarian side. The latter did so even in cases in which their political preferences were either irrelevant (Term Limits), or should have led them to sympathize with the plaintiff (Lopez, Kelo, Raich).
The only exception to this pattern is Lawrence v. Texas, in which Justice Kennedy seems to have been influenced by the Cato Institute's brief. But if the liberals had been able to muster five votes without Kennedy, I'm sure the opinion would have been quite different, less libertarian and more about "tiers of scrutiny" and whatnot. I'm a law professor, teach constitutional law, and the subject is dear to my heart. I'd much rather have the side that tends to take my ideological compatriots' constitutional arguments seriously on the Court. And Raich and Kelo, respectively, suggest that the liberals on the Court not only don't take libertarian arguments seriously, they don't believe in (a) any limits in federal regulatory power, whatsoever; or in (b) property rights, even when big corporations are using the political process to screw over the little guy.
I also agree with Ilya that it's very important to have divided government right now, at least as much as a pseudo-Democrat in the White House will provide that.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:59 AMMcCain supporters are less likely to be willing to be interviewed. That means they'll be significantly overstating the vote for Obama.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AM...and mind control. A suitable scientific topic for All Hallows Eve. I wonder if this could explain the Obama cult?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:47 AMFrom Lileks:
The love of chrome-and-glass modern restaurants is probably due to one place, which I've mentioned before - the Erie Jr. in Detroit Lakes, MN. It had a counter, a high ceiling, plastic booths in vivid hues, a roof that looked like it space ships could dock in the back, and it had that space-age vibe that shimmered off so many new things when I was very young. We had a keen sense of the future then; we knew the toys we had today would be the tools of the future. You know how you put your hand out the window when you were going fast, and undulated it up and down like a dolphin, riding the oncoming wind? The future felt like that. The future was a chrome-trimmed triangular window in the front of dad's car, and it had its own knob to open it up. The future was a hamburger under a light fixture that looked like an atom. The future was going to be awesome.
I still get impatient with people who insist that it can't be. Pessimists can be such bores, and it's lazy to believe the worst. What's the line about Scaramouche: he was born with the gift of laughter and the sense that the world was mad. I don't think that's the best modus vivendi, but it beats teaching yourself the curse of scowling and the sense that it's all a grind to be endured until the tomb gapes wide, and the only respectable intellectual pose is a Menckenian disdain for those who refuse to see how shallow, small, vacuous and contemptible they are.I blame the boomers, of course. ;) If you're going to make a fetish out of the Authentic Values of Adolescence, with its withering critiques of humanity, then you're going to value the slouch and the sneer as signs of a Deep and Serious Person. The Boomers were handed a Utopian ideal - practical, technocratic, rational, with silver wheels in the sky tended over by engineers and scientists - and they abandoned it for a Dionysian version based on wrecking and remaking the world they'd inherited. Their patron saint: Holy St. Caulfield, who identified the greatest sin in the human soul: being a phoney. Better to be an authentic bastard than someone who cannot successfully convince a teenager that some ideas have an importance that transcend the ability of the individual to manifest them 24/7.
Of course they got sour; if you believe a Utopia is possible if we just retinker human behavior to eliminate greed and dress codes and football and anything else that reminds us of Dad, be it the specific one or the unseen National Dad that rules the boardrooms and bedrooms and cloakrooms of DC, then the failure of this world makes it a dystopia, the worst of all possible worlds.
Some suggest that the great disenchantment began with the assassination of JFK, and I see the point. But it's strange that it led to a loss of faith in us, given who shot the President. (Yes, I'm one of those lone-gunman wackos. I'm a freethinker! I refuse to accept concensus!) If Oswald had been a card-carrying Kluxer or a dead-ender Bircher or some sort of far-right-wing nutcase, I wonder if we would have accepted the Warren Commission and moved along. But no, he was a Communist. Well obviously there has to be more to it, then. Same with Sirhan Sirhan: his motivation will forever be a mystery, won't it?
Once you start to believe in the dark shadowy forces, you're done with the world. You're done engaging it, you're done enjoying it. There's no point. It's a sham, a shell, a shiny façade erected by the Jews / Bilderburgers / Trilateral Commission/ Council on Foreign Relations / Project for a New American Century / Masons / Knights Templar / Illuminati / Federal Reserve / Rockefeller-Royal Family Nexus / Bush Crime Syndicate / League of Grim Intent, and all you can do is post on the internet and call talk radio to argue with the hosts who think we're free people.
It's nice to see hope abroad in the land again, but I wonder who will be to blame when human nature asserts itself and the manna shipments fall behind. Someone has to be blamed, after all. It's not the task that's a fool's errand. It's the fools who refuse to believe in the task.
Hope abroad, and change. But not change I have any interest in believing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:06 AMI heard yesterday that early voters in Israel went for McCain over Obama three to one. But how do expatriate's votes overseas get translated into electors? Do they have to provide a stateside address?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:45 AMTom Smith capitulates:
Some long time readers may object that this endorsement represents a rejection of every principle I have ever stood for on this blog. This may be true. However, I would ask them to consider that standing up for principles against an enthusiastic mob is a good way to make yourself very unpopular. I'm also not sure I have ever been to a conservative or libertarian party that was not a rather sad affair, with people standing around talking about the money supply or the importance of traditional values. I mean, that gets old. I'm 51 years old and I'm tired of it. It just has to be the case that those redeemed by Obama are going to be having much better parties over the next several years, at least while the dollar holds out. This may be a case for making hay while the sun shines. Apres moi and all that.
I do admit I am a little worried about Ahmedwhatshisname getting nukes and Putin rolling into Europe, with only Obama's charisma to stop them. I had never really thought of let's all play nicely together as a foreign policy since it doesn't even work with kids. But hey, is that really my problem? He has like a zillion brilliant foreign policy advisers and I'm sure they'll figure something clever out. I can no longer afford a trip to Israel anyway and I assume pictures of it will be archived on the internet.
Yes, I have to admit a certain longing for the koolaid myself, industrial strength. Anything to get this damnable election over with.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:03 PMIt's a moral crisis:
It was once the West that taught the world how to change its skylines through fast and furious efforts. One of the first examples was the Eiffel Tower, designed by engineering genius Gustave Eiffel (who also created the Statue of Liberty's internal structure). It was the centerpiece of the Paris Exposition of 1889. Using the principles of prefabrication, the 150 to 300 workers on the site put it up in only 26 1TK2 months.
Another example is the Empire State Building, which officially opened on May 1, 1931. Masterpiece of the firm of Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, the Empire State Building was completed in only one year and 45 days, a testament to business efficiency and the determination of the dedicated workforce.We couldn't match those time frames today, despite the advances in technology, because the advances have been outstripped by an even more rapid growth in complex and idiotic planning procedures, bureaucracy, myopic trade unionism and restrictive legislation.
We have grown soft. And a Democrat juggernaut will just make it worse.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:22 PMClark Lindsey points out the inherent problem:
I've certainly always believed that NASA can get anything to fly with enough time and billions of dollars. The issue is cost-effectiveness. This vehicle, which is obsolete for the 20th century much less the 21st, is simply not going to pay off in terms of making space exploration cheaper or safer.
Ignoring its gigantic price tag for the moment, if Ares I were just one of several competing commercial rocket vehicle projects funded in a COTS type of program, I have no doubt that NASA would have been canceled it long ago just on technical grounds and missed milestones. Unfortunately, when a large project is developed internally, it becomes virtually impossible to stop, especially in a case like this where the top management is so deeply invested in it. The next administration might take another look at Ares but unfortunately the battle for Florida votes has left both candidates committed to it as a jobs program. Such is how a promising vision for space exploration finds itself hung by a boondoggle.
While I agree, I have to say that the last sentence sounds painful. And at least psychically, it is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:09 PMMcCain should be buying air time for this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:34 PM[Thursday morning bump]
What a stupid analogy Obama made today.
The McCain campaign's response should be, "No, Senator. If you shared your toys and sandwich in kindergarten, we'd call you generous and selfless. If you forced another child to share his toys, that would make you a communist."
[Update on Thursday morning]
John Hood elaborates:
...in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.
Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.
I think he does understand it. He just hopes that we don't, at least long enough to put him in power.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:22 AMAP:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
That's not news, of course--he's been doing that since the campaign began. What is news, and shocking news, is that the AP reported it. Better late than never.
[Update early afternoon]
Wow. Has something gotten into (or out of) the MSM water? CBS is criticizing The One's proposals as well.
If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he's facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.
If he can't do what he promises, what will he do?
Not that McCain is a lot better in that regard, of course. But unlike Obama, who has a consistent leftist philosophy, McCain is ideologically incoherent, so there's at least a chance that he won't screw us over.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:29 AMIowahawk breaks out the calculator on poll reliability:
So if the sample size is 400, the margin of error is 1/20 = 5%; if the sample size is 625 the margin of error is 1/25 = 4%; if the sample size is 1000, it's about 3%.Works pretty well if you're interested in hypothetical colored balls in hypothetical giant urns, or survival rates of plants in a controlled experiment, or defects in a batch of factory products. It may even work well if you're interested in blind cola taste tests. But what if the thing you are studying doesn't quite fit the balls & urns template?
- What if 40% of the balls have personally chosen to live in an urn that you legally can't stick your hand into?
- What if 50% of the balls who live in the legal urn explicitly refuse to let you select them?
- What if the balls inside the urn are constantly interacting and talking and arguing with each other, and can decide to change their color on a whim?
- What if you have to rely on the balls to report their own color, and some unknown number are probably lying to you?
- What if you've been hired to count balls by a company who has endorsed blue as their favorite color?
- What if you have outsourced the urn-ball counting to part-time temp balls, most of whom happen to be blue?
- What if the balls inside the urn are listening to you counting out there, and it affects whether they want to be counted, and/or which color they want to be?
If one or more of the above statements are true, then the formula for margin of error simplifies to
Margin of Error = Who the hell knows?
I think that the disparity among the polls is pretty good evidence of this. A lot of it, particularly the weighting is guess work, educated or otherwise. There's only one poll that matters (though with all of the chicanery going on, even that one is going to be in doubt, particularly if it's close on Tuesday). What a mess.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:24 AMThe One's infomercial last night got panned by infomercial experts. Well, they would know.
No, I had better things to do than watch. I wonder how many others felt the same way?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 AMThe Obama campaign has been lying about its donor base:
If, as Obama says, most donations are grassroots and in small amounts, the numbers do not match up. If this many people donated to his campaign he would be polling at well over 50%.
In a grassroots movement, you smell the green. He's raised $600 million, as you say, in small donations. So divide it by ten bucks apiece and there's 60 million donors. If 120 million people vote on Tuesday, and he gets 50% that equals ...60 million voters! Honestly, you cynical rightwing losers, what's so suspicious about that math?
On Fox Newswatch on Saturday, Jane Hall said that many of her (journalism) students couldn't even calculate a percent. Of course, in this case, they're not motivated to figure it out, even if they know how.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:59 AMSarah Palin is righteously demanding that the LA Times release the tape, but look at this transcript:
...she saved her hardest criticism for the newspaper that currently holds the tape, saying they was refusing to release it to aid Obama.
"It must be nice for a candidate to have major news organizations looking after his best interests like that," Palin said. "In this case, we have a newspaper willing to throw aside even the public's right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed. And if there's a Pulitzer Prize category for excelling in cow-towing, then the L.A. Times, you're winning."
I'm pretty sure that the paper has never towed a cow. And she didn't say that it did. She said that they kowtowed. But I guess neither the writer or editor (if there was one) knew what that word meant or at least how it was spelled.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:55 AMHere's another woman Democrat (a speechwriter) whose party has left her.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:37 AMJohn Stossel says that there are a lot of people who shouldn't be voting:
Economist Bryan Caplan, author of "The Myth of the Rational Voter", points out, "the public's knowledge of politics is shockingly low."
He scoffs at the idea that "it's everyone's civic duty to vote.""This is very much like saying, it's our civic duty to give surgery advice," Caplan said. "We like to think that political issues are much less complicated than brain surgery, but many of them are pretty hard. If someone doesn't know what he's talking about, it really is better if they say, look, I'm going to leave this in wiser hands."
Isn't it elitist to say only some people should vote?
"Is it elitist to say only some people should do brain surgery? If you don't know what you're doing, you are not doing the country a favor by voting."
Nope. You're only doing the demagogues a favor.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:27 AMOK, since we're apparently free to use our imagination, here's what I think happened at that party.
There are PLO and Hamas flags decorating the room, along with Che and Mao posters. Khalidi, Ayers and Obama are slapping each others' backs, raising their glasses and toasting the upcoming destruction of the racist Zionist entity, all the while laughing at the thought of the final Final Solution. Obama says, "You know, when I take over, the first thing I'll do is withdraw all aid from those fascist kikes, and I'll give the Palis a couple nukes." Then he turns to Ayers, and asks him if he's come up with any fresh schemes for mass murder of the millions of recalcitrant capitalists, so that they can be implemented in the first one hundred days. After dessert, they get out an American flag, crumple it up on the floor, and jump up and down on it, shouting "Death to Capitalism, Death to America."
No?
That's not how it went down? Well, prove me wrong, LA Times. Show the tape.
[Late morning update]
Doug Ross writes that he has gotten a tip from a person who claims to have viewed it:
Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."
It would be really controversial if it got out. Tha's why they will not even let a transcript get out.
Yes, don't want to have a little controversy disturb an upcoming coronation.
Over at Winds of Change:
Stipulate that there is a small machine that I could put into your home or workplace that with absolute accuracy - I mean 100% accuracy - would send an alarm in the specific case that a person who had the true intent to commit murder was close to it. Yes, it's Minority Report territory. But accept it as true.
Would you - as an American - be comfortable having something like that in your house?
I would need a little clarification: what is "close to it" and what does "murder" mean? Does it merely mean killing someone? Would self defense count?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:47 AMIn the furor (well, at least as much furor as could be expected, given how in the tank the mainstream media has been for Senator Obama) over his comments about the deficiencies of the Constitution (in regard for its lack of "positive rights") and the frustrating (at least to him) inability of the courts to deal with it, many have missed another snippet of that radio interview from seven years ago. In it, he also said, "There's a lot of change going on outside of the court. The judges have to essentially take judicial notice up, I mean you've got WW II, the doctrines of Nazism that we are fighting against that started looking uncomfortably similar to what's going on back here at home."
"...similar to what's going on back here at home."
What did he mean by that?
Well, most people know the characteristics of the Nazi regime (or at least imagine they do), so it's hard to imagine what he's talking about here, since he gives no specifics.
Was he referring to the fact that it was led by a charismatic man who gave speeches to mesmerized, adoring throngs in front of Teutonic war memorials?
Or is he talking about the Nazi policy of first registering, then confiscating weapons from private citizens, one of its first acts upon taking power?
Perhaps he was referring to the notion that work exhorted by the leader would set us free? That we need to have national service for all? And that the nation will be inspired by youth singing in patriotic uniforms?
Or was it demanding to see the papers of critics of the leader, and using the state apparatus to discover information that might expose him to ridicule?
No?
Well, was it the nationalistic racism? Or the plans to exterminate a large percentage of the citizenry after taking power?
OK, maybe I'm on the wrong track. Was he talking about the Nazi health care system, that so many here want to emulate? Or the need to spread the wealth around? I mean, isn't that what socialism is all about?
I just can't figure it out.
OK, maybe I'm just confused. Maybe this latest slur against Senator Obama of being a "socialist" is wrong. Maybe Senator Obama is something else.
Take away the genocide, and militaristic conquest of neighboring countries. Just what is it about Nazis that Barack Obama doesn't like?
It would certainly be nice if the Obama campaign would expand and elaborate upon his brief comments about Nazism in America a few years ago to the American people. He has another few days to do so before they have to decide who their next president will be.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 AMOn the part of Campbell Brown (which I've always thought a strange name):
Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.
One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.
He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.
Yeah, funny about that.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 PMMcCain should be firing these people after the election:
McCain aides continue to go viciously negative--on their vice presidential candidate. Mike Allen has a McCain aide calling Palin a "whack job." This is part of the problem with Palin getting assigned aides with no loyalty to her.
There is no excuse for this kind of behavior--dishing dirt on background to a hostile press--in the last week of (or any time during) a campaign.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:52 PMWhat if we don't want to "change America"? I agree that this is kind of creepy. I think that someone could make a good campaign ad out of it, juxtaposed with his zeal to spread the wealth around.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:55 PMMichigan Democrats were accidentally given a number for a campaign hotline that was actually a phone s3x line.
Seems appropriate to me. Give the Dems a call to find out how they're going to screw you.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:11 AMBarack Obama may be a better dancer than John McCain, but neither of them can hold a candle to sister Sarah rockin' out to Red Neck Woman in blue jeans. No more Niemann Marcus for her.
And Elaine Lafferty (yes, the Elaine Lafferty who used to edit Ms. Magazine) thinks that Sarah Palin is a "brainiac." Really:
...these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:35 AM
I'm a Democrat, but I've worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin's nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women's rights.Now by "smart," I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a "quick study"; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her "confidence" is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
If these micropolling results are valid, Obama's in trouble in Pennsylvania:
These were conducted Oct. 23,24,25Bucks County: O: 49 M: 43 2004 Results: K: 51 B: 48
Allegheny: O: 52 M: 42 2004 Results: K: 57 B: 42
Erie: O: 50 M: 43 2004 Results: K: 54 B: 45
York: M: 57 O: 39 2004 Results: B: 63 K: 35
Montgomery: O: 51 M: 39 2004 Results: K: 55 B: 44
John Kerry took Pennsylvania in 2004, but only by a narrow margin--51 to Bush's 49 percent. But these polls indicate that Obama isn't doing as well as Kerry did, except in York County (which seems to be going from red to blue). And between Murtha and the NRA, he's probably going to lose big in rural western Pennsylvania. Now maybe he can make it up in Philly, but Rendell might have to bring out the dead voters.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:10 AMA few days ago, I wrote that John McCain isn't the right candidate to put John McCain into the White House (i.e., he's an electable candidate, with his history and record, but he's unable to run a winning campaign). If he loses, it will be easy to blame the financial meltdown, but it was his response to it, and his incoherent inability to discuss economics sensibly, and his unwillingness to go after his colleagues in Congress, that will be the ultimate cause. I still think that it's winnable, though. And if he wins, I think that he'll have been saved by Sarah Palin.
In any event, Rich Lowry says much the same thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:42 AMDoes Barack Obama agree with Marcy Kaptur that we need a Second Bill of Rights?
U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.
Sure he does. He already said in a debate that we all have a "right" to health care. No, I don't think that I, or anyone, has a "right" to stuff that requires taking from others. This is Eurosocialism.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:03 AMThis sounds like a straw man (and one that I often hear in the gay marriage debate):
The anti-gay-marriage argument that simply makes no sense to me is the one that says allowing gay folks to marry will mess up my marriage - my heterosexual marriage. I don't follow the reasoning that gay married couples will undermine the ability of straight married couples to form and sustain marital partnerships.
Perhaps someone has made that argument somewhere, sometime, but I've never seen or heard it myself. It would be helpful if she would provide a link to support the straw man. Of course it makes no sense to her. It makes no sense at all, which is why few people make such an argument.
I think that this may be a perversion of the real argument, which is that, for those uncertain of their sexual orientation, it will weaken societal pressures to have a heterosexual lifestyle and marriage. If society is no longer heteronormative, then a little boy might grow up thinking that it's OK to marry his friend Joey, instead of Sally. Actual homosexuals are going to grow up to be gay regardless, but it's not necessarily a good idea to encourage wavering where it exists. Now, one can argue whether it's a good or bad thing to do so, but that's the argument to be discussed..
The argument isn't about existing marriages--that's nutty. It's about future ones.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 AMJust bad ones:
Obama plans to resuscitate the welfare policies of the Great Society, but by stealth. It will be the same thing-the dole-but it will be called a "tax credit," which has a more emollient sound than "relief," "public charity," "the dole."
What I find depressing about this-as, indeed, about the whole Obama juggernaut-is the extent to which it represents a return of bad ideas that have already been tried time and again, have failed and made people poorer and less stalwart, and yet seem poised to make a sorry comeback once again. I've written about the "déjà-vu-all-over-again" phenomenon before in this space. Bill Ayers? Haven't we done that? Jeremiah Wright? Haven't we done that, too? Haven't we tried Obama's "soak the rich," anti-business economic policies? Haven't we tried his "can't-we-all-just-get-along" foreign policy? Don't we know that economics is about the creation rather than the redistribution of wealth, and that low taxes and strategies that encourage productivity and investment are best calculated to make the entire society, including the less fortunate, more prosperous? Don't we know where appeasement and capitulation get us in foreign affairs? Don't we remember Jimmy Carter? Haven't we learned anything?
We'll find out on Tuesday.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 AMGateway Pundit has a 1995 video of Barack Obama blaming white executives in the suburbs for not wanting their taxes to help black children.
I'm sure he's changed his mind since, though, right?
[Late morning update]
Barack Obama's redistributionist obsession:
I suggest henceforth that every time readers hear the word "change" from Team Obama, they insert the work "redistributive" in front of it.
Indeed. He said those words in 2001. Why should we think that he's changed since? Particularly after his Freudian slip with Joe the Plumber?
[Update early afternoon]
Goody. Here's some more race transcendance: white people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Whenever I hear nutty proposals like this, I always wonder, who will decide who is and isn't "white"? Does Barack Obama get half a vote?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 AMAnd I thought that card check was already pretty bad:
Under EFCA, the terms set by the arbitrator will be the furthest thing from a "contract." It won't be an agreement between management and labor. Rather, wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment will be dictated by a government appointed arbitrator. The mandate will be binding on the parties for two years. Neither the company nor the employees can reject it (At least when the Central Committee set the wages for tractor assembly workers in the Leningradskaya oblast there was always the possibility that the wages might change later that afternoon).
Currently, if employees don't like the tentative agreement negotiated between union leaders and management the employees can vote it down and instruct their leaders to go back to the bargaining table to get a better deal. Not so under EFCA. If the employees don't like the arbitrator's decree of a 2% wage increase, they're stuck. Similarly, if the company can't afford the arbitrator's command to pyramid overtime, the company's stuck. The consequences aren't difficult to imagine.
This is a small business owner's nightmare. As is the health insurance mandate. Obama will be a disaster, economically, at least if the Democrats get enough votes to block filibusters in the Senate.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Here's more on the job-destruction potential of Obama's health-care plans, from that bastion of right wingery, the New York Times:
the penalty in Massachusetts is picayune compared with what some health experts believe Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, might impose as part of his plan to provide affordable coverage for the uninsured. Though Mr. Obama has not released details, economists believe he might require large and medium companies to contribute as much as 6 percent of their payrolls.
That, Mr. Ratner said, would be catastrophic to a low-margin business like his, which has 90 employees, 29 of them full-time workers who are offered health benefits."To all of a sudden whack 6 to 7 percent of payroll costs, forget it," he said. "If they do that, prices go up and employment goes down because nobody can absorb that."
Writ large, that is one of the significant concerns about Mr. Obama's health plan, which like this state's landmark 2006 law would subsidize coverage for the uninsured by taxing employers who do not cover their workers. And it is a primary reason that so-called play-or-pay proposals have had an unsteady history for nearly two decades.
This is 180 degrees from the direction that we need to go. Most of the problems of the current health-care system stem from its being tied so much to employment, which is an artifact of wage controls during World War II. The first critical step in fixing it is to decouple it from the job, so that plans are portable, and people are more connected with choosing their provider. McCain's plan isn't perfect, but it's a big step in the right direction, and the demagoguery of the Democrats on this issue (as on most issues) has been shameful.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:04 AM...has passed on.
Firefighters spotted Scarlett, despite burns to her eyes, ears and face, toting each kitten out of the building to safety. Once outside, Scarlett nudged each baby with her nose to make sure she found all five.
The hero cat was taken to the North Shore Animal League with her offspring - and their story soon attracted attention from around the globe.
It's instinct, but it's not just instinct, because there are some mothers who don't make the mark. All species can transcend, to limited degrees. But there are variations within.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 PMGreg Mankiw compares the Obama and McCain plans. Neither of them are great, but one is much better than the other.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:23 PMTigerhawk notes that the federal government would flunk Sarbanes-Oxley.
Part of the Contract With America that the 1994 Republicans ran on (and won with) was that any law that was applied to Americans should also apply to Congress. My dim recollection was that this passed, but I can't find any evidence of it on line. So did it, or didn't it? If it did, shouldn't the financial crisis apply? If not, why not, and why shouldn't it be part of John McCain's new contract with America?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:12 PM...by John McCain on Meet The Press this morning, though he didn't press it home--he only mentioned the name in passing, and didn't point out the connection, apparently assuming that most viewers would get it.
Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist (I'm not sure about the Senate, but as a member of the House he ran as one, but caucused with the Democrats). McCain pointed out that the number one, two and three senators listed as the most liberal are Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. How far are his votes or views from Barack Obama and Joe Biden?
A suggested McCain campaign ad: "Barack Obama, despite his statement to Joe the Plumber that the wealth should be "spread around," complains when he is therefore called a socialist. But his brief Senate voting record is to the left of that of Bernie Sanders, who proudly calls himself a socialist. So what does that make Barack Obama?"
He did something else that was good. He pointed out that Michigan is a poster child for the kinds of policies that will result from an Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime. High taxes, more power to unions, big-spending Dems in charge, and the state has (in many cases literally) gone south.
Put together an ad describing Michigan's straits and the causes, and point out that this is what the OPR regime has planned for the entire country. It would even help him in Michigan.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:32 PMWell, here's the latest in the Perils of Ares I--it might sideswipe the gantry as it launches:
The issue is known as "liftoff drift." Ignition of the rocket's solid-fuel motor makes it "jump" sideways on the pad, and a southeast breeze stronger than 12.7 mph would be enough to push the 309-foot-tall ship into its launch tower.
Worst case, the impact would destroy the rocket. But even if that doesn't happen, flames from the rocket would scorch the tower, leading to huge repair costs."We were told by a person directly involved [in looking at the problem] that as they incorporate more variables into the liftoff-drift-curve model, the worse the curve becomes," said one NASA contractor, who asked not to be named because he wasn't authorized to discuss Ares.
"I get the impression that things are quickly going from bad to worse to unrecoverable."
But all is not lost:
NASA says it can solve -- or limit -- the problem by repositioning and redesigning the launchpad.
Sure. No problem. Just reposition and redesign the launch pad. Simple, safe, soon.
NASA officials are now looking at ways to speed up the development of Ares and are reluctant to discuss specific problems. But they insist none is insurmountable.
Of course they do.
"There are always issues that crop up when you are developing a new rocket and many opinions about how to deal with them," said Jeff Hanley, manager of the Constellation program, which includes Ares, the first new U.S. rocket in 35 years."We have a lot of data and understanding of what it's going to take to build this."
Yes, they have so much data and understanding that they don't find out about this until after their fake Preliminary Design Review. And (just a guess), I'm betting that if I look at the original budget and development schedule, "repositioning and redesigning the launch pad" isn't even in or on it.
Look, obviously, if you pick a lousy design, you can eventually make it fly, given enough time and money. But in the process, it may end up bearing little resemblance to the original concept, and if it's neither simple (which it won't be with all of the kludges that they'll have to put on it to make up for its deficiencies), safe (no one really knows what the probability of loss of crew is, since they still haven't finally even nailed down the launch abort system design) or soon, then the nation has been sold a pig in a poke. And there's no budget line item for the lipstick either, though NASA has been attempting to tart it up as best they can.
As Einstein once said, a clever man solves a problem--a wise man avoids it. Since Mike Griffin came in, NASA has been too clever by half. Given the budget environment we'll have next year, it's hard to see how this unsustainable schedule and budgetary atrocity survives in anything resembling its current form.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:57 AMWhy should we believe CNN?
They, and much of the media, have done much to earn our distrust.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AMBill Whittle wonders. So do I. You'd think that the media might spare a couple reporters from the Wasilla Library beat to ask him. At least you'd like to think.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:42 AMSomeone needs to run some ads about the Obama's Khalidi connection in south Florida. Obama was a lot older than eight when Khalidi was expressing support of Hamas. I don't think that the Jews down here understand just what a disaster Obama may be for Israel. Worse than Jimmy Carter.
[Early afternoon update]
Stanley Kurtz has more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AMIce cream tastes better licked than spooned. Dr. Kass will be appalled to hear about scientific discrediting of his "yuckometer."
(And yes, before you bother to comment, I know that his point wasn't that licked ice cream doesn't taste good.)
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:31 PMIf John McCain were doing this, the press would be crying bloody murder:
He may now be running the biggest underground finance operation since Nixon deployed the plumbers as his key operatives in 1972.
And there seem to be a lot of parallels with the voter registration fraud being perped by ACORN. I don't think that's a coincidence.
And of course, if McCain ends up losing this because he didn't have enough money, it will be justice, because it was his idiotic assault on the First Amendment that got us here.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:27 PMA vanity poster over at Free Republic makes a good point:
Last year I let a family member move in with me. I'll call her my niece. My niece was down on her luck and needed a place to stay while she got on her feet.
As it turns out, she was actually down with drugs and needed a place to lie on the couch while she got on the phone. But anyway. I came home one day and was looking for my iron, so I could iron clothes to wear to work.("Work is that place you go to," I explained to her, "and they pay you to do things for them. Yes, like that time you took the baggie to some guy named Raoul in the parking lot of the grocery store nearby. Rather like that, only more regular, and legal.")
Anyway, my niece said, "Oh, I loaned the iron to my friend Rachel."
I puzzled over this for a bit. She loaned my iron to some girl I barely knew? She loaned my iron to some girl she barely knew?! Would I loan any of her items to a friend of mine? Let me think. No. I wouldn't.
So why would she?
The clue lies in the wording. "I loaned the iron..." THE iron. Not YOUR iron, Auntie Beth, THE iron. The local iron. The iron that existed here before I came and is therefore part of the landscape. Like the sun, the trees, and the street. Belonging to nobody, or everybody.
So let's really parse what Barack Obama says to plumbers and other people who've done something with their lives besides lecture like a lawyer turned college professor turned professional pied piper: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
I think the most important word in that sentence really is "the." THE wealth. Not your wealth, says Obama, because it's not yours. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't intend to spread HIS too thin. I have a feeling his daughters will be taken care of before anyone else's kids.
Snide comments aside, Obama said THE wealth because that's how he thinks of it. Community property. Belonging to everyone. Just THERE, like sunlight, a fact of life that we determine how to utilize.
To Obama, it's not something that belongs to anyone. Not something you created, earned, or own. Just something that you somehow managed to get hold of, maybe by picking it off a tree, and now you need to share what came from that tree.
And don't worry. That tree will always bear fruit. It always has, right? Well no, it hasn't, but only the gardener who planted it realizes that. The lawyer who comes along representing the neighbors who've been eying that fruit tree doesn't know, or care, how it got there. It's there now, isn't it?
And it isn't your tree anymore. It's THE tree.
Yup. Some want to spread THE wealth, and others want to create it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:15 AMWhy can't John McCain make a speech like this?
Obama and the Democrats believe that Americans in a time of crisis will be willing to sacrifice their freedoms, abandon their founding principles and common sense and ease into the mediocrity of the warm embrace of the Washington papa bear who will take care of all of our problems for us.
These are not the ideals of the America that drew brave men and women from all over the world to our shores. In most cases, they were fleeing nations with the heavy hand of government, intolerance and class warfare. They risked everything to experience our Founding Fathers' notion of a limited government with powers that were delineated, checked and balanced, in a land where they could live and prosper in a free, dynamic, upwardly mobile society - the kind that existed no where else in the world. But Obama and his liberal friends don't see things that way.The liberal agenda is based upon the belief that there are elites among us who know more and know better than the rest of us. And that with the application of their intellect and power ... and our money ... they can impose regulations and establish programs, bureaus and agencies that will solve all the problems of the masses'.
Senator Obama and his supporters essentially see society not as dynamic and changing or full of opportunity. They see one that is divided by economic classes into which every one of us is permanently assigned. In their worldview, those in a lesser economic class are presumably resentful and envious. So it's the government's job to level things out ... or as Senator Obama would say "spread the wealth around." It's about dividing the pie among static classes, not trying to make the pie bigger for everyone or creating opportunity in an upwardly mobile society.
This is the reason why they do not understand Joe the Plumber. Because he doesn't have a higher income today they assume that he never will and that he believes he never will. They expect him to resent anyone whose doing better than he is, instead of planning to do better himself. They don't understand the Joes of the world. Never have. Never will.
There's more. And here's the video.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:37 AMOver at Samizdata, Jonathan Pearce wonders if freedom seekers will be heading the other way after the election:
Occasionally, whenever one of us Samizdata scribes writes about events in the UK, such as loss of civil liberties, or the latest financial disasters perpetrated by the government, or crime, or whatnot, there is sometimes a comment from an expatriate writer, or US citizen in particular, suggesting that we moaners should pack our bags, cancel the mail and come on over to America. Like Brian Micklethwait of this parish, I occasionally find such comments a bit annoying; it is not as if the situation in Jefferson's Republic is particularly great just now, although a lot depends on where you live (Texas is very different from say, Vermont or for that matter, Colorado).
But considering what might happen if Obama wins the White House and the Dems increase or retain their hold on Congress, I also wonder whether we might encounter the example of enterprising Americans coming to Britain, not the other way round. The dollar is rising against the pound, so any assets that are transferred from the US to Britain go further. Taxes are likely to rise quite a bit if The One gets in, although they are likely to rise in the UK too to pay for the enormous increase in public debt, even if the Tories win the next election in 2010.
For a number of reasons stated over there, it seems unlikely, but this comment stood out:
I think the general message here should be that the whole western world is on the same trajectory, and shopping around for liberty is going to be ultimately futile. In a sense, we all need to be "liberty patriots" and do our best in our own countries to reverse the rot, because wherever you flee to, it's happening there too, if at a different pace or in in slightly different ways. The anti-liberty movement is operating in every nation, and trans and supra-nationally, and everywhere it is winning. There is nowhere to run.
Well, as I've long noted on this blog, that's what space programs are for.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 AMWell, I guess now we know what Senator Obama meant when he told his followers to "get in people's faces":
Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said.
And they accuse McCain and Palin of inciting violence.
Well, it could have been worse (and it may become so if he's elected, and in control of the Justice Department). She should consider herself lucky.
[Update on Friday afternoon]
It turns out to have been a hoax. What a stupid woman. Normally it's leftists who stage things like this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:24 PMWhy wouldn't the Obama campaign prevent them?
John Galt of Ayn Rand Lane (zip code: a nonexistent 99999) was able to donate with no problem.
Despite the fact that the card holder's name and address do not match the name he provided.John McCain's website? Rejected the same non-matching-information donation.
I guess when you're gathering up tens of millions from the Saudis and Gazans you have to be a little lenient on matching up credit card donations.
Incidentally-- when I f***ing order cheesesteaks from my local deli, I get dinged when I forget my current zip code and give them my old one.
Again, though: If Obama were demanding that credit card information matched donor information, he couldn't draw in $150 million largely from fraudulent overseas donors.
Oh, such suspicious minds.
Why isn't this as big a story as the Palin family wardrobe?
More at Powerline.
[Update a few minutes later]
Mark Steyn has further thoughts:
I was interested in the subject because I also have an online credit-card operation over at my website (obviously a little smaller than Senator Obama's), and so I looked into what our CC processing requires. In order to accept financial donations from "John Galt" and "Saddam Hussein", whoever runs the Obama website would have to modify the default security checks required by their merchant processor.Now sometimes you do have to do a bit of modifying. My website has a lot of customers from overseas, and the default security settings can sometimes be a bit too eager to reject credit cards from countries where the "state or province" box is non-applicable or the postal code is in a non-American format. In other words, the default settings on a US online processing operation (with their bias toward US address formats) should be just what a legitimate US political campaign (anxious not to accept illegal foreign donations) is looking for. Instead, the Obama site appear to have intentionally disabled not only all the address checks (thereby facilitating overseas contributions) but the most basic criterion of all: the card name match (thereby enabling entirely fake contributions).
Yes. This doesn't happen by accident.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:05 AMThat's what a bachelors degree has become.
I'd like to see those statistics broken down by major, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 AMI don't think so. In any event, this one is still roaring, and connecting the Obama dots in a way that the press refuses to do.
[Update an hour or so later]
The proof continues to pile up that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party in the 1990s. Why should we think that his socialist views have changed?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AMFrom Lisa Schiffren:
...a few days before Labor Day, lightening hit. The governor of Alaska turned into a vice-presidential candidate, who had to show up in front of the nation for the next 60 days, several times a day, always looking camera-ready, and impeccably turned out. She also had to project that new, somewhat amorphous thing: female power. We, as a nation, have not yet been led by a woman, and we aren't sure what it looks like. It will, of course, vary from woman to woman, depending on her personal needs and style, but not so much. Can't be too sexy, too severe, or too casual. For sure it requires perfectly fitted, constructed jackets, with a serious shoulder line, in good quality fabrics. Nowhere are those cheap. Palin had to look at least as good as the women we see on TV all the time. You may not realize it, but you don't see Katie Couric or Diane Sawyer or any of the on-camera female talent at the networks, CNN or Fox in off-the-rack stuff from Macy's. It is all upscale designer stuff, and at the low end it costs a couple of thousand per outfit. Always. Hair and make-up is done, professionally, any time you see them, at the cost of much time and money. That is the visual standard women at the upper end of politics must meet. Condoleezza Rice, who needed to project power, figured it out. Others have not. If Palin hadn't bothered with any of it, we would have heard about that too.
Had she been a creature of Washington, Palin would have had closet full of suits, unexciting, perhaps, but appropriate. Had she been a former First Lady running for president, whose husband has raked in $109 million in the last 8 years, she could have called Oscar de la Renta, and and had him come for a fitting. He did well with Hillary's jewel-toned pantsuits, (at a few grand a pop?). She might already have collected some of those great Gurhan necklaces, which accentuated Hillary's suits all election season. (Look up for yourself what they cost.) Were she Speaker of the House, and the wealthiest Democratic lawmaker, she could have called Georgio Armani himself -- and worn the Pelosi pearls that cost more than the Palin's house.
I think that this is a stupid and trivial issue. Can you imagine what the press would have made of her had she made campaign appearances in jeans and parkas?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:51 PMFrom Dr. Helen.
I've never been one, but not because I didn't want to be (at least when I wasn't in a relationship). I am, after all, a guy. But other (attractive) women have always governed my urge for promiscuity. It might be because I was never the "bad boy."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 PM...who won't be voting for Barack Obama. One of the big questions of this campaign is how many others there are out there like her:
Obama is a brand just like any other brand. Obama the Brand has a logo, a tag line, and a song. But Obama the man is not the same as Obama the Brand. Obama the Brand talks about new style politics, while Obama the man used Chicago style politics in every election. Obama the brand is for women's rights while Obama the man pays the women in his office 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. And Joe Biden pays women 73 cents on the dollar. Obama the brand is pro-Israel, Obama the man is not. Obama the brand touts leadership while Obama the man voted present 130 times in the US Senate. Obama the Brand claims change, while Obama the man picks a Washington Insider as his running mate. Obama the Brand is a post-racial candidate while Obama the man plays the race card at every turn, listens for 20 years to the racial teachings of Rev. Wright, and makes contributions exclusively to Trinity United Church of Christ, the NAACP and Care Africa. Obama the man and Obama the brand are not one in the same.
Too bad more Democrat women can't see through him like this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:55 PMHere's a brief piece on Christopher Hitchens' ignorance about Sarah Palin. Now, I've long admired Hitchens as a writer, and for his integrity in standing up against the Clinton gang in the nineties, but he does seem to have gone off the rails lately, with his jihad against religion (not that it's new, but it seems to have expanded beyond his Mother Theresa bashing). But I found this comment over there interesting:
Everyone has a crazy section in their brain. Andrew Sullivan was all for Bush until Bush came out against Gay Marriage. Andrew will never be happy until he and his partner can be married by the Pope himself. In his case, the craziness has spread throughout his thinking, so he doesn't make sense anymore, although he still retains an ability to write well.
As to Hitchens, another word-centred person, his craziness is centred on religiosity, and specifically, Christian religiosity. He has written a book on atheism and on Mother Theresa. In fact, I would say he is lunatic when it comes to this topic. Sarah Palin is a declared Christian, therefore Hitchens sees her only as a cardboard cutout of 'snake-handling primitive in the woods'. He could read Byron York's column on what Sarah Palin has actually done as Alaska's governor, and why she enjoys 80% approval, but Hitchens, cowering in his corner of craziness will not pay any attention.I notice that that Maher fella, the TV comedian also hates (really: HATES) Palin and all conservatives, even the Methodist George Bush. His craziness centres around the necessity of sexual liberation is his life and that of all the elite's life.
I wonder if it's true that everyone has a "crazy section in their brain"? And if so, where mine is?
I'm confident that my commenters will inform me shortly.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:40 PMWatching those video clips of the ACORN organizers giving speeches for Obama, one of them talks and acts like her IQ is about refrigerator temperature. And then there are those weird outfits, including the hats. It's kind of frightening that these people vote at all, let alone register voters.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:15 AM...on Sarah Palin:
I think Palin will continue to be underestimated for a while. I watched the way she connected with people, and she's powerful. Her politics aren't my politics. But you can see that she's a very powerful, very disciplined, incredibly gracious woman. This was her first time out and she's had a huge impact. People connect to her.
There's also this, on how monolingual so-called liberals are:
...something dawned on me today, and Palin crystallized it. You see, I "get" Palin. And I "get" why my liberal friends don't "get" Palin. But my liberal friends just don't "get" why I "get" Palin -- and they never will....John Podhoretz...once said, "All conservatives are bilingual -- we have to be. We speak both liberal and conservative. But liberals are monolingual -- they don't have to be anything else. They speak liberal, and are completely ignorant of the conservative tongue."
I'm not a conservative, but I'm bilingual as well. But I sure get a lot of monolingual commenters at this blog.
Mike Griffin says that criticism of NASA hurts its morale:
Griffin said critics in the media and on anonymous Internet blogs can "chip away" at the agency by questioning the motives and ethics of engineers designing the new rockets.
Briefing charts used by NASA managers sometimes show up on Web sites without the proper context, he said, and opponents of the agency's plans to replace the space shuttle with two new rockets have wrongly accused NASA managers of incompetence and worse.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think that I've ever questioned anyone's motives or ethics. I do question their engineering and political judgment, and fortunately (for now) we live in a country in which I am free to do so. Clark Lindsey has more thoughts:
...just thinking about the Ares monstrosities hurts MY morale...I can't think of anything more depressing than seeing a one chance in a generation opportunity to build a practical space transportation infrastructure squandered on a repeat of Apollo that consists of nothing but hyper-expensive throwaway systems.
Ditto. It's a tragedy.
[Update a few minutes later]
There's more over at NASAWatch:
"...it is incumbent upon us to be able to explain how a decision was reached, why a particular technical approach was chosen, or why a contract was awarded to one bidder instead of another."
It is indeed. You've never really done that with the Ares/ESAS decisions. You just send Steve Cook out to say "we've done the trade study--trust us."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:35 AMD. J. Drummond explains.
Obviously they have to be, since they're all over the map. At most, only one of them can be right. Of course, knowing they're wrong doesn't tell us what's right.
[Mid-morning update]
Michael Barone has further thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:10 AMIowahawk says that Barack Obama is totally ready for his foreign-policy challenge:
"Mark my words," Biden promised at the Seattle fundraiser Sunday. "There will be an international crisis. The world will be looking. They'll say, hey, here is this handsome, clean, ar-ti-cu-late young president, not unlike a very, very tanned John Fitzgerald Kennedy, dancing at his inaugural ball with his beautiful wife who is not unlike a very very very extremely tanned Jackie. And our enemies will think, 'ba ha ha, look at how thees seely new Amerikanski preseedent dances so! Such skeels can only be from many years in zee dancing school, where theys do not teaching the toughness! Launch zee meesiles!' But these enemies are in for a big surprise. America's foes must never confuse Barack Obama's terrific dance floor moves with weakness -- because as an Afro-American African, Barack is a natural dancer."
..."Ching chow pow!" added Biden, demonstrating his point with several pantomime karate chops. He also issued a pointed warning to the government of Spain."Let me be blunt: if you think we will sit idly by while you land your mighty galleons at Boca Raton, and unleash your gleaming-helmeted conqustadores to enslave and convert our whiny retired Jewish-Florida-Americans - well, think again, Cortes. Hey mang, say helloo to my leetle fren'!" said Biden, spraying the room with pantomime machine gun fire.
As a current resident of Rat Mouth of Jewish ancestry, I'll be ever confident with him holding the nucular football.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:56 PM...but bad news for those determined to use it as an excuse to impoverish ourselves.
Oh. Sorry. I meant "climate change."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:36 PM...that isn't a code word for "black"? Yes, that's right, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was just chock full of black folks.
This is a piece by a stupid, stupid man.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:56 PM...at all the morons who proclaimed what a great pick Joe Biden was for Barack Obama (particularly moron-in-chief Chuck Hagel). Here, here and here are my own thoughts at the time.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Confusing glibness with intelligence:
The meme that has arisen that Sarah Palin isn't smart enough to be Vice-President (and potentially President) strikes me as quite implausible. Focusing on the big picture: she has been an extraordinarily successful governor with substantial policy accomplishments in a short time, she has an 85% approval rating, and she knocked off an incumbent and former governor to be elected. And, as I've previously discussed, based on my experience working with and in government, being governor of a state is an extremely difficult job, much more difficult than being a Senator (for instance). Sure there are some things that people are picking at, such as the trooper story or what really happened with the Bridge to Nowhere--but none of those things raise any doubt about her intellect or ability. With respect to the issues to which she has set herself to mastering and implementing, and the most important issues for Alaska, by all accounts she has an extremely strong understanding and mastery of the issues. It is simply not plausible to believe that she is dumb any more than it was credible that Ronald Reagan was dumb back when the establishment said the same thing about him.
Put another way, to believe the view that Sarah Palin is unintelligent you would have to have an awfully low opinion of the voters of Alaska and the overwhelming majority of Alaskans who approve of her job as governor. It seems much more plausible to me that when you are dealing with someone who has an impressive record of accomplishment as governor, won a couple of very tough elections, and has hugely high approval ratings, there should be a strong presumption that the person is capable and intelligent. And it is very difficult to hide if you are an incompetent governor (unlike being in the Senate, for instance). Alternatively, you would have to believe that she is simultaneously dumb yet so smart that she can fool the voters of Alaska into not realizing how dumb she is. There are probably some people out there who do believe that Alaskans are that dumb, but that's not who I'm thinking of. And when it comes to the issues that Palin has dedicated herself to mastering and acting on, such as energy policy, there seems to be little doubt that she understands quite well what she is doing.
Emphasis mine.
Over at Hot Air.
The reason to vote for John McCain? He's not Barack Obama. It's sufficient for me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:32 AMKathy Shaidle has put one together.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:57 AMThe Obama campaign (and its press enablers--I was particularly disappointed to hear Kristen Powers do this Saturday night) treats us like morons by continually repeating the "I was eight years old" mantra. Well Victor Davis Hanson has a question:
...why would anyone in a post-9/11 climate continue to communicate with such a loathsome character for four years, when it was common knowledge that Ayers had approved (no, was proud) of his past terrorist tactics of bombing buildings?
Someone should ask him at a press conference. They should also ask him if he's going to pardon Tony Rezko.
Oh, wait. He doesn't do press conferences any more. That's Sarah Palin's thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:36 AMA warning from Paul Rubin:
Until now, this election has been fought on the margins, over marginal issues. But it is important to understand how much a presidential candidate wants to move the needle on taxes, trade and other issues. Usually there isn't a chance for wholesale change. Now, however, it appears that this election will make more than a marginal difference. It might fundamentally change America.
Unlike FDR, Mr. Obama will not have to create the mechanisms government uses to interfere with the economy before imposing his policies. FDR had to get the Supreme Court to overturn a century's worth of precedents limiting the power of government before he could use the Constitution's commerce clause, among other things, to increase government control of the economy. Mr. Obama will have no such problem.FDR also had to create agencies to implement regulations. Today, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Board (both created in the 1930s) as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and others created later are in place. Increasing their power will be easier than creating them from scratch.
Even before the current crisis, there was a great demand for increased government regulation to limit global warming. That gives the next president a ready-made box in which to place more regulation, and a legion of supports eager for it.
But if the coming wave of new regulation from an Obama administration is harmful to the economy, Mr. Obama will take a page from FDR's playbook. He'll blame Republicans for having caused the market crash in the first place, and so escape blame for the consequences of his policies. It worked for FDR and, so far in this campaign, blaming Republicans and George W. Bush has worked for Mr. Obama.
I hope we don't have to end the next government-caused depression the way we ended the last one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:29 AMJonah Goldberg has a roundup of links criticizing Jacob Weisberg's brainless piece about the death of libertarianism.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:01 AMAttempted page turner Mark Foley backs Barack.
As already noted, this isn't going to affect my thinking at all, but it's mightily strange. Was this guy ever really a conservative?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:56 AMEzra Levant could use some financial support in his new battle with the Canadian Human Wrongs Commission:
...here's where Dagenais becomes a symbol of everything that's wrong with the CHRC and its censorship fetish: she blacked out portions of my defence before passing it on to the commissioners. Seriously -- she censored what I wrote in my own defence, before she passed it along to the people who will sit in judgment of me. She's only allowing me to say things in my defence that she approves in advance. Look at the version of my letter she's passing on: several of my arguments are blacked out.
It's too bad that Harper couldn't get a clear majority. I hope that nonetheless he'll be more confident in doing something about this ongoing travesty of justice. But I fear that with an Obama/Reid/Pelosi administration, this assault on freedom of expression will migrate south. Certainly the behavior of the Obama campaign has done nothing to assuage my fears.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:59 AMStanley Kurtz has been looking more deeply into Barack Obama's politics and political alliances:
While a small group of bloggers have productively explored Obama's New Party ties, discussion has often turned on the New Party's alleged socialism. Was the New Party actually established by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)? Was the New Party's platform effectively socialist in content? Although these debates are both interesting and important, we needn't resolve them to conclude that the New Party was far to the left of the American mainstream. Whether formally socialist or not, the New Party and its ACORN backers favored policies of economic redistribution. As Obama would say, they wanted to spread the wealth around. Bracketing the socialism question and simply taking the New Party on its own terms is sufficient to raise serious questions about Obama's political commitments -- questions that cry out for attention from a responsible press.
Yes. Well, as (Democrat) Orson Scott Card points out, we haven't had a responsible press in quite a while.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 AM...in Saint Barack.
People, wake up.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:01 PMI'm getting a little tired of things like this.
Let me state, to attempt to prevent any future comments in this vein, that (apparently) unlike many people, there is no one whose opinion I have sufficient respect for who could convince me that Barack Obama would be a better president than John McCain (not to imply, of course, that I think that John McCain will be a great president). Only those who have no time to evaluate the candidates and the issues rely on endorsements, from anyone, and to do so is a short cut and an intrinsic logical fallacy.
I have abundant information on both candidates at this point, and while (in theory) I could be persuaded to change my mind, this seems unlikely. What I will not be persuaded by is an endorsement by anyone, absent new facts. All that I will be convinced of is that the endorser is either an idiot, ignorant, or on the take (e.g., Colin Powell). I would like to think that this is the case with (at least the intelligent) readers of this blog as well. And (I would like to think that this would go without saying, but apparently it doesn't, because it keeps happening) I will have a similar opinion of the commenter who informs me of the endorser.
I hope I have made myself clear about this, because I have no more to say on the subject.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:43 PMSo, is Obama as inevitable as Hillary! was?
Just a cautionary note for those who don't think the obituaries in the press on the McCain campaign premature.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:55 AMThe real reason for the GM/Chrysler merger? Not because it makes business sense (it doesn't) but because it will make them "too big to fail." So they set themselves up for failure with the merger, then the taxpayer gets to pick up the tab, and they remain uncompetitive.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:44 AMJoe Biden helpfully explains why we shouldn't vote for Barack Obama.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:03 AMTreacher (who has been on fire lately--scroll around the site), in response to the "argument" that the Annenberg Challenge was funded by Republicans:
"Well, how about that. Did you know the planes used on 9/11 weren't built by terrorists?"
Yup.
[Update a while later]
If the Obama campaign think that the Senator's relationship with Bill Ayers is no big deal, why are they trying to hide the evidence?
[Update at 11:30 AM EDT]
Fact checking factcheck.org (which it's becoming increasingly obvious is badly misnamed). And this seems part of a pattern:
The press seems more interested in attacking Rep. Bachman than in doing its job by asking Obama the many legitimate questions that flow out of his past dealings with Bill Ayers.
Can't disrupt the narrative, particularly two weeks before an election.
This is one of the many reasons that I disapprove of George Bush. Not to say, of course, that I expect either of the "change" candidates on offer to change it.
During one secondary inspection, at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, I was wearing under my shirt a spectacular, only-in-America device called a "Beerbelly," a neoprene sling that holds a polyurethane bladder and drinking tube. The Beerbelly, designed originally to sneak alcohol--up to 80 ounces--into football games, can quite obviously be used to sneak up to 80 ounces of liquid through airport security. (The company that manufactures the Beerbelly also makes something called a "Winerack," a bra that holds up to 25 ounces of booze and is recommended, according to the company's Web site, for PTA meetings.) My Beerbelly, which fit comfortably over my beer belly, contained two cans' worth of Bud Light at the time of the inspection. It went undetected. The eight-ounce bottle of water in my carry-on bag, however, was seized by the federal government.
On another occasion, at LaGuardia, in New York, the transportation-security officer in charge of my secondary screening emptied my carry-on bag of nearly everything it contained, including a yellow, three-foot-by-four-foot Hezbollah flag, purchased at a Hezbollah gift shop in south Lebanon. The flag features, as its charming main image, an upraised fist clutching an AK-47 automatic rifle. Atop the rifle is a line of Arabic writing that reads Then surely the party of God are they who will be triumphant. The officer took the flag and spread it out on the inspection table. She finished her inspection, gave me back my flag, and told me I could go. I said, "That's a Hezbollah flag." She said, "Uh-huh." Not "Uh-huh, I've been trained to recognize the symbols of anti-American terror groups, but after careful inspection of your physical person, your behavior, and your last name, I've come to the conclusion that you are not a Bekaa Valley-trained threat to the United States commercial aviation system," but "Uh-huh, I'm going on break, why are you talking to me?"
Sigh...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:21 AMThere was a total lack of accountability at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. And as is point out, this makes Powell's endrsement of Obama particularly clueless:
The mistake in bringing up Ayers was not in doing so per se, but in focusing on his sixties activities, and not paying more attention to their partnership in attempting to radicalize Chicago schoolchildren in the 90s. Not to mention the ongoing dissembling and (yes) lying by Obama about the relationship.
And of course, the biggest mistake with all of this "negative" (i.e., truthful) focus on Obama was not doing it last summer, because now it does have the appearance of desperation.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:00 AMLileks has the thankless job of once again deconstructing his fellow ten-thousand-lakes scribe:
It's the usual Keillor twaddle - a humorless, scattershot ramble of run-on sentences and unsourced assertions, and I didn't see anything that set it apart from the dozens of sour broadsides that preceded it. He doesn't like Sarah Palin, although if she was on the Obama ticket he would have found a few nice words before falling silent on the matter, just as the wisdom and august judgment of Biden seems to hover beneath his radar. He is also angry about Republican economics, because, as he stated in a previous column, they deregulated everything and caused the whole mess. In his imagination, sixteen GOP Senators dressed like the fellow from the Monopoly game took a break from playing polo - with slaves dressed up as horses, of course, ha ha, capital idea, Smidley - and somehow did something which was totally unrelated to the sub-prime mortgage issue. I suspect he believes that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd woke nightly from sheet-soaking nightmares in which the loan standards were loosened just a bit too much, and every time they went to the office intent on fixing this mess, gol dang it, John McCain dragged them into a coatroom and administered ether. Amazingly strong fellow.
It doesn't matter what Clinton signed; it doesn't matter that Bush and McCain tried to raise alarms; there's not an jot of responsibility on Keillor's side, because if anything goes wrong it can be traced to the one simple fact that shapes his world: the other side is composed of despicable, cowardly, dishonest, cynical bastards still upset that Jolson's reputation is sullied by his use of blackface. On his side: angels. The man makes a Manichean look like an agnostic Unitarian.You have to ask yourself how the media would cover a long-standing association between John McCain and a fellow who, in the hurly-burly-mixed-up-folderol of the Civil Rights Era, went a little too far and burned some Black churches, or led a group devoted to blowing up abortion clinics. Mind you, he was never convicted - technicalities, which was ironic, because Conservatives hate those - but he went on to serve on school boards and charity foundations that advocated for States' Rights, an issue dear to conservative hearts. Imagine the deets are the same - cozy fundraisers, serving on the same boards, McCain's name on Bomber Bob's memoir. Add to that some other parallels - say, McCain attended a church that praised a fellow who believed black people were descended from the devil, and believed Jesus was an Aryan.
John McCain wouldn't be the nominee, and if by some chance that happened, this association would be draped around his neck every day.
You may disagree with this, but I don't think I've attempted any deceit here. Deceit would entail lying about what Ayers did, and insisting they had a connection when there was none. You could say it's almost deceitful to say there's nothing there whatsoever, but that's up for debate. But you can imagine Keillor writing 14 pre-election columns that never mentioned the McCain friend who tried to blow up a Planned Parenthood clinic. I think it would matter, and it wouldn't be "desperation" to point it out.
Of course, Keillor's been full of this nonsense for years. What's really appalling is that the so-called "objective" media have given up the pretense this year.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:14 AMAn interesting anecdote about leftist hissing.
These people would be an interest case study in mass psychosis if they weren't about to potentially come into power. As it is, it's a little frightening.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:24 PM71 BC*
ROME (Routers) Diligent investigative reporters were shocked to learn today that many, indeed most of the captured slaves in yesterday's battle in Lucania who proclaimed "I am Spartacus" were actually misleading military authorities, and not the famous rebel leader at all.
One of the investigators, Probius Ani, lead chiseler at the Tempora Romae, shared the details. "We looked into their backgrounds, and while they were all slaves at one time or another, few of them had formal gladiator training, nor did they universally use the Thracian style of combat for which he was well known."
After the defeat, when authorities demanded to know which of the defeated was the leader, at first one of them jumped up and declared himself Spartacus**. But the situation quickly grew confused as another, and then another, and then dozens and hundreds of the defeated curs shouted out the same claim. Legitimate demands of proof of identity, gladiators' licenses, and tax and divorce records from them were met with a sullen resistance, making it impossible to tell which to properly punish.
"These slaves have no credibility," noted a proconsul on the scene. "Why should we grant any respect to a campaign based on false pretenses? Why should we not just spread their wealth around, and crucify them all?"
Given their duplicity against the news media and other legitimate authorities, it is increasingly difficult to argue otherwise.
[Hat tip to Mark Hemingway]
*Yes, before you comment to correct me, I know they didn't really have datelines dated BC)
**Yes, before you comment to correct me, I know it was only a movie.
A non-humorous post from Iowahawk: "I am Joe."
There are two Americas: one that is Joe, and one that thinks that Joe should have to show his papers to question the Dear Leader.
[Afternoon update]
"I am Joe. Flush Socialism."
I can see this really taking off.
[Update a while later]
Mark Steyn says that Joe must be punished because he didn't go with the flow.
And McCain used the S-word in his radio address this morning. Why not? When you take money from high earners, and hand it over to low earners, and say that you're doing it to "spread the wealth," in what way does that differ from "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability"?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 AMScott Ott comes out for Barack Obama. I completely concur.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AMOf course there's no relationship between Barack Obama and ACORN.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:45 AMTreacher nails it:
The whole "He's not a licensed plumber!" non sequitur is really fantastic. So, if you happen to be standing in front of Obama when he publicly reveals his socialism, what does the media do? Demands to see your papers. That's just delicious, is what that is.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 AMThis is something that I've rarely done, and I'll put it up for a vote.
How many readers think that I should let Jim Harris continue to comment here? Because I've had my fill of his continuing attacks on me, and my integrity, on my own blog.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 PMAce has had enough, and thinks that it's time to start.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:33 PMIn a comment over at Free Republic: "Joe The Plumber is the only undocumented worker in America that the Democrats dislike."
Of course, you could say the same thing about John McCain, except he likes him. So at least he's consistent.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:14 PMIf there are any beaten-down plunger companies, they'd probably be a good buy now, with all the campaign rallies coming up in the next two and a half weeks.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:38 PMThe Journal has a warning of what we're in store for if The Democrats take over both branches.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:58 AMThe new littoral ship that Lockheed Martin is building for the Navy is four percent overweight:
The Navy and Lockheed already have a plan to remove nearly all the additional weight from the ship over a period of about six months once the new ship, which is named Freedom, gets to Norfolk, Virginia, in December, said the sources, who asked not to be identified.
As I said, margin, margin, margin. If you miss your weight target by that much on a launch system, it's bye-bye payload. In this case, it simply puts the ship at risk in combat.
As the emailer who sent this to me asks, "I wonder if Lockheed will remove excess weight from Orion at no additional cost."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:46 AMACORN defenders are tellling us that the fake registrations are no big deal, because they don't result in actual fraudulent votes. Oh, no?
Today, news out of New Mexico, the state GOP looked at information for 92 newly-registered voters in one district, and found 28 had "missing or inaccurate Social Security numbers or birth dates. In some cases, more than one voter was registered using the same Social Security number. In others, people who the Republicans said had no Social Security number on public record were registered." All of these are of individuals who have already cast ballots in the June New Mexico state legislative Democratic primary.
Now, unless A. Serwer thinks that there is actually a registered voter named "Duran Duran" in New Mexico, he ought to refrain from sputtering that those who disagree with him are 'racist' and 'paranoid.'The person who is "Duran Duran" almost certainly voted under their real name, and thus got two votes in the primary. God knows how many of those 27 others exist; for all we know, one person might have cast all of them. Anybody who voted once had their vote diluted by the guy who cheated to vote two to twenty-seven times.
As usual, the people who project, and accuse Republicans of stealing elections are about to do it on a massive scale.
[Update mid afternoon]
Good line. I heard that Governor Palin just said in Ohio, "Don't let them turn the Buckeye State into the ACORN State."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:17 AMJonah Goldberg has thoughts on the financial crisis.
My big concern is that some slopes are very slippery, with nasty things at the bottom of the hill, and that politics can often be like a ratchet. If Obama wins, I fear that it will be very difficult to undo the damage of the most left-wing, "progressive" government since the nineteen thirties.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AMSarah Palin says repeatedly on the stump that they'll balance the budget by the end of the first term. Have they actually put forth a plan to do that? I suppose I should actually go over and look at the campaign web site...
I also have to confess that I find her voice and speaking style annoying. It's nothing on which I'd base my vote, of course, but I can see how it might add to the fury of people who don't like her politics.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:06 AMSInce some commenters are too stupid to get it, Betsy Newmark writes that this may have been Barack Obama's "macaca" moment:
For those on the left who think that this whole story is about Joe's personal background, let me put in in terms they should understand. Think of Joe as a symbolic construct whose situation is "fake but accurate." The left always seems to like that sort of approach to what they regard as underlying truths. Think of him as the left thought of Rigoberta Menchu, the Guatemalan writer who won the Nobel Prize for literature with her autobiography of how, as an indigenous Mayan, she and her family had suffered at the hands of the Guatemalan army. Except it turns out that many of the details in her autobiography were fabrications. That didn't matter to the left or the Nobel Prize Committee because they regarded her story, true or not, as an essential expression of suffering that could have been true.
It doesn't matter if Joe is secretly a multimillionaire plumbing magnate or an apprentice plumber with unrealistic dreams. What matters is how Obama answered his question and what it revealed about his approach to redistribution of wealth. We're not about to elect Joe the Plumber.
She has another thought:
I would have thought that Democrats would have learned the dangers of going too far in sliming an opponent or anyone who doesn't support their guy. They helped promote Sarah Palin to a phenomenon by their relentless pursuit of anything that could be used against her. Questioning whether or not she was really the mother of her baby and if she could serve as vice president with a Down Syndrome infant set her up not only for a backlash among ordinary people but helped innoculate her against more substantive criticisms.
Obama suffered some of his biggest setbacks in the primaries after he was taped describing Pennsylvanians as bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. Now John Murtha is having to backtrack after calling his own constituents in western Pennsylvania racists because they might not support Barack Obama. And Obama's followers are now all outraged that a guy asked the senator a question that evoked a revealing answer when Obama popped into his neighborhood for a photo op. It wasn't Joe's question that was so important, but Obama's answer.Are they trying to demonstrate that they have actually no real care for ordinary people unless those people are falling in line to vote for The One? They really ought to be more careful not to let that mask slip before the election is over.
The thing is, they never learn. Smearing and sliming comes naturally, and is always their first resort. And of course, like their lies and racism and generally fascist tendencies, they project it on their political opponents.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:21 AMEd Whelan makes an interesting point:
Barack Obama may actually believe, as he stated yesterday, that Roe v. Wade "was rightly decided." But it may be very lucky for him, as the son born of that woman, that it hadn't been decided a dozen or so years earlier.
It's been noted in the past that legal abortion may in fact be reducing the ranks of people who believe in it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 AMThat didn't take long. Go get your teeshirt.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:08 AMI'm listening to Fox, on which an Obama spokeshole is claiming that the McCain campaign "didn't vet Joe the Plumber."
They must be terrified.
[Late morning update]
Jeff Medcalf visualizes the vetting process in comments:
McCain Rep: Excuse me, sir, but I need to ask you a few questions.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:57 AM
Joe the Plumber:: Why? Are you the police?MR: No, sir, I'm with the McCain campaign. I need to ask you a few questions, on the off chance that you are playing football in your front yard when Senator Obama decides to make an unscheduled stop to try to talk you into voting for him.
JTP: Oh, that's not a problem: I won't be voting for him, anyway, because I'm afraid he would raise my taxes.
MR: That's not the point, sir. The point is, if he were to stop by and ask for your vote, you might ask him questions.
JTP: So?
MR: He might answer them.
JTP: So?
MR: If he answers a question that he isn't expecting, and without a TelePrompTer to fall back on, he might accidentally tell the truth. And that could embarrass him. And that means that you need to be vetted just in case.
JTP: <dumbfounded look>
MR: So I have this twenty page form for you to fill out, listing your background, education, financial details, professional affiliations, friends, family, voting history, embarrassing incidents from elementary school. You know, standard stuff.
JTP: <slams door>
This, coming from Jim Abrahamson, is pretty disappointing:
James A. Abrahamson, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and the chairman of the NAC's Exploration Committee, praised the Constellation program to the Council at its quarterly meeting in Cocoa Beach, calling it the best program for the agency given its tight budget and schedule.
"The NAC is confident that the current plan is viable and represents a well-considered approach given the constraints on budget, schedule and achievable technology," he said.
I agree with this comment (and I have a pretty good guess as to who made it):
One Washington-based space policy consultant said: "The NAC's endorsement of Ares I reminds me of the so-called independent rating firms that kept saying that Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, and AIG were just fine."
Yeah, I don't think that the NAC is all that "independent." By its nature, it tends to consist of space industry insiders drinking their own bathwater. Looking over the Exploration Committee, it doesn't strike me that any of the members are space transportation experts (and no, you don't become one by being an astronaut, as proven by Horowitz...). But I thought that Abrahamson was smarter than that.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:27 AMThey've done more investigations into Joe the Plumber in 24 hours than they've done on Barack Obama in two years...
They've also had more interviewers with him lately than they have with Bill Ayers. Aren't they curious at all as to what he thinks? I mean, he was brought up in the debate, too...
[Friday morning update]
Is Joe the Plumber the forgotten man?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:14 PMAmazon is having a power tool sale
Not that great for a survivalist, though, unless you can generate a lot of power. Let's hope we're not going back to hand tools soon.
Actually, I already have most of this stuff. I continue to be amazed at the cost, quality and innovativeness of tools since I was a kid. It has to have been a great contributor to national productivity, both professionally, and for the DIYers. And it wouldn't have happened without China. Another reason to hope that the (newly isolationist) Dems don't get full control of the government.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:49 PMListening to a McCain stump speech, he just used the line "...we didn't become a great nation by spreading the wealth, we became a great nation by creating new wealth."
Where has that John McCain been all fall? Or his whole previous life?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:17 AMI fully agree with Iain Murray:
While conservatives are angry about a number of things at the moment, they should be at least as angry that the Congressional Democrats who helped stoke the mortgage crisis are getting away with blaming everyone else for it. Today, Senator Chris Dodd, the prime recipient of GSE lobbying funds and proud holder of a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide, is holding hearings where the witnesses will blame everyone but Dodd, Barney Frank and their cronies. Republicans asked to invite witnesses but were barred from doing so.
The notion that this mess is the fault of Republicans, and "deregulation" and the free market, is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people. And as a result, we could be heading toward both electoral and economic disaster.
[Update early afternoon]
Peter Schiff says don't blame capitalism:
Just as prices in a free market are set by supply and demand, financial and real estate markets are governed by the opposing tension between greed and fear. Everyone wants to make money, but everyone is also afraid of losing what he has. Although few would ascribe their desire for prosperity to greed, it is simply a rose by another name. Greed is the elemental motivation for the economic risk-taking and hard work that are essential to a vibrant economy.
But over the past generation, government has removed the necessary counterbalance of fear from the equation. Policies enacted by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which were always government entities in disguise), and others created advantages for home-buying and selling and removed disincentives for lending and borrowing. The result was a credit and real estate bubble that could only grow -- until it could grow no more.Prominent among these wrongheaded advantages are the mortgage interest tax deduction and the exemption of real estate capital gains from taxable income. These policies create unnatural demand for home purchases and a (tax-free) incentive to speculate in real estate.
Similarly, the FHA, Fannie and Freddie were created to encourage lending by allowing primary lenders to turn their long-term risk over to the government. Absent this implicit guarantee, lenders would probably have been much more conservative in approving borrowers and setting interest terms, and in requiring documentation of incomes and higher down payments. Market forces would have kept out unqualified buyers and prevented home-price appreciation from exceeding the growth in household income.
Read the whole thing.
I disagree, though that the solution is to take away the home-mortgage interest deduction and the capital gains break. It would be much better to restore the deduction for all interest (as it is for business, and was for individuals until the tax "reform" in 1986). It's not fair to have to pay tax on interest earned as income, but not be able to deduct interest paid.
Also, rather than treating houses preferentially, peg all capital gains taxes to inflation, to eliminate having to pay a tax when the actual value hadn't increased.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AMHow many times is he going to let Obama get away with this bullshit that he's going to cut taxes for people who don't pay income taxes? He's done it twice now. It's a frickin' handout and redistribution. As I said, John McCain could win this election if he weren't John McCain.
Sounding a little better on spending cuts. Talking about ending ethanol subsidies and tariffs on sugar (writing off Iowa...). He should have point out how he was going to veto spending bills that Bush wouldn't (another missed opportunity). Another missed opportunity was to point out that while earmarks are small, it's how Congress logrolls other members on big spending bills.
[Update]
McCain is actually doing much better now. But he really should stop talking about the "overhead projector in Chicago." People like planetariums, and it makes him look clueless about science.
[Update]
McCain just pointed out that Obama's solution (increase taxes, restrict trade) was Hooverlike. This is good in two ways: it helps separate him from Republicans and it's true.
[Update]
McCain is on fire on health care. Obama seems to think that having an employer providing health care is a wonderful thing, and that everyone agrees on that. But McCain had a great (non?)-Freudian slip. He called his opponent "Senator Government."
[Update]
The discussion on Roe almost veered into a discussion on federalism. But not quite. But McCain went after him on his vote on the bill to allow failed aborted babies to die. And Obama is obfuscating on his vote.
[Final update]
Not a great debate for McCain, but it was his best. And he's not out of it.
What was missing? Gun control. It would have been a big issue in key states.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:31 PMWould anyone care to explain to me why Sarah Palin is less qualified to be vice president than John Edwards was four years ago?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:11 PMOf course, there was a time when the two words meant pretty much the same thing. But that was before the "progressives" came along and hijacked the word "liberal."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:31 PMHere's a new theory on that hijacked Iranian vessel:
At this writing, the MV Iran Deyanat is at anchor, watched closely by American, French and Russian naval units.
[Russian sources claim she] was an enormous floating dirty bomb, intended to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel. The entire cargo of radioactive sand, obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore.
Is this what Ahmadinejad has been ranting about?
Maybe Barack can ask him when he sits down to talk to him with no preconditions.
Oh, wait. I guess there will be preconditions:
Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.
In an exclusive interview with IRNA, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.
Well, if they get their preferred candidate, he'll probably hop right to it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:56 AMHere's an Ayers story from Ann Arbor that I'd never heard before, but it shocks me not at all:
Bill Ayers' apartment was around the corner and a half a block away from the sorority house. The more time I spent there, the more out of place I felt with my sisters. Sometimes I would stop by just to keep from having to go back to a place I had begun to think of as boring. I guess it was one of those evenings -- maybe on the way back from the library, maybe just to get out of the sorority house, I don't remember exactly. What I do recall is that when I was getting ready to leave Ayers told me I couldn't go until I slept with his roommate and his brother. At this point Bill and I had slept together just once. I was sexually inexperienced, having had only one serious boyfriend with whom I had recently broken up.
At first I thought Ayers was joking. I got up; and went to the door. He moved quickly to block me at the doorway. He locked the door and put the chain on it. I went to the couch and sat down and told him that I had no intention of having sex with his roommate and his brother or him. He said that I had no choice but to do as he said if I wanted to get out of there. He claimed that I wouldn't sleep with his married roommate because he was black -- that I was a bigot. I had gone to school with black kids and had them as friends all my life. I couldn't believe he was saying that to me.I felt trapped. I had to get out of the situation I was in and because he was so effective a guilt-tripper, I also felt I had to prove to him that I wasn't a bigot. I got up from the couch and walked over to the black roommate's bed and put myself on it and he f***ed me. I went totally out of my body. I floated beside myself on the outside and above the bed looking at this black stranger f*** me angrily while I hated myself.
I'm sure that he's rehabilitated, though.
Barack Obama allied himself with a sociopath.
It's also worth noting, for those unaware, that a large part of the feminist movement in the seventies was driven by the fact that the sixties campus radical men were famous for being prototypical male chauvinist pigs. They would busily write their manifestos, and expect the women to cook, clean and service them sexually.
[Update a few minutes later]
It just occurs to me that this was depicted very clearly in Forrest Gump.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:18 AMWinning over the undecideds:
Think about it. With Barack Obama in office, assholes like us will fade into a distant unpleasant memory. Don't get us wrong, we'll still be hanging around, probably as junior staffers in some federal arts agency. But you have our word on it -- we'll be practically invisible. No more C-word t shirts, no more intersection blockades, no more vandalism until the next election cycle. Nosirree, we'll be timid and well-behaved and quiet as church mice, working away on grant proposals. We think you will also be pleased to know that under Obama, negative news stories and the steady flow of shitty anti-American war movies will virtually disappear overnight.
We know what you're thinking -- "that sounds awesome, but what about the angry right wingers? Won't they suddenly start storming congressional hearings and vandalizing military recruiting stations? Won't they start producing Obama assassination fantasy plays at the local college?" Don't worry, as members of the incoming Administration, we will identify any potential troublemakers and prosecute them to the full extent of President Obama's new civility laws. And with the re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine, you won't have to worry about accidentally tuning into right wing hate radio.
I can't wait.
Plus, true Grit.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:04 AMKatherine Manju Ward says that Naomi Wolf has been driven completely around the bend.
She could have walked. Based on her previous writings, it was always bound to be a short trip.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:39 AMOK, are we allowed to talk about this? Or is that racist?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:35 AM...are the ACORN thugs (and thuggettes)? Some suggestions.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:28 AMBetween Obama, Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright:
Given the precedent of his earlier responses on Ayers and Wright, Obama might be inclined to deny personal knowledge of the educational philosophy he was so generously funding. Such a denial would not be convincing. For one thing, we have evidence that in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected "the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation," a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers. (See "No Liberation.")
And as noted, Wright had invited Carruthers, Hilliard, and like-minded thinkers to address his Trinity congregants. Wright likes to tick off his connections to these prominent Afrocentrists in sermons, and Obama would surely have heard of them. Reading over SSAVC's Annenberg proposals, Obama could hardly be ignorant of what they were about. And if by some chance Obama overlooked Hilliard's or Carruthers's names, SSAVC's proposals are filled with references to "rites of passage" and "Ptahhotep," dead giveaways for the anti-American and separatist ideological concoction favored by SSAVC.We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed "Collaborative" to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as "awful." (See "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years," p. 19.) Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.
If McCain won't go after this, some 527s need to.
John McCain could win this election if he weren't John McCain. By that, I mean that some candidate with John McCain's history and record could win it if he were really willing to take the gloves off. But he's constitutionally incapable of it. Too many years "reaching across the aisle." Which is one of the reasons in general that Senators have a tough time being elected president. Unfortunately, we have no choice this year.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 AMMichael Totten, on why the UN deservedly gets no respect.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:12 AMScott Ott has a depressing satire.
We're all fascists now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:21 PMIt's too bad that Senator Obama seems indifferent to actually creating wealth. This is the critical distinction between collectivists and classical liberals. The former think that it's a fixed (or growing, but according to supernatural forces unaffectable by human intervention) pie to be justly distributed, whereas the latter think that it's something to be created by maximizing freedom and minimizing how much of it is confiscated by those who want to "spread it around."
And don't expect many in the MSM to criticize him for it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:02 PMWhat we have to look forward to under an Obama/Pelosi/Reid administration:
A Democrat-controlled Washington will use sweeping new rules to shush conservative political speech. For starters, expect a real push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
True, Obama says he isn't in favor of re-imposing this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC junked it in the '80s, required broadcasters to give airtime to opposing viewpoints or face fines or even loss of license. But most top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, are revved up about the idea, and it's hard to imagine Obama vetoing a new doctrine if Congress delivers him one.Make no mistake: a new Fairness Doctrine would vaporize political talk radio, the one major medium dominated by the right. If a station ran a successful conservative program like, say, Mark Levin's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative, even if -- as with Air America and all other liberal efforts in the medium to date -- it can't find any listeners or sponsors.
There's certainly nothing in Obama's current behavior to indicate otherwise, as the editorial points out.
Even ignoring the First Amendment issues (which are sufficient reason in themselves to fight it), it would be a nightmare for broadcasters to enforce. What is "balance," and who would decide? The model here is for the issue ad. If there's a proposition on the ballot, and you run an editorial on it (say) in favor, then it's fairly straightforward to say that it could be balanced by an editorial against it. But even there, who gets the opportunity? There might be multiple people or groups against it for different reasons, some more articulate than others. How would it be decided which of them got to "balance" it?
And once we get outside that narrow focus, into talk radio itself, it becomes a real nightmare, and a litigator's delight. Consider Larry Elder, who is mostly a libertarian. Who "balances" him? A socialist who disagrees with his economics? A "conservative" who disagrees with his views on pornography and drugs?
What single blog is the antithesis of this one, or Instapundit? I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the television or radio program director who had to decide. All of this, of course, is predicated on the simpleton's assumption that political views and issues can be expressed on a unidimensional "left-right" scale. And even if that were the case, and political issues didn't fall into a hypercube of multiple dimensions coming from all points on the hyperspherical compass, it wouldn't be that simple, because the magnitude has to be calibrated as well. Is Rush Limbaugh as far "right" as Randi Rhodes is far "left"? Where is the pivot on the scale? Who determines what is "mainstream"? Ted Kennedy?
The First Amendment should have put a stake through the heart of this pernicious and anti-freedom nonsense years ago, but the fascist proponents of things like it have long abandoned principles like that.
[Afternoon update]
Treacher has some thoughts on the "Deathbed Media."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:14 AMJohn Jurist writes (or at least implies) that there's just too much competition in the suborbital market:
An approach I favor is forming a university consortium analogous to those that design, build, and operate large cooperative research assets, such as telescopes and particle colliders. That consortium could develop a suborbital RLV or even a nanosat launcher to be used by consortium members for academic projects. Since the consortium would design and develop the vehicles, participating universities would be more likely to use them for student research under some type of cost-sharing arrangement with federal granting agencies.Dr. Steve Harrington proposed something a bit different recently:
If you took all the money invested in alt.space projects in the last 20 years, and invested in one project, it could succeed. More underfunded projects are not what we need. The solution is for an investment and industry group to develop a business plan and get a consortium to build a vehicle. There is a lot of talent, and many people willing to work for reduced wages and invest some of their own company's capital. Whether it is a sounding rocket, suborbital tourist vehicle or an orbit capable rocket, the final concept and go/no go decision should be made by accountants, not engineers or dreamers (Ref. 8).I would concur with Dr. Harrington's final remark except I would expand the decision making group to include management and business experts nominated by the consortium members with whatever technical input they needed.
Yes, good idea. After all, we all know that it's a waste of resources to have (for example) two grocery stores within a few blocks of each other. They could dramatically reduce overhead and reduce costs and prices if they would just close one of the stores and combine forces. In order to assure continued premium customer service, they could just assemble a board of accountants, and finest management and business experts to ensure that the needs of the people are met.
In the case of the RLV development, the consortium could hire the best technical experts, and spend the appropriate amount of money up front, on trade studies and analyses, to make sure that they are designing just the right vehicle for the market, since it will be a significant investment, and the consortium will only have enough money to do one vehicle development. They will also have to make sure that it satisfies the requirements of all the users, since it will be the only available vehicle. This will further increase the up-front analysis and development costs, and it may possibly result in higher operational costs as well, but what can be done? It's too inefficient to have more than one competing system. As John's analysis points out, we simply can't afford it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 AM...continues:
John McCain's bid for the Oval Office suffered another stunning blow yesterday when the Arizona senator referred to Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, as "my opponent." The campaign-shattering remark came during a vicious, Hitlerian speech before an audience of drooling right-wing drones in one of those states in the middle, possibly rectangular.
"I believe that we should do things one way," McSame sneered, his shrunken, twisted body and hideous visage producing overwhelming revulsion in all sane people who beheld him. "But my opponent feels we should do things a different way."
Yes, Treacher's ahead of the curve. My hat is off to him, because these people continue to get ever harder to satirize.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 PMJoe Biden stood next to Hillary Clinton in Scranton, PA today, and said with a perfectly straight face that she never abused her power.
Tell it to Billy Dale. And that was just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:18 PM...and Molotov cocktails. Will this get as much news coverage as the phantom cries of "kill him" at MCain/Palin rallies (of which there has only been one reported)?
[Update a couple minutes later]
Michelle Malkin has more leftist rage and hatred. Feel the love of the left.
As the first commenter notes, this is typical projection. They accuse others of doing what they are actually doing (lying, racemongering, hating).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:56 AMHow it evolved?
Note that just because something is natural doesn't make it moral.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:01 PMI thought it was a gag (in multiple senses of the word) when I heard that Annette Bening was going to play Helen Thomas in a movie. But it's twue, it's twue.
On the other hand, it's probably a lot easier to make Annette Bening look like Helen Thomas than vicey versy.
[Via Driscoll]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:12 PMIs Obama sweating?
Probably not. Whatever happens won't happen until after the election, and at that point, he'll be untouchable, with the Dems in control of both houses. This is part of the point that I was making in my PJM piece yesterday. Because the media is covering for him, we're about to unwittingly (at least to much of the electorate--much of the rest, sadly, doesn't care) put another crooked but charismatic politician in the White House, just as we did in 1992.
And it goes without saying, of course, that if this were the Republican candidate, it would be headline news every day for the next three weeks. But it's not.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:01 PMIf the potential economic disaster of a Democrat regime doesn't concern you, consider the implications for free speech.
As Mark Steyn comments, don't be surprised to see an effort to establish "human rights" commissions, a la Canada.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:51 AMPart of the Kennedy myth that propelled him into the White House was that he wrote a Pulitzer-winning book. Only many years later was it revealed that the actual author, or at least ghost writer, was Ted Sorenson.
Well, now we have an interesting question.
Who wrote Dreams of My Father?
A 1990 New York Times profile on Obama's election as Harvard's first black president caught the eye of agent Jane Dystel. She persuaded Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, to authorize a roughly $125,000 advance for Obama's proposed memoir.
With advance in hand, Obama repaired to Chicago where he dithered. At one point, in order to finish without interruption, he and wife Michelle decamped to Bali. Obama was supposed to have finished the book within a year. Bali or not, advance or no, he could not. He was surely in way over his head.According to a surprisingly harsh 2006 article by liberal publisher Peter Osnos, which detailed the "ruthlessness" of Obama's literary ascent, Simon & Schuster canceled the contract. Dystel did not give up. She solicited Times Book, the division of Random House at which Osnos was publisher. He met with Obama, took his word that he could finish the book, and authorized a new advance of $40,000.
Then suddenly, somehow, the muse descended on Obama and transformed him from a struggling, unschooled amateur, with no paper trail beyond an unremarkable legal note and a poem about fig-stomping apes, into a literary superstar.
...In 1997, Obama was an obscure state senator, a lawyer, and a law school instructor with one book under his belt that had debuted two years earlier to little acclaim and lesser sales. In terms of identity, he had more in common with mayor Sawyer than poet Brooks. The "writer" identification seems forced and purposefully so, a signal perhaps to those in the know of a persona in the making that Ayers had himself helped forge.
None of this, of course, proves Ayers' authorship conclusively, but the evidence makes him a much more likely candidate than Obama to have written the best parts of Dreams.
The Obama camp could put all such speculation to rest by producing some intermediary sign of impending greatness -- a school paper, an article, a notebook, his Columbia thesis, his LSAT scores -- but Obama guards these more zealously than Saddam did his nuclear secrets. And I suspect, at the end of the day, we will pay an equally high price for Obama's concealment as Saddam's.
An interesting, and very plausible thesis. Much more so, in fact, than the official story. And if true, one more bit of evidence that Bill Ayers was more, much more, than "a guy in his neighborhood." It is also one more bit of continually accumulating evidence that Barack Obama is a fraud.
And as Andy McCarthy notes, given that Chris Buckley's insouciance about an Obama presidency is predicated on the intellectual brilliance evidenced by his books, he might want to reconsider, if his books are in fact those of someone else.
And no, don't expect the press to cover this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 AMIlya Somin explains. I share them.
Needless to say, there is much dissension (from many who think themselves libertarians) in comments.
[Saturday morning update]
Well, IBD certainly thinks that the prospect of an Obama presidency has the market spooked.
What is that agenda? It starts with a tax system right out of Marx: A massive redistribution of income -- from each according to his ability, to each according to his need -- all in the name of "neighborliness," "patriotism," "fairness" and "justice."
It continues with a call for a new world order that turns its back on free trade, has no problem with government controlling the means of production, imposes global taxes to support continents where our interests are negligible, signs on to climate treaties that will sap billions more in U.S. productivity and wealth, and institutes an authoritarian health care system that will strip Americans' freedoms and run up costs.All the while, it ensures that nothing -- absolutely nothing -- will be done to secure a sufficient, terror-proof supply of our economic lifeblood -- oil -- a resource we'll need much more of in the years ahead.
The businesses that create jobs and generate wealth are already discounting the future based on what they know about Obama's plans to raise income, capital gains, dividend and payroll taxes, and his various other economy-crippling policies. Which helps explain why world stock markets have been so topsy-turvy.
But don't take our word for it. One hundred economists, five Nobel winners among them, have signed a letter noting just that:
"The prospect of such tax-rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy," they wrote, noting that the potential of higher taxes in the next year or two is reducing hiring and investment.
It was "misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s," the economists remind us, that "greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression."
We can't afford to repeat these grave errors.
Yet much of the electorate is determined to vote for the candidate most likely to make them. If he wins, what we consider to be a crisis in today's economy will be a routine affair in tomorrow's.
Someone needs to run some ads showing the similarities between Obama's proposed economic policy and that of Herbert Hoover.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 PMVia Mark Steyn:
If we view Obama's past political alliances as mere cynical manipulation to advance his career and if we view his election policy proposals as just pandering to the electorate, then we can feel good about voting for him for President because of, ah , oh yes, his character.
The mental contortions one must put oneself through in order to justify voting for Barack Obama are truly amazing. It must be quite painful.
[Early evening update]
Jonah Goldberg expands:
Christopher invokes Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous line that FDR had a "first-class temperament" and so too Obama. Indeed, he suggests that Obama is a man of great character because he's a man of great temperament. Conceding for the sake of argument that Obama's temperament is first rate, are the two really the same thing? I don't think so (indeed, that would be a hard case to make about FDR himself, who could be deceitful, vindictive, petty -- even to his own son -- and adulterous. And let us note that Holmes himself was not a man many of us should be invoking as an authority on political virtue or general decency).The story Christopher tells of McCain's great character has no real analogue in Obama. He may be in private a deeply honorable man, but his public record is one of accommodation, shortcuts, dishonest equivocations, serious leftwing sympathies and fellow-traveling with some awful people. Obama, let us recall, threw his own grandmother under the rhetorical bus in order to defend his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. That he sounded dignified doing it does not confer dignity on the act itself or the man behind it. That is surely not all there is to say about Obama, many of his friends and fans speak very well of him. But the scales Christopher uses to weigh one man against the other seem awfully rigged to me.
Everything in Barack Obama's public life (other than his campaign speeches and publications) indicate that he's a dedicated leftist (or else a very cynical man with no principles whatsoever). John McCain is, at worst, ideologically confused.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:52 PMI don't know, and haven't watched the video myself, but some Chinese bloggers think so:
Two seconds into the video from CCTV, bubble-like objects rose from the hatch as it sprung open. At 5 min 49 second, a bubble attached to the astronaut's helmet. At 6 min 42 seconds, bubbles swiftly came out of the cabin. On the left corner of the video, bubbles gushed out at an angle at 7 min 17 seconds into the video.
A blogger, who is a physicist, commented in a Chinese Epoch Times article that, assuming the operation was conducted in the water, the bubbles rose faster than they would have if the water was not propelled using a wave-blower. Wave blowers are commonly used in underwater space-training exercises to simulate the weightlessness of space.
It wouldn't shock me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:03 AMChris Dodd should be the one on the stand, under oath.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:13 AMI have a piece today at Pajamas media, on the lies and spin of the Obama campaign, and his enablers in the media.
[Update late morning]
I should note, of course (though shouldn't it go without saying?) that because I wrote this piece, like Roger Simon, I am a racist.
[Afternoon update]
I have to confess that I'm perplexed by the foolish comments that I, or John McCain, should be "going after" Walter Annenberg, or the Annenberg Foundation, or "charging them" with...something. What does that mean?
There is nothing illegal about funding leftist activities with philanthropy. I don't even think that it should be. But I do think that the voters are entitled to know when one of their presidential candidates is involved with it. If Walter Annenberg were running for president, and doing the same things that Barack Obama is, and has done, I'd be saying exactly the same things about him. But he's not.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AMI made a crack in comments the other day that the market was tanking in anticipation of an Obama election. Some may have taken it seriously, but it was a joke.
I do think that markets react to potential election outcomes in general, but in this case, I suspect that there are much deeper issues going on, and given that John McCain has shown himself to be (as he has confessed in the past) as clueless on the economy and economics as Barack Obama, there's probably not much street preference one way or the other. The folks in the pits are probably not even thinking about the election at this point.
While I'm not a conservative, I sure wish that there was at least one in the race, in terms of the economy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:29 PMHow widespread is the voter registration fraud that ACORN has been responsible for? How much has it artificially boosted Democrat registration numbers this year?
There are two factors that have increased Dem registration this year. One is the efforts by ACORN and similar groups. The other is the significant numbers of Republicans who switched to Democrat so that they could vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. The first group isn't going to vote for Obama because they don't exist, to a large extent. The second group is going to vote for John McCain.
All of the likely (and even registered) voter polls are skewed to sample Dems more because of this perceived increase in Democrat voters. But if much of that increase is illusory, due to the factors described above, are the polls overstating support for Obama?
[Update late evening]
Iowahawk is on the case in defense of a truly defenseless minority: ACORN files suit on behalf of the voting rights of Imaginary-Americans:
"Whether we are obituary notices, hallucinatory giant rabbits, or strings of random keyboard strokes, it's time for the chimera community to stand up and claim our rights as citizens," said ASDFG. "We will no longer be silent and invisible. Okay, maybe invisible."
In addition to $3.2 jubajillion in damages and free federal mortgages for homeless spectres, the suit also seeks enforcement of the Americans with Dimensional Disabilities Act. The Act requires voting places to make accommodations for existentially-challenged voters who have trouble completing ballots written in standard 3-dimensional reality. The accommodations include multiple site registration, time travel, and allowances for alcoholics to cast ballots for dependent D.T. phantasms."Many of our community inhabit the Tapioca subluster of the 11th Dimension, and it's hard for them to find a convenient spacehole to make it to the local elementary school," explained ASDFG.
Classic. And one that I wish that I'd thought of. Though as always, Burge does a much better job with the concept than I would have, anyway.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:06 PMI don't know what the penalties under the law are, but with the stories about people being hounded to register multiple times, I'd like to not only see their funding cut off, but a lot of people do jail time.
[Update mid afternoon]
Geraghty has more:
So we have an organization that has been joined at the hip with Obama from the beginning of his career, whose members have been convicted in Washington state, Wisconsin and Colorado, and had various forms of reprimand, investigation, indictment, and other run-ins with the law and state election authorities in Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, New Mexico, North Carolina, Missouri, Michigan, Florida, Arkansas. Perhaps most disturbingly, the organization has repeatedly entrusted convicted felons with voters' most sensitive personal information, sort of a small business assistance program for aspiring identity thieves.Is it time for Americans to tell ACORN to get out of their faces? Or perhaps for law enforcement to get into their faces? Or perhaps some media entity should get in Obama's face about why one of his longtime allies keeps coming up in investigations of vote fraud?
If people don't care about Bill Ayers, they should certainly care about this. It's happening right now, less than a month before the election, not when Barack Obama was eight years old.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:45 AMSome tips to prevent campaign sign stealing.
Funny, but I haven't heard of any stories about Obama/Biden signs being stolen.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 PMIs/was Barack Obama a member of Democratic Socialists of America? It sure looks like it.
No worries--they were probably just guys in his neighborhood.
Between these folks and Ayers and Dorhn (who are no doubt members as well, unless it wasn't radical enough for them), it sounds like a pretty bad neighborhood.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jonah Goldberg wonders if Senator Obama ever read his home-town newspaper.
And then of course there was Ayers' own autobiography, the profile in the NY Times in which Ayers casually said he'd wished he'd made more bombs etc.
I don't know Chicago well. But my sense of the place is that they take politics pretty seriously there. Young, very smart and hyper ambitious politicians like Obama tend to read the local paper (never mind the New York Times, which ran a couple dozen stories mentioning Ayers and his terrorist ties between 1990 and 2004). The political class in Chicago knows who everybody is, where they came from, what they believe. They tend to learn about people who give them jobs, money and political opportunities. And, people like Ayers don't exactly keep their views or radical past a closely guarded secret, particularly when they remain unreprentant.In short, I think it's a lie -- and a pretty stupid one -- to say that Obama didn't know about any of this. The obvious answer is he just didn't care.
Yes, just like Reverend Wright's rantings. It was no problem. Until, that is,it became politically inconvenient to him. He is lying about his relationship with Ayers, which means that he was also almost certainly lying about not knowing what was being preached in his church of twenty years. Why should we believe anything he says?
[Update late morning]
It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood, with advice columns from Barack's and Michelle's neighbors:
Dear Mary Ellen: Your question is borne of bourgeois ignorance and manufactured consent. A violent revolution is coming, and the workers will throw off the chains of their oppression and rise up in a bloody revolt against AmeriKKKa's legacy of racism, genocide, and hegemonic corporatist empire. In the coming revolution, the state and its propagandist education apparatus will wither away, thus ushering in a new age of proletarian enlightenment. All education will be free, and all children, including yours, will be rescued from their bourgeois shackles and freed to join the vanguard for permanent revolution.
Bernadine has legal advice as well. Also, grooming tips from Rod.
[Afternoon update]
The memory hole doesn't work so well any more, what with web archives. Politically Drunk has found some pages that had been previously scrubbed that confirm Senator Obama's membership in the New Party:
From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party': "New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...
Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."Beyond the archived web page from the Socialist New Party is the recognition by the "Progressive Populist" magazine in November 1996 that Obama was indeed an acknowledged member of the Socialist Party.
"New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago."
Is there any record of Senator Obama demanding a correction to the publications?
Next, I expect him to say "that's not the Democratic Socialist Party that I knew..."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AMAs of press time, Obama is trading at $0.72 on Intrade up 2 from yesterday (stock pays $1.00 if Obama wins). It dipped as low as $0.66 last night.
Because he's an idiot. Which is why I didn't support him as the Republican nominee.
[After the end of the debate]
Well, if McCain is going to win the election, it sure didn't happen tonight.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 PMShould American writers secede from the Nobel Prize for literature?
There was a brief moment, after World War II, when the Nobel Committee allowed that America might produce more sophisticated writers. No one on either side of the Atlantic would quarrel with the awards to William Faulkner in 1949 or Ernest Hemingway in 1954. But in the 32 years since Bellow won the Nobel, there has been exactly one American laureate, Toni Morrison, whose critical reputation in America is by no means secure. To judge by the Nobel roster, you would think that the last three decades have been a time of American cultural drought rather than the era when American culture and language conquered the globe.
But that, of course, is exactly the problem for the Swedes. As long as America could still be regarded as Europe's backwater--as long as a poet like T.S. Eliot had to leave America for England in order to become famous enough to win the Nobel--it was easy to give American literature the occasional pat on the head. But now that the situation is reversed, and it is Europe that looks culturally, economically, and politically dependent on the United States, European pride can be assuaged only by pretending that American literature doesn't exist. When Engdahl declares, "You can't get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world," there is a poignant echo of Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard insisting that she is still big, it's the pictures that got smaller.Nothing gives the lie to Engdahl's claim of European superiority more effectively than a glance at the Nobel Prize winners of the last decade or so. Even Austrians and Italians didn't think Elfriede Jelinek and Dario Fo deserved their prizes; Harold Pinter won the prize about 40 years after his significant work was done. To suggest that these writers are more talented or accomplished than the best Americans of the last 30 years is preposterous.
Other than that I think Hemingway is vastly overrated, and ample fodder for parody, I agree. The Peace prizes have been a joke since Arafat and Rigoberto Menchu (not to mention Jimmy Carter), and I think that the literature prizes have gone the same way, decades ago.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:10 PMCNN (of all places) essentially calls Barack Obama a liar:
Griffin also tells a somewhat nonplussed Cooper that Obama has lied about his "coming out party" at the home of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in 1995. Obama has said that Alice Palmer arranged the fundraiser and the venue, but Griffin spoke to two people who attended the event, who claim Obama lied. Palmer had nothing to do with that event outside of being invited to it. Obama and Ayers planned the event themselves.
The story never made much sense. Why would Ayers and Dohrn allow their house to be used for an event in which they had no role? I wonder how long he's been falsely fingering Palmer for it? I'm betting that he never told this fairy tale until recently, when it suddenly (and inexplicably, to him) became a potential campaign issue.
And of course, the next question is, if he's lying about this, what else is he lying to us about? After all, as Senator McCain pointed out yesterday, for a guy who has written two books about himself, his life hasn't been anything close to an open book.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:46 AMI've long thought that people who don't read, or haven't read science fiction are much more ill-prepared for the future. Well, in the near future, we have a presidential election coming up. Here are some suggestions for SF to read in preparation from some notable web pundits.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 AMThomas James has some space-related thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:57 AMThe point is not that President-designate Obama is a "close friend" of the unrepentant Ayers, or that he was only eight when his patron was building bombs to kill the women of New Jersey. As Joe Biden would no doubt point out on his entertaining "This Day In History" segment, McCain was only six when Czogolsz killed President McKinley. But I doubt he'd let the guy host a fundraiser for him.
But, in the world in which Obama moves, it would seem absurd and provincial to object to partying with an "unrepentant terrorist." The senator advanced and prospered in a milieu in which men like Ayers are not just accepted but admired for their "passionate participation", and function as power-brokers and path-smoothers. This is a great country, and most of us (as Peter Kirsanow notes below) make it without having to kiss up to America-haters like Ayers and Wright. But not Obama.Who is this man on course to be 44th president? Apparently, it's not just impolite but racist to ask.
Speaking of which, Sarah Palin apparently handled the racism nonsense from CNN pretty well yesterday.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Jonah Goldberg has some more thoughts on the terrorists"passionate anti-war and civil rights movement" and the contradictions of the fascist left.
Jeff Foust has a roundup.
And as I note over there in comments, the Kennedy myth persists:
"Not since John F. Kennedy, has a president truly understood the incalculable value of space..."
Not even then...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AMAlan Boyle has a story on the latest thinking about Lucy, with a cool artist's rendering. And of course, no post like this is complete without the usual clueless comments by the creationists.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:06 AMMickey Kaus points out the foolishness of the press, in imagining that there was ever any possibliity that the media would be supporting McCain.
It's one thing to have pro-Democratic, pro-Obama media favoritism: That's just the way it is. Political reporters have opinions. Better blatant than latent.
It's another to have that very favoritism used as evidence that McCain is blowing it, losing his reputation for "integrity" and his "gold plated brand."
Yes, they only like McCain when he's running against Republicans. The NYT endorsed him in the primary. Does anyone imagine they'll endorse him in the general?
He also has a warning:
It might seem as if the MSM reaction against McCain's shift to negativism has "driven the final nail into his coffin," as Heilemann suggests. The Feiler Faster Thesis says no--given the speed with which the country now processes information, there's plenty of time for several dramatic twists and turns, including lead changes. Obamaphiles (in the press and elsewhere) are deluding themselves, I think, if they think they can ride the economic crisis and the reaction against negativity to victory in a month. Plus Obama's not that far ahead.
Nope.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:51 AMUCLA economists have calculated how long FDR extended the Great Depression. Seven years.
Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.
"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"..."The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."
Remember this the next time someone talks about a new "New Deal." The myth of Roosevelt is akin with the current idiotic nonsense being promulgated by Democrats that the financial crisis was a result of "deregulation."
[Update about 9 AM EDT]
Sebastian Mallaby has a nice corrective to the "deregulation" nonsense:
The key financiers in this game were not the mortgage lenders, the ratings agencies or the investment banks that created those now infamous mortgage securities. In different ways, these players were all peddling financial snake oil, but as Columbia University's Charles Calomiris observes, there will always be snake-oil salesmen. Rather, the key financiers were the ones who bought the toxic mortgage products. If they hadn't been willing to buy snake oil, nobody would have been peddling it.Who were the purchasers? They were by no means unregulated. U.S. investment banks, regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, bought piles of toxic waste. U.S. commercial banks, regulated by several agencies, including the Fed, also devoured large quantities. European banks, which faced a different and supposedly more up-to-date supervisory scheme, turn out to have been just as rash. By contrast, lightly regulated hedge funds resisted buying toxic waste for the most part -- though they are now vulnerable to the broader credit crunch because they operate with borrowed money.
If that doesn't convince you that deregulation is the wrong scapegoat, consider this: The appetite for toxic mortgages was fueled by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the super-regulated housing finance companies. Calomiris calculates that Fannie and Freddie bought more than a third of the $3 trillion in junk mortgages created during the bubble and that they did so because heavy government oversight obliged them to push money toward marginal home purchasers. There's a vigorous argument about whether Calomiris's number is too high. But everyone concedes that Fannie and Freddie poured fuel on the fire to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
As he points out, it's important to understand the actual cause, because if we misdiagnose the disease, we're likely to come up with nostrums that make it worse, just as FDR's "brain trust" did. And that's exactly the path we're on with Obama. McCain may make similar mistakes, but with him, at least it's not a sure thing.
[Mid-morning update]
Glenn Reynolds has some thoughts on the upcoming speculative bubble in regulation. I agree that we need to design the system to be much more fault tolerant.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 AM...more than hypocrisy is at work here. It is not just far Left, American-hating radicals he now disowns. You get the sense that he believes everyone can be played. Rashid Khalidi can believe that Obama finds no one suffers more than the Palestinians. Jews can buy that he was moved by the Holocaust from a summer camp experience. Voters in his Congressional race in 1990 can be told that there is no difference ideologically between him and 100% ADA-rated Bobby Rush, but the rest of the state in 2004 (and eventually the country) can buy that he's a post-partisan reformer. Terrorists come to believe he shares their scorn for America, but Iowa voters hear him talk about his appreciation that only in America could his story have happened. Primary voters in Ohio are coddled with protectionist promises - and then privately scorned while he is talking to San Fransciso liberal donors.
There is no end to it -- everyone gets the version of Obama that perfectly fits his own world view. It is not hypocrisy. It's fraud. Whatever he told or shared with Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, or Pfleger counts for no more that what he told or shared with other now inconvenient groups and individuals. He's sold the same piece of political real estate to multiple buyers for multiple, conflicting uses.
Unfortunately, so far, he's been right, taking a page from P. T. Barnum, and the sucker production rate has increased quite a bit with the population increase over the past century. You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but unfortunately, you can fool enough of them to get elected.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:55 AMRadley Balko has another reason to fear an Obama/Biden presidency--increasing federalization of crime:
Since the vice-presidential pick, Obama and Biden have embraced criminal justice policies geared toward a larger federal presence in law enforcement, a trend that started in the Nixon administration and that has skewed local police priorities toward the slogan-based crime policies of Congress, like "more arrests" and "stop coddling criminals."
Wonderful.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:52 AMWe're going to be hit by an asteroid tonight. The angle is such that it will just be a spectacular fireball. But it's nice that we're finally getting to a position from which we can predict these things. The next step is to be able to prevent them, if necessary. Too bad that almost nothing that NASA is doing is contributing to that, at least with the manned spaceflight program.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:21 PMI suspect that there are a lot more of these folks than there are Republicans against McCain. And they've connected the ACORN dots between Obama, the Dems in Congress and the housing meltdown.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:49 AMBob Owens notes that it's not just Bill Ayers. And he also points out the absurdity of thinking that one could be a member of the Weatherman at all, let alone a founder, and not have murderous intent:
BarackObama.com, the campaign's official website, offers up a "fact check" that Obama was just eight years old when the Weathermen were active in 1969. The Obama campaign has tried to use the founding date of the Weathermen as a touchstone, claiming that the acts of the group were something that happened "40 years ago" when Obama was a child. Far closer to the truth is the December 6, 1990, sentencing date of Weathermen Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, when the last of the Weathermen were sentenced for their role in a string of bombings in the mid-1980s, including bombs that detonated at the National War College, the Washington Navy Yard Computing Center, the Washington Navy Yard Officers' Club, New York City's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the Israeli Aircraft Industries Building, New York City's South African Consulate, and the United States Capitol Building.
Barack Obama's ties to the Weathermen aren't ties that were 40 years removed from a child's experiences, but the conscious decision of a young radical to establish a relationship to an infamous terrorist because of shared ideology and interests.Barack Obama never set any bombs. But he's never had problems with associating with those who did.
This talking point that Obama was "only eight years old" is stupid, as is anyone who buys it.
[Afternoon update]
Abe Greenwald has more:
Okay, let's go with that judgment thing, shall we. Barack Obama served on the board of an educational organization headed by a terrorist bomber. He launched his political career in said bomber's home. He then went on to serve two years alongside said bomber on the board of a "charitable" organization. Not quite done, Obama gave the bomber the gift of an enthusiastic blurb for the bomber's book jacket. Even if Obama's preposterous new claim about not knowing who Bill Ayers was was true in 1995, was it true in 1997 when Obama, then state senator, endorsed Ayers's book? Had he not yet found out the identity of his buddy by 2000, when he took the position serving with Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund? Did no one slip him a note over the next two years reading, "Don't indicate that you're reading this note, but the guy next to you is a terrorist"? Frankly, if Obama didn't find out that Bill Ayers is a terrorist until it came up during the primary, then there's more to worry about than the candidate's political leanings.
No kidding.
[Early evening update]
Here's a flash from the past. A 2001 piece by David Horowitz about the terrorist couple:
This is the banal excuse of common criminals - the devil made me do it. "I don't think you can understand a single thing we did," explains the pampered Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers "without understanding the violence of the Vietnam War."
I interviewed Ayers ten years ago, in a kindergarten classroom in uptown Manhattan where he was employed to shape the minds of inner city children. Dressed in bib overalls with golden curls rolling below his ears, Ayers reviewed his activities as a terrorist for my tape recorder. When he was done, he broke into a broad, Jack Horner grin and summed up his experience: "Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country."
That would have been 1991. This was a man who would later be put in charge of millions of dollars, with Barack Obama, to propagandize and radicalize Chicago schoolchildren. Either Obama had no problem with his past, or he was unaware of it. I don't believe the latter. But either way, I don't want him to be running the country. For all we know, he'll appoint Ayers to be head of the Department of Education.
[Evening update]
"Bill Ayers has never hidden the fact that he was part of the Weather Underground, part of this radical group. In some ways it has made him somewhat famous in the South Side, Hyde Park, Chicago neighborhood where he lives."
I guess we're supposed to believe that he somehow only hid it from Barack Obama.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:07 AMSteve Diamond (no Republican he, I'm guessing) has been doing an excellent job in pulling together the story of Barack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers and other sixties neo-Stalinist radicals, and the shared agendas, particularly in the area of education. Just keep reading and scrolling.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:37 AMBy Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the story doesn't lend itself well to a thirty-second ad.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AMI very rarely see a movie in a theater. I'd say it averages once or twice a year (though we did see Dark Knight a couple months ago--the last one before that was The Astronaut Farmer). But tonight Patricia and I are going out to see American Carol to boost its opening weekend ratings (plus, it looks like it should be pretty funny, and I think we can all use a good laugh right now, given current events). At this point, I'm all about promoting and encouraging alternate media/viewpoints, particularly from Hollywood. I may or may not review it tomorrow.
[Monday morning update]
Meh.
It was entertaining, and a good story, but not roll-in-the-aisles funny, at least for us. Of course, I've never been that big a Zucker/slapstick fan (e.g., I've never even seen any of the Naked Gun series). It's not the sort of flick that I would normally want to see in a theater, but I was happy to help boost the first weekend ratings. Of course, unlike the previous ones, there are some emotionally affecting moments in this one (quickly broken up, of course, by more crude slapstick).
So if you want to support this sort of politically incorrect movie (always a noble goal, in my opinion), spend a couple hours and spend the ten bucks. You'll have a good time, but don't expect too much.
[Note: this post has been bumped to the top, new stuff below]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:42 AMThe Obama campaign seems to have gotten way out front of the McCain campaign on space. The problem is that, like its domestic policy in general, McCain doesn't seem to have a coherent policy with regard to civil space. He's going to freeze discretionary, which includes NASA, and whether NASA will be exempt seems to depend on which campaign aide you ask. And regardless of how much money is spent, the campaign is equally vague on how it is spent, and what the near-term and long-term goals of the expenditure are. On top of that, the McCain campaign has lumped in the new Obama proposal to increase the NASA budget by two billion with a lot of so-called liberal spending proposals. As Jeff Foust notes, it's a little mind blowing, politically.
Obama, after having gotten off on the wrong foot with the initial idiotic proposal to delay Constellation to provide funds for education, seems to have actually gotten inside McCain's OODA loop on this issue. The McCain campaign really needs a smart political adviser in this area (as Obama apparently has now with Lori Garver, who seems to successfully jumped ship from Hillary's campaign), but there's no evidence that they've come up with one yet.
Of course, it's not an issue on which the election will hang, probably not even in Florida.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here's a little more at NASA Watch. It seems to be a disconnect between the McCain campaign and the RNC. Which, of course, doesn't make it any better, or excuse it.
[Another update a few minutes later]
Well, this would seem to clarify the McCain position:
Perhaps more important were McCain's remarks on Wednesday that only the Pentagon and veterans would see a budget increase in his administration because of the high price the proposed economic bail out. Everything else - including, presumably, NASA -- will be frozen or cut. Several space advocates in Florida and Washington DC expect the worst.
As I said, it isn't clear that space will be a key issue, even in Florida. But if the McCain campaign position is that the budget is going to be frozen, they should at least put forth a description of how they expect, and will require, NASA's priorities to change to accommodate it. So far, there's zero evidence that they've even given the matter any thought.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:38 AMAlan Boyle has come up with a new set of science-project-based monetary units to get our heads around the costs of the bailout.
This sort of thing provides support for the politically naive argument for more money for one's pet project, e.g., "we could do seven Apollos for the cost of one Iraq war--surely we can afford at least one." But federal budget dollars aren't fungible, and the political importance of various choices isn't necessarily consistent, either, due to the vagaries of how these decisions are made. Note also that, at the time, getting to the moon in a hurry was important for reasons having little or nothing do to with space. It's unreasonable to expect those particular political stars to align again.
Not to mention the fact that because we were in a hurry, we chose an architecture and path that was economically and politically unsustainable. Just as NASA's current path is, which is no surprise, considering that they chose to recapitulate Apollo, rather than building an incremental affordable infrastructure that would provide the basis for true spacefaring.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:28 AMIllegal fundraising by the Obama campaign? Who would have thought?
I wonder how much of that foreign money comes from oil wealth.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:33 AMI guess that being overambitious, and impatient with your current position isn't confined to Barack Obama. He and Michelle were made for each other:
At big firms, much of the work that falls to young associates involves detail and tedium. There were all sorts of arcane but important rules about what could and could not be said or done in product advertisements, and in the marketing group, all the associates, not just the new ones, reviewed scripts for TV commercials to make sure they conformed. As far as associate work goes, it could have been worse -- "Advertising is a little sexier than spending a full year reading depositions in an antitrust law suit or reviewing documents for a big merger," says White -- but it was monotonous and relatively low-level.
Too monotonous for Michelle, who, White says, complained that the work he gave her was unsatisfactory. He says he gave her the Coors beer ads, which he considered one of the more glamorous assignments they had. Even then, he says, "she at one point went over my head and complained [to human resources] that I wasn't giving her enough interesting stuff, and the person came down to my office and said, 'Basically she's complaining that she's being treated like she's a second-year associate,' and we agreed that she was a second-year associate. I had eight or nine other associates, and I couldn't start treating one of them a lot better."White says he talked to Michelle about her expectations, but the problem could not be resolved because the work was what it was. He is not sure any work he had would have satisfied her. "I couldn't give her something that would meet her sense of ambition to change the world."
She and Barack are going to make us work. Arbeit macht frei.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:03 AMThe New York Times continues to act as the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign:
Steve Diamond has made a powerful case that, whoever first suggested Obama's name, Ayers must surely have had a major role in his final selection. Diamond has now revealed that the Times consulted him extensively for this article and has seen his important documentary evidence. Yet we get no inkling in the piece of Diamond's key points, or the documents that back it up. (I've made a similar argument myself, based largely on my viewing of many of the same documents presented by Diamond.) How can an article that gives only one side of the story be fair? Instead of offering both sides of the argument and letting readers decide, the Times simply spoon-feeds its readers the Obama camp line.The Times also ignores the fact that I've published a detailed statement from the Obama camp on the relationship between Ayers and Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (See "Obama's Challenge.") Maybe that's because attention to that statement would force them to acknowledge and report on my detailed reply.
Yup. Wouldn't fit the narrative.
[Mid afternoon update]
Instapundit has a roundup of links discussing this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:07 AMHeh.
[From Bruce Webster, via email]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:56 AMObama is still trading as a 2-1 favorite on Intrade after the debate and has even moved up a point since yesterday's close to 66 cents (for a security that pays one dollar if he wins) as of press time. But Palin has earned her stripes. The "Palin to be withdrawn from the ticket" security has dropped from ten cents yesterday to 4 which is a penny less than "Biden to be withdrawn from the ticket". My opinion? Palin's the best of the four and should have been thrown to the media wolves so they could patronize her and have it backfire, so she could continue framing the debate, and so she could dominate the late-night talk shows and comedy shows. It's not too late for her to make a circuit of the late night TV shows. Parody is a high form of praise. CNN reported that she did less than five interviews to Biden's 100+. I don't see McCain changing that now. I hope she runs in 2012 and if necessary 2016.
I'm watching the debate, but not attempting to live blog it. But I have to say that while Palin is doing fine in general, she missed a huge opportunity. When Biden kept going on about how he and The One were going to "end" the war, she should have said, "Senator, you, Senator Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid...you all keep talking about ending the war. But Americans don't want to just end a war. They want to win the war. Why can you not let the word "victory" pass your lips when it comes America and the Iraq war?"
[Update a few minutes later]
Well, she keeps saying "win the war" and he keeps saying "end the war," so maybe the point will come across subtly, but it would have been a big blow had she pointed it out.
I have to say that Biden has been surprisingly gaffe free. He's told lots of whoppers, but no big gaffes.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 PMMcCain should have dropped this idiot from the ticket weeks ago.
By the way, sorry for the light live blogging of the workshop, but I had some side meetings this afternoon. More in the morning.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:04 PMThe latest version of the bailout bill has new earmarks in it. As Mark Steyn explains:
I suppose sophisticated insiders would assure me that regrettably there's no possibility of earmark reform; this is just the price of doing business in Washington. But that's why non-sophisticated non-insiders hold the political class in contempt. The same blowhards who run for office on a platform of lowering ocean levels and healing the planet then turn around and insist they're unable to do anything about the one small area of human endeavor for which they bear sole responsibility.
If this is an emergency, hold the wool research. If it's an emergency that's got time for wool research, let's chew it over for another few months.
And they wonder why their approval rating is even lower than Bush's?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:22 AMI have some fiftieth birthday thoughts over at Pajamas Media.
[Early afternoon update]
Well, this is annoying. A screwed-up history from Time magazine:
NASA was actually founded in 1915 and at the time was known as the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics -- or NACA. Its job was to keep the nation abreast of the latest developments in the then-nascent technology of powered flight. NACA was established with good intentions but operated mostly as a bureaucratic backwater, a government body that couldn't hope to keep up with a rapidly evolving private industry. In 1957, however, all that changed. That was the year the U.S.S.R. launched Sputnik, the first Earth satellite -- and in the process, scared the daylights out of the U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower acted quickly, dusting off NACA and renaming it NASA -- for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. On October 1, 1958, the new agency officially went into business.
No, NASA was not NACA, or "founded in 1915." NACA was a completely different kind of animal. It had nothing to do with space, and it was not an operational organization. It was a basic research outfit, and viewed the aviation industry as its customer, providing data and resources that allowed them to build better airplanes.
Sadly, once it was absorbed into the borg of the new space and aeronautics agency fifty years ago, it lost that focus, and the new entity largely saw itself as the customer, and the space industry as its contractors. Many argue that we need to return to a NACA philosophy for space, but it's extremely misleading and confusing to state that NASA is NACA, and that its history goes back over ninety years. In fact, it is false.
He also doesn't really explain why JSC is in Houston. Yes, Johnson was happy to have the mission control center in Texas, but Texas is a big state, and there are no particular geographical requirements for mission control (unlike, e.g., a launch site). It could as easily have been in Dallas or elsewhere. It was established in Houston because Rice University donated a lot of land for it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:19 AMPlans to set up international efforts to deal with the asteroid threat continue.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:17 AMRasmussen says that a quarter of the public thinks that lawmakers know what they're doing in an economic crisis. He says it is "only" that much, but it seems way too high for my comfort. What are they, idiots?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:56 AMNothing to see at all. Move along, move along.
As Jonah says:
All I need to know about your politics is whether you find this creepy or not.
Get out the crayolas and color me creeped out.
[Update mid afternoon]
Roger Simon (who knows his fascists) has more thoughts.
[Update a few minutes later]
Some great comments at the Hit'n'Run link.:
[Olympics flashback]
The worst part is that the original singers were all replaced by much cuter kids.
[/Olympics flashback]
[Update about 3:15 PM EDT]
Exurban League has more, as does Confederate Yankee. It turns out to be astroturf:
Here's a partial list of those who helped produce this "grassroots" effort:
- Jeff Zucker -- American television executive, and President & CEO of NBC Universal.
- Post-producer (former choreographer?) Holly Shiffer.
- Motion picture camera operator/steadicam specialist Peter Rosenfeld (appropriately enough, worked in "Yes Man," a movie about " a guy challenges himself to say 'yes' to everything for an entire year."
- Darin Moran, another motion picture industry professional, who just finished filming -- how appropriate -- Land of the Lost.
- Andy Blumenthal, Hollywood film editor.
Jeff Zucker. This generation's Leni Riefenstahl. Except without the talent.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:48 AMA long, detailed piece on Barack Obama, his associations, and the long-term plans to radicalize the nation through manufactured crises. And it's a story that we continue not to hear from the press, as they have reporters up in Alaska going through the Palin family trash cans.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:25 AMAs I noted yesterday, Speaker Pelosi's partisan lies were a clear sign to members on both sides of the aisle that she didn't take this crisis seriously. Or, to be fair, the alternative explanation: that she is an abject moron (a proposition for which abundant evidence is available from over the years). Now here is more evidence of at least the former notion:
...considering that only a dozen votes needed to switch in order to provide a different outcome, and 95 Democrats in the House voted against it, critics are now wondering why couldn't House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have assured a different outcome considering how important she said its passage was?
Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., told me yesterday that he felt no pressure at all to vote for the bill.
Some leader.
In other words, it had nothing to do with saving the financial markets. It was for raw partisan advantage. The tragic and infuriating thing is that, even though Congress has an even lower rating than George Bush (and if it's possible for an approval rating to go negative, it probably did so after yesterday's clown show), many of these creatures will probably be reelected, due both to gerrymandered districts, and the unfortunate psychological notion that people hate Congress, but unaccountably think that their own Congressperson is great.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AMTom Sowell explains, as only he can:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deserve to be bailed out, but neither do workers, families and businesses deserve to be put through the economic wringer by a collapse of credit markets, such as occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Neither do the voters deserve to be deceived on the eve of an election by the idea this is a failure of free markets that should be replaced by political micro-managing.
Nothing about this makes me more angry than the continued lies by the collectivists that this was a failure of the free market.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 AMAnd live a thousand years.
Only P.J. O'Rourke could write an hilarious column about his cancer diagnosis:
Why can't death -- if we must have it -- be always glorious, as in "The Iliad"? Of course death continues to be so, sometimes, with heroes in Fallouja and Kandahar. But nowadays, death more often comes drooling on the toilet seat in the nursing home, or bleeding under the crushed roof of a teen-driven SUV, or breathless in a deluxe hotel suite filled with empty drug bottles and a minor public figure whose celebrity expiration date has passed.
I have, of all the inglorious things, a malignant hemorrhoid. What color bracelet does one wear for that? And where does one wear it? And what slogan is apropos? Perhaps that slogan can be sewn in needlepoint around the ruffle on a cover for my embarrassing little doughnut buttocks pillow.Furthermore, I am a logical, sensible, pragmatic Republican, and my diagnosis came just weeks after Teddy Kennedy's. That he should have cancer of the brain, and I should have cancer of the ass ... well, I'll say a rosary for him and hope he has a laugh at me. After all, what would I do, ask God for a more dignified cancer? Pancreatic? Liver? Lung?
I don't believe in God, but it he's there, please bless him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 PMI think that this isn't going to be an isolated case:
My husband's business is a canary in the coalmine. When tax policies are favorable to business, he hires more guys, buys more goods, etc. When he is taxed more heavily, he fires people, doesn't buy anything new, etc. Well, duh. So, at the mere thought of a President Obama, he has paid off his debt, canceled new spending, and jotted a list of whom to "let go."
The first of the guys will get the news tomorrow. And these are not minimum-wage earners. These are "rich" guys, making between $200,000 and $250,000 a year.
My husband will make sure that we're okay, money-wise, but he won't give himself a paycheck that will just be sent to Washington. He'll make sure that he's not in "rich guy" tax territory. So, he will not spend his money, not show a profit, and scale his workforce down to the bare minimum.Multiply this scenario across the country and you'll see the Obama effect: unemployment, recession, etc. No business owner will vote for this man, but many a "middle-class worker" will vote himself out of a job. Sad the Republican can't articulate this.
Unfortunately, the Republicans nominated the wrong candidate for that. Maybe the vice-presidential nominee can.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:40 PMIs she (and Harry Reid) so stupid and partisan that she imagines that after that press conference last night, that she opened up by blaming George Bush and the Republicans for the mess, that she was going to get bi-partisan support for the bailout today?
That was a rhetorical question, of course.
[Update about 3:25 PM EDT]
Note that I didn't post this with the knowledge that the bill would fail, or that it would fail for exactly that reason. It was just a thought that I had last night while listening to her presser that I didn't get around to blogging until this afternoon. But only an idiot would have thought that this wouldn't have a negative effect on the proceedings. That's our Nancy, third in line for the presidency.
[Update late afternoon]
Roger Kimball explains how we got here, and who caused it. Don't expect to hear it from CBSNBCABCCNN. Or NYT.
[Evening update]
David Bernstein has further thoughts:
Speaker Pelosi's speech before the House today was remarkable, but not in a good way. She was trying to round up votes for a bailout package that shes claims to believe is essential for the stability of the American economy. She can't, and doesn't want to, pass the bill without a substantial number of Republican votes. So what does she do? You would think she would say, "let's pass this emergency measure now, in the best interests of the country, and talk about who is to blame later." Instead, Pelosi began her speech with a highly partisan tirade against "Bush" and "Republican" economic policies, which were allegedly to blame for this situation. She focused on an attack on the growth of federal deficits, which clearly are at best tangential to the current crisis. That, to me, is the sort of irresponsible thing you do when (a) you're not claiming there is a vast emergency; and (b) you are in the minority, and not claiming to exercise leadership. [Commenters point out that Republican Housemember were acting equally irresponsibly to the extent they rose to Pelosi's bait and voted against the bailout out of pique at Pelosi. True. But the Speaker of the House is a leader, not just a random member of the House, and her actions inevitably and justifiably get more scrutiny than those of her colleagues.]
That's right. Of course, the problem is that she doesn't see herself as the leader of the House, or a leader of the country. She sees herself as a leader of the Democrat Party, first and foremost, and it shows in her every action.
I sure wish that the historically low approval rating of Congress would translate into a new job title for her in a few weeks.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:58 AMShubber Ali noticed an omission, that surprises neither of us.
As I continue to point out, space isn't important. Unless it somehow gets kids to study their math and science.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AMAccording to Congressmen Hensarling.
Yes, it's one that we started sliding down over seventy years ago. Unfortunately, though, many of his colleagues (including many in the media) see that as a feature, not a bug. As does at least one of the presidential candidates.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:56 AMMark Hemingway notes the ongoing double standard of the press:
Not that these things are to be excused out of hand, but Palin bends zoning rules -- which I'm sure are stringent and a high stakes matter in Wasilla, Alaska -- and gets a free facial. Obama gets a freakin' house with help from someone indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, extortion and corrupt solicitation; has someone raising money for his campaign with well-publicized ties to organized crime; and the Illinois attorney general is currently looking into how Obama earmarked $100,000 for a former campaign volunteer who never spent the money for its intended purpose -- and yet, I don't see too many "investigations" decrying Obama's transparently false claims he practices a "new" kind of politics.
I guess that my thesis is going to be tested. We're seeing exactly the same behavior from the Fourth Estate regarding the Democrat candidate as we saw in 1992--completely ignoring the candidate's unsavory history, and hoping that no one else exposes it, while acting as an adjunct part of his campaign in maintaining the anti-Republican narrative. Will they get away with it again?
We'll see if the blogosphere can make a difference this time.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Well, now we know what a community organizer does. He strong arms banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.
And he has the audacity of hope that the media won't call him on his hypocrisy in blaming George Bush and the Republicans, and "deregulation" for the current crisis. Unfortunately, his audacity seems to be justified.
Someone should put together an ad, and ask which regulatory agency should have reined in organizer Obama.
[Update mid morning]
Victor Davis Hanson has more on the media double standards:
As I recall Raines was the one who, following the Enron scandals, gave public lectures about corporate responsibility and CEO honesty. And as one begins to read about Raines, James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, and Leland Brendsel at Freddie Mac, one begins to understand their modus operandi. Freddie and Fannie were landing pads for former Democratic insiders, who milked the agencies for millions in bonuses as they covered their tracks by donations to Congressional candiates and pseudo-racial-populism of helping minorities buy homes with little down. Their careers are every bit as nauseating as anything at Enron -- and yet the press strangely does not go after them in the manner we learned of Ken Lay's deceit. God help us all.
It goes beyond nauseating. It makes me incandescently angry.
[Early afternoon update[
Geraghty has some related thoughts on the Missouri issue:
Think about it, the local television station summarized the story on their web site, "The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign," and it seems no one at the station blinked; there was nothing in the report that indicated that this might be controversial.
I hate to be glum heading into October, but to a certain extent, an electorate gets the leaders it deserves. If the journalism institutions in a given area nod and smile as they're given information like this -- if it never crosses their mind to object -- then the Fourth Estate, for all extents and purposes, ceases to exist. When Ben Franklin responded to the query about the government that would manage the young nation, "A Republic, if you can keep it," moments like this make you wonder if we're in the process of losing it.
These "reporters" are a product of their environment--public schools and (often) schools of journalism. Is the problem that they don't understand the Bill of Rights, or is it that they don't care about it, if it gets in the way of their preferred candidate? Do they not understand that it is precisely the right being potentially violated here that allows them the freedom to pursue their supposed profession? Either way, it is very dismaying.
"First, they came for the McCain supporters, and I did nothing, because I was not a McCain supporter."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:27 AM...that John McCain should have kicked off on Friday by properly responding to Senator Obama's lies and demagoguery on the financial crisis. It's exactly what Fred Thompson would have done, but I fear that out of a misplaced sense of collegiality, McCain won't do it.
The problem is, that in his heart, McCain doesn't really believe in free markets, any more than his opponents do. He has an emotional stake in "honor" and "service" over profit, and it makes it tough for him (as Glenn said) to go for the jugular against the corrupt rent seekers and collectivists in Washington, of both parties. Instead, he placidly and pallidly aims for the capillary.
He really needs to read this. As he notes, the problem isn't capitalism. It's politicians.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 PMYou don't have to go overseas any more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:31 PMMy brief take: Senator Obama won, because he didn't lose. Senator McCain had many, many missed opportunities to hammer him and show him for the fraud that he is.
I also think that Senator Obama did as well as he possibly could have, given his temperament, past actions and positions. But Senator McCain could (and should) have done much better, and if he had, it could have been a knockout, or at least a major blow. I'm glad that there are two more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:45 AMIn comments at the previous post on this subject, Karl Hallowell comments:
It's not government's job to suck up risk for a contractor. As I see it, if contractors really were giving their best cost estimates, then they're regularly overestimate prices not consistently underestimate them.
The other commenters who seem to think that designing a brand new UAV, or the first successful hit to kill missile (SRHIT/ERINT/PAC-3, not the dead end HOE), or an autonomous helicopter (all things I've been heavily involved with) is something that can and should be done on a fixed-price contract (after all, one bridge is like any other, right?) . . . it can maybe be done, but only if you're willing to let system development take a lot longer.I don't know who posted this, but it's unrealistic.
Let's give an example of how the real world works in salvaging ships on the high seas:
Salvage work has long been viewed as a form of legal piracy. The insurers of a disabled ship with valuable cargo will offer from 10 to 70 percent of the value of the ship and its cargo to anyone who can save it. If the salvage effort fails, they don't pay a dime. It's a risky business: As ships have gotten bigger and cargo more valuable, the expertise and resources required to mount a salvage effort have steadily increased. When a job went bad in 2004, Titan ended up with little more than the ship's bell as a souvenir. Around the company's headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, it's known as the $11.6 million bell.Exactly the scenario where it is claimed that fixed price contracts can't work. Huge risk, lots of uncertainty, time pressure. A similar example is oil well firefighters. As I see it, there's almost no circumstances when government needs to help the contractor with risk. The money, paid when the job is done right, does that. If it's not enough, then nobody takes the contract. Simple as that.
Yes. The reason that cost-plus contracts are preferred by government is that government, by its nature, has an aversion to profit. It's the same sort of economic ignorance that drives things like idiotic "anti-gouging" laws, and it results in the same false economy for the citizens and taxpayers.
The problem isn't that companies are unwilling to bid fixed price on high-tech ventures. The problem is that, in order to do so, they have to build enough profit into the bid to make it worth the risk. But the government views any profit over the standard one in cost-plus contracts (generally less than ten percent) as "obscene," and to allow a company to make more profit than that from a taxpayer-funded project is a "ripoff." So instead, they cap the profit, and reimburse costs, while also having to put into place an onerous oversight process, in terms of cost accounting and periodic customer reviews, that dramatically increases cost to the taxpayer, probably far beyond what they would be if they simply let it out fixed price and ignored the profit. I would argue that instead of the current model of cost-plus, lowest bidder, an acceptance of bid based on the technical merits of the proposal, history and quality of the bidding team, even if the bid cost is higher, will ultimately result in lower costs to the government (and taxpayer).
As I understand it, this is the battle that XCOR (hardly a risk-averse company, at least from a business standpoint) has been waging with NASA for years. XCOR wants to bid fixed price, and accept the risk (and the profits if they can hit their internal cost targets), while NASA wants them to be a cost-plus contractor, with all of the attendant increases in costs, and changes in corporate culture implied by that status.
This is the debate that will have to occur if John McCain wants to make any headway in his stated desire Friday night to get rid of cost-plus contracts. Unfortunately, he's not in a very good philosophical position to argue his case, because he's one of those economic simpletons in Washington who think that making money is ignoble, and that profits are evil, particularly when they're so high as to be "obscene."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:34 AMSo, what is the cargo of this Iranian ship headed for Somalia?
Somali pirates suffered skin burns, lost hair and fell gravely ill "within days" of boarding the MV Iran Deyanat. Some of them died...
...This was also confirmed by Hassan Allore Osman, minister of minerals and oil in Puntland, an autonomous region of Somalia.He headed a delegation sent to Eyl when news of the toxic cargo and illnesses surfaced.
He told one news publication, The Long War Journal, that during the six days he had negotiated with the pirates, a number of them had become sick and died.
"That ship is unusual," he was quoted as saying. "It is not carrying a normal shipment."
The pirates did reveal that they had tried to inspect the ship's cargo containers when some of them fell sick -- but the containers were locked.
Osman's delegation spoke to the ship's captain and its engineer by cellphone, demanding to know more about the cargo.
Initially it was claimed the cargo contained "crude oil"; later it was said to be "minerals".
And Mwangura has added: "Our sources say it contains chemicals, dangerous chemicals."
The symptoms described could be possibly caused by chemical weapons, but the pirates claimed that they didn't open the locked holds (though the holds could have leaked as well). But the symptoms also match radiation poisoning.
But why would the Iranians be shipping WMD of any kind to Somalia? For transhipment elsewhere overland? And if it is radioactive, is it the material for a nuclear weapon, or a dirty bomb?
It will be ironic if it turns out that pirates caught what the CIA didn't (assuming, of course, that they haven't been tracking it).
[Late afternoon update]
Marlon McAvoy emails:
'm a Radiation Protection tech at ORNL. Was formerly a member of the DOE's RAP (Radiological Assistance Program) team, originally tasked and trained mostly for transport incidences, but which was reprioritized after 9-11. Just wanted to offer an observation, which might be old news to you two science geeks.Skin burns were also reported in this incident. These are normally more associated with beta than the far more penetrating gamma radiation, but there's no way these guys could have gotten beta burns without close exposure to actual, unshielded radioactive material. Gamma can certainly burn the skin, but in which case the victim has sustained an enormous dose and will absolutely die from it, unless the exposure was tightly collimated over a small area.
So, my guess, this seems much more likely to be of chemical rather than radiological origin. But if multiple guys did receive 500+ rem (Roentgen equivalent man) of gamma radiation, our spooks will have no difficulty determining it. We have civilian instrument packages that can map minute fluctuations in background radiation levels; a poorly shielded gamma WMD would look like a magnesium flare to whatever is used by the intelligence community.
Whether they can or should let us civvies know is, of course, another question.
It is indeed.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:18 AMAndrew Sullivan's dementia is now apparently affecting his hearing.
I wish that he actually had said "horsesh!t." There is never a shortage of worthy opportunities when The One speaks.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:10 AMAt least the first time I've heard it.
McCain just called for an end to cost-plus contracts in the debate.
I don't know if they can be eliminated, but they should sure be cut way back. But good luck with that.
I have to say that so far, McCain is not doing very well. He's letting Obama get away with a lot of lies and sophistry, calling him on very little of it.
[Update on Saturday afternoon]
I'm pretty sure that this is the first time that cost-plus contracting has come up in a presidential debate. It was really quite bizarre. I can't imagine that it's an issue on which the election will turn, and I suspect that 90%+ of the listeners had no idea what he was talking about. I'm not even sure that I know what he is talking about (in terms of what the basis of his objection is, and what specific examples in his experience prompted this strange utterance). I doubt that it had much to do with NASA, though--I'm sure that he was thinking of Pentagon contracts, where much larger budgets are at stake, and there have been some recent notable expensive procurement failures.
The good thing is that it's clearly something that he takes seriously, and may try to do something about as president. But I suspect that it would require either an overhaul of A109, or at least a major reinterpretation of it by whoever the new SecDef, NASA administrator, and OMB directors are (not to mention GAO). It would constitute an unimaginably major cultural change in the federal procurement community, in a culture that has developed over several decades.
Which is why I first said, "good luck with that."
[Sunday afternoon update]
Based on some comments, I have a follow-up post to this one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:47 PMJonathan Gewirtz has some thoughts:
If Obama supported gun rights, many pro-gun people, even Republicans, would support him, because many pro-gun people are single-issue voters on this topic and Obama's opponent has a spotty record on gun rights. (The NRA and pro-gun rights voters have supported pro-gun Democrats in many elections.) Also, if Obama really supported the right to arms, it's likely that many additional Republican, libertarian and independent voters would support him because conservatives and libertarians often interpret a politician's support for the right to arms as a reliable proxy for that politician's support of other individual rights. This point seems especially strong now, since many Republican voters distrust Obama's opponent on free speech, business regulation and other big-govt-vs-individual-rights issues.
So on the one hand we have single-issue pro-gun people opposing Obama on guns, and on the other hand we have people who are primarily Obama partisans, not gun people, arguing that pro-gun people should trust Obama on guns. Who should we believe?
I know who I believe.
I'd also point out that this is one more area (like being post racial, and moderate) where the real Obama is being airbrushed by his supporters to appear to be something he is not.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:21 PMPatterico has the story:
...the DNC threatened Sinclair Broadcasting's broadcast license over an anti-Kerry documentary called 'Stolen Honor.' Kerry spokesthug Chad Clanton was quoted as saying: 'I think they're going to regret doing this, and they better hope we don't win.' He hastened to add that it wasn't a threat."
Do you Obamaphiles really want these people in charge of the Justice Department? That doesn't scare you just a little bit?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:03 PMI keep hearing about shortages and lines in the south. The last time we had gas lines on any major scale was in the seventies, when oil prices were kept artificially low by federal fiat. Is that what's happening here? Are the "anti-gouging" laws keeping prices too low, and discouraging new supply? For instance, if you can't get any more for it in North Carolina than you can in Ohio, where's the incentive to spend the money to ship it in from there?
Can anyone in the areas where the lines are tell me?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:26 PMBill Whittle has some recent experience with it, and resulting thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:44 PMIs Bill Clinton actually concerned about the country?
...we must remember that Clinton is a centrist (like Bush and, even more, McCain). No one knows, perhaps even Obama himself, what Obama is. Maybe, like many of us, Bill Clinton is genuinely worried. He would know, wouldn't he?
People will look back on this year as they did 1972, and wonder how Obama got the nomination, and why the superdelegates didn't do their jobs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AMNancy Pelosi says that the bailout bill has to pass.
OK, Madame Speaker, if you believe that, if it's such a great idea, then why not pass it? Your party controls the House. There is no filibuster as there is in the Senate. There's nothing the House Republicans can do to stop you. So where is the bill?
Obviously, she just wants keister upholstery in case it doesn't work. She wants to get buy-in from the Republicans so that they can share the blame for the taxpayer ripoff. I don't see why they should give it to her. And I also don't see why this isn't pointed out in news stories like this.
Oh, right.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AMIn Ohio.
You'll be as shocked as I was to learn that ACORN is involved.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:35 AMNot.
Glenn Reynolds has a link roundup.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:35 PMJack Murtha is going to be sued for slander. Here's hoping that he loses big. It would be great if he'd actually lose his seat in a few weeks, but that's probably too much to hope for.
And I guess my title libels actual bags of scum. Hope they don't sue.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:18 AMObama's plans would be pretty hard on us.
It's not surprising. He's never displayed any knowledge of, or interest in business. If anything, his attitude (and unfortunately, John McCain's as well) is that there is something ignoble about profits (hence his self-righteous preening about his choice of becoming a community organizer instead of "going to Wall Street").
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:46 AMJeeeeez. Hint, ladies. Persuasion is not force.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:41 AMCorruption in Chicago? Who could imagine such a thing?
Madigan's office has notified Obama's presidential campaign of the probe, which was launched this week. But Obama's actions in awarding the money are not a focus of the investigation, Smith said.
Questions about the grant, though, come as spending on local pet projects has become an issue in Obama's campaign against John McCain.Obama and Kenny Smith announced the "Englewood Botanic Garden Project" at a January 2000 news conference at Englewood High School. Obama was in the midst of a failed bid to oust South Side Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush for a seat in Congress. The garden -- planned near and under L tracks between 59th Place and 62nd Place -- fell outside of Obama's Illinois Senate district but within the congressional district's borders.
Obama vowed to "work tirelessly" to raise $1.1 million to help Smith's organization turn the City of Chicago-owned lot into an oasis of trees and paths. But Obama lost the congressional race, no more money was raised, and today the garden site is a mess of weeds, chunks of concrete and garbage. The only noticeable improvement is a gazebo.
Guess he got too busy running for the next office.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:34 AMJudging by the comments here, the natives are growing ever more restless at NASA, over the sham PDR they just held:
Is NASA trying to put lipstick on a pig? This one, highly-visible decision on how to report status says more than enough. It is a political gimmick if ever we have seen one. And being an election year, I guess it is de rigeur. How terribly sad...
...I think NASA should get rid of the red category all together, because if anything gets put in that category, it doesn't look good. They might want to get rid of orange also, because that's too close to red. Here is how I think the categories should be arranged.GREEN
GREEN/GREEN
GREEN/LIGHT GREEN
GREEN/TEAL
GREEN/EMERALDNow, don't these colors make you feel good?
It kind of reminds me of Tom Ridge's terror alerts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AMClarice Feldman notes that Bill Ayers was a lot more than a "guy in Barack's neighborhood."
How is it possible that Obama in writing two autobiographies could ignore his 13 year-long association with Ayers if he were not purposely trying to hide or downplay it? How is it possible that the media could continue to ignore the CAC story? How is it possible that American voters, who regularly indicate such enormous concern over educational issues, could be so long kept in the dark by the Fourth Estate about the educational project Obama ran into the ground while he aided his revolutionary pals in recruiting Chicago kids to their extreme left wing mission?
It's clear that Obama and his friends, including those in the press, are trying to keep this all bottled up at least until after the election.Then, I suppose, like the Clinton peccadilloes in Arkansas, this story will be free to unfold, too late to inform the voters.
Except unlike 1992, we have alternate media today.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:55 AMIt's so good, that he remembers things that didn't happen:
...I think Joe Biden's constant flights of fancy indicate he's not a terribly precise thinker or speaker, and he's certainly not used to being called out on these, or being corrected. He takes in data and remembers what he wants to remember, not the facts as they actually are.
(More on this list - he keeps insisting that his wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver when the driver in question was sober; he keeps saying he was a coal miner when his grandfather was; he says the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said we're losing the war in Iraq (he said we were "not winning" in Afghanistan)... )I know we're supposed to be worried about whether Sarah Palin is ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, but I really wonder what kind of diplomatic crises could be triggered by a globetrotting vice president who kept talking about events that didn't happen...
I don't think that Biden's IQ is as high as he thinks it is.
And I agree that this is one gaffe that's really going to hurt him. I expect it will be featured in a lot of McCain ads in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
[Update a few minutes later]
Victor Davis Hanson makes a good point:
In short, the problem is not whether we think the affable Biden's latest slip/goof/outrage is important, but whether we think anything he says any more is important. The next time he tries to offer something serious, from the AIG matter and coal power to campaign ads and Sarah Palin, I think we are at the point where most will smile, ignore him, and think 'That's just Biden being Biden.' He could give the Gettyburg Address tomorrow, and the public wouldn't know whether he wrote it, whether he was going to retract it, whether it was true, or whether he was serious.
I haven't taken Joe Biden seriously in years. Actually, I can't recall a time that I ever did.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AMJen Rubin applies Occam's Razor:
I think those postulating a "McCain panic" theory to explain his campaign suspension don't understand, or they pretend not to understand, John McCain. This is what he does. He elevates matters he considers higher national priorities above politics, which he finds at some level disasteful. Lots of people differ with his priorities, but that's not at issue. If you look back over McCain's career, he does this again and again: campaign finance reform, immigration reform, the surge and now this. He junks his party and the immediate short term political consequences when he thinks there's something else at play. That in large part is what drive his GOP base nuts. And they likely won't be thrilled here.
One can attribute nefarious motive ( "Ah! He's just feigning love of country and putting his political career at risk!") or you can take the more mundane explanation : this is how he operates and what he honestly believes. This performance with Katie Couric is plainly him at his best.As for Barack Obama, I agree with this take that his initial effort to avoid involvement with brokering a deal didn't come off all that well. ("It's shocking that someone who believes himself ready to lead the free world would so brazenly try to dodge any participation in what could be a defining moment in our history.') What was striking about Obama's comment was his remark that if "the Congressional leadership" needed him, he'd be available. It's an odd way to put it -- he is the leader of his party now and he seemed utterly disinterested in doing anything that involved active problem-solving/deal-making. He does after all have a current job -- in the Senate.
And this time, he's not even voting "present."
It's a sterling example of his general career path--accomplishing little in his current job because he always views it as little more than a rung on the ladder to the next one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:32 AMThe McCain campaign just announced that it's suspending the campaign to go back to DC and work on the bailout, and calling for a postponement of Friday night's debate.
That puts the Obama campaign in a tough position. He can't show up on Friday and debate an empty chair, and McCain has just once again demonstrated that there are things more important to him than winning elections. It also demonstrates his record of working on bi-partisan efforts.
It's hard for Obama to do anything but a "me too," which will burnish McCain's leadership credentials as well. This could end up being a very good move, politically, for the McCain camp, which has been off its game ever since the Wall Street panic started. In terms of the polls, though, while it's true that Obama has opened up a gap, interestingly, he didn't seem to take any away from McCain. The gap seems to be a result of recent new McCain supporters going undecided again (probably because of the response of the campaign to the panic). Obama still can't close the deal and get a majority of support.
[Update a while later]
Apparently Senator Obama is willing to go to Oxford and debate an empty chair. If I were the McCain campaign, I'd send Sarah as a replacement.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:36 PMIowahawk has an interview with some of the key players.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:12 PMThere are more and more stories appearing in the media with the template that we're a racist nation. This is preparing the groundwork to blame Obama's upcoming loss on the evil right-wing bigots, of both parties. And of course, poor Michelle won't be able to feel proud of America any more.
No, it won't have anything to do with the fact that he's Michael Dukakis with more melanin. It will have nothing to do with the fact that he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate and his running mate comes in third, that one needs a scanning tunneling microscope to measure the thickness of his resume, that he sat in the pew of an America-hating bigot for twenty years and had his children baptized by him, that he partnered with an unrepentent domestic terrorist to radicalize Chicago schoolchildren. No, it will be our fault, because we are racist, and don't deserve the blessings of having The One preside over our unworthy nation.
Anyway, here's the latest example, from US News.
[Wednesday morning update]
Jonah Goldberg has related thoughts today:
This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people -- and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama's lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view.
Similarly, McCain's experience, his record of bipartisanship, his heroism: These too count for nothing.
Nope. It's got to be the racism.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:33 PMChristopher Hitchens wonders why Barack Obama is so vapid, hesitant, and gutless:
By the end of that grueling campaign season, a lot of us had got the idea that Dukakis actually wanted to lose--or was at the very least scared of winning. Why do I sometimes get the same idea about Obama? To put it a touch more precisely, what I suspect in his case is that he had no idea of winning this time around. He was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008, and then the enthusiasm of his supporters (and the weird coincidence of a strong John Edwards showing in Iowa) put him at the front of the pack. Yet, having suddenly got the leadership position, he hadn't the faintest idea what to do with it or what to do about it.
I've noted this in the past. Obama wasn't prepared, either mentally or in terms of experience, to be a candidate this time around, and had no expectations of it happening--it was just for practice and name recognition. To repeat, he's like the dog that chases cars, but doesn't know what to do with when when he catches it.
And calling him a "dusky Dukakis" has to sting. Particularly because it's true.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:13 PMHave to agree with this:
...reader Stan Brown emails: "I'm watching the Senate hearing and listening to the senators question Paulson, Cox and Bernanke. The markets continue to fall as investors also listen. Clearly, if experience in the Senate leads to the performance we are watching today, experience is seriously overrated. These senators are frightening." I feel that way every time I watch a Senate hearing. Where do we get these people?
The last time a Senator was elected president was almost fifty years ago. There's a reason for that. The only time it will happen this year is that both parties were foolish enough to make one the nominee. It's almost like the process of becoming a senator selects for mediocrity.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:13 AMI just noted something amusing when I was reading this post about how maybe George Bush really is a fascist (they make a good case), though not Hitler reincarnate.
Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 AMA very interesting essay by Roderick Long:
There's a popular historical legend that goes like this: Once upon a time (for this is how stories of this kind should begin), back in the 19th century, the United States economy was almost completely unregulated and laissez-faire. But then there arose a movement to subject business to regulatory restraint in the interests of workers and consumers, a movement that culminated in the presidencies of Wilson and the two Roosevelts.
This story comes in both left-wing and right-wing versions, depending on whether the government is seen as heroically rescuing the poor and weak from the rapacious clutches of unrestrained corporate power, or as unfairly imposing burdensome socialistic fetters on peaceful and productive enterprise. But both versions agree on the central narrative: a century of laissez-faire, followed by a flurry of anti-business legislation.Every part of this story is false.
Observant libertarians have long noted that in general, captains of industry are not capitalists (or to use Jonah Goldberg's (via whom I found his link) more accurate phrase, "free-market economists"--"capitalism" is a Marxist term), and never have been.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:05 AMWe have been hearing, and will hear, a great deal about Palin's approval/disapproval rating, questions about whether voters think she has the right experience, etc. I wonder if the right question about the Democratic vice presidential candidate -- "Do you think Joe Biden knows what he is saying when he speaks, or does his mouth operate completely independently of any central nervous system?" -- would generate some interesting results.
Joe Biden is the gift that's going to keep giving right up until election day. Thank you, Senator Obama, thank you.
[Update early afternoon]
As I said, the gift that keeps on giving. Senator Biden was for coal, before he was against it. He likes (on odd days of the week, anyway) coal gasification. But with gasbags like him around, we won't have to mine any coal at all.
[Another update]
Man, the hits just keep on coming:
When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, "look, here's what happened."
It was probably one of those steam-powered televisions. And as Jesse Walker notes, "...if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, "Who is that guy? What happened to President Hoover?"
Maybe he was helping Barack's uncle liberate Auschwitz.
[Mid-afternoon update]
I did not know that. Felix the Cat was the very first television star. As Ed Driscoll notes, they wouldn't have been asking what happened to President Hoover; they would have been asking what happened to Felix.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:50 AMIt's finally starting to get some play in the MSM, but only at the Wall Street Journal:
One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.
The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.
CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).
Don't hold your breath waiting for the Gray Lady to cover it. And unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to a ten-second explanation or sound bite, other than "Barack Obama worked to radicalize Chicago school children." But someone should ask him just what there was to show for the hundred million, since it's the only thing that he's ever actually run (other than, as the Reverend Jesse Jackson amusingly noted, his mouth).
More thoughts over at Hot Air.
[Update a while later]
Dr. Kurtz has more over at NRO:
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama's most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure. And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise. The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama's competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers's continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama. Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers's personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers's profoundly radical efforts. Ayers's terrorist history aside, that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.
"Most important"? More like "only," unless one counts running his campaign (which is really done by Axelrod).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AMI noted the other day that the Democrat Party and American Jews are like a wife beater and the wife. Roger Simon says it's time to take the kids and move out.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:15 AMRusty Shackleford has been doing a lot of research. If this can be traced to the Obama campaign, the FEC should be interested. But they probably won't be. And neither will the MSM.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Dan Riehl has more. And like roaches fleeing when the lights come on, the perps have pulled down the sites. Not in time, though--they've been cached.
You know, this could be a really big story for an enterprising investigative reporter at someplace like the New York Times. Unfortunately, when it comes to Barack Obama, such creatures don't seem to exist.
[Update mid morning]
Ace has more:
Tomorrow they will claim this was all inadvertent, etc. They'll say they did produce the ad, and sent it to Winner and Associates to, um, focus-group or something, then decided not to run it, but that dirty Winner family and its employees attempted to get it to go viral without their authorization.
Whatever.If this is all so innocent, why are the videos being yanked even as we speak?
Just about one hour after the post went up, "cnwinner," "eswinner" and the rest of the winner gang are yanking their videos.
Almost as if... I don't know, some kind of major campaign organization was patrolling the internet 24/7.
Can we believe "cnwinner," "eswinner," and etc. just all suddenly were monitoring the internet and decided to take their videos down simultaneously?
No, we cannot.
Can we believe Winner & Associates scours the internet 24 hours a day for derogatory stories about them?
No, we cannot.
But -- can we believe the Obama campaign has people watching the internet 24/7 and just sent out the call to Winner & Associates to bury the evidence?
Yes we can, friends.
Yes we can, even if the Gray Lady can't.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:44 AMAndrew Cuomo?!
Let's hope that this is just an empty campaign promise to get into the White House, and that he'll come to his senses once he's actually elected.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:23 AMOver at the Volokh Conspiracy.
For those in the know, it's Mark Morford...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:18 PMAnd whether Sarah Palin or Barack Obama have it, from Victor Davis Hanson:
For most of you readers, all this is trite and self-evident. But apparently not for hundreds in politics, the media, the universities, Hollywood, and the foundations who seem to think that a fumbling nervous Obama in interviews, who grasps for a word and utters vacuous platitudes is "really" contemplative, like his Harvard Law professors; but when a Sarah Palin seems nervous under scrutiny from a pseudo-professorial, glasses-on-the-lower-nose Charlie Gibson, she is clearly an empty head with an Idaho BA.
A Ronald Reagan knew more about human nature, and thus what drives the Soviet Union than did all the Ivy-League Soviet specialists that surrounded Jimmy Carter-much less the Sally Quins and Maureen Dowds of that age. We in America, unlike the Europeans, know this intuitively, grasp that a Harry Truman figured out the Russian communists far better than did the Harvard-educated aristocrat FDR.
And the inevitable comparisons between the top of the Democrat ticket and bottom of the Republican one continue, which is part of the genius in picking her on McCain's part.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:16 PMNewt Gingrich says not so fast to Paulson's bailout plan. I particularly agree with this:
Four reform steps will have capital flowing with no government bureaucracy and no taxpayer burden.
First, suspend the mark-to-market rule which is insanely driving companies to unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks (an arbitrary number and a warning of the rule by bureaucrats which is coming under the Paulson plan), the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market.Second, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It failed with Freddy Mac. It failed with Fannie Mae. It failed with Bear Stearns. It failed with Lehman Brothers. It failed with AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. I spent three days this week in Silicon Valley. Everyone agreed Sarbanes-Oxley was crippling the economy. One firm told me they would bring more than 20 companies public in the next year if the law was repealed. Its Sarbanes-Oxley's $3 million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies private.
Third, match our competitors in China and Singapore by going to a zero capital gains tax. Private capital will flood into Wall Street with zero capital gains and it will come at no cost to the taxpayer. Even if you believe in a static analytical model in which lower capital gains taxes mean lower revenues for the Treasury, a zero capital gains tax costs much less than the Paulson plan. And if you believe in a historic model (as I do), a zero capital gains tax would lead to a dramatic increase in federal revenue through a larger, more competitive and more prosperous economy.
Fourth, immediately pass an "all of the above" energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas. With that much energy income the American economy would boom and government revenues would grow.
Also, SOX was the disastrous result of the last time Congress decided that it had to "do something."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:28 PMThe latest lie from the Obama campaign:
He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False.
The amusing thing is that he says it as though it would be a bad thing. I'd a lot rather have my retirement funds in the market (which is where most of them are) than in a demographically collapsing Ponzi scheme.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PMWell, you know...
I love the pith of Gerard van der Leun's comment at Connecticut Yankee:
Given the Huffpos lack of training, weapons, ammunition, and general knowledge of when to duck, I say bring it on.
It will be a short revolution but a merry one for those left standing.
Yes, the idiot leftists always forget that (at least for now) we still have most of the guns. Which is why they hate the Second Amendment so much.
Well, there is at least one exception. But if Joe Biden shoots off his Beretta with the same uncontrolled abandon with which he shoots off his mouth, we don't have much to worry about.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:39 AMBen Bova has a piece in the Naples News that could have been written thirty years ago. In fact, it's exactly like stuff that he (and I) wrote thirty years ago. The only difference is that I have experienced the past thirty years, whereas he seems to be stuck in a seventies time warp, and I've gotten a lot more sober about the prospects for a lot of the orbital activities that were always just around the corner, and probably always will be:
An orbital habitat needn't be a retirement center, though. Space offers some interesting advantages for manufacturing metal alloys, pharmaceuticals, electronics components and other products. For example, in zero-gravity it's much easier to mix liquids.
Think of mixing a salad dressing. On Earth, no matter how hard you stir, the heavier elements sink to the bottom of the bowl. In zero G there are no heavier elements: they're all weightless. And you don't even need a bowl! Liquids form spherical shapes, whether they're droplets of water or industrial-sized balls of molten metals.Metallurgists have predicted that it should be possible in orbit to produce steel alloys that are much stronger, yet much lighter, than any alloys produced on Earth. This is because the molten elements can mix much more thoroughly, and gaseous impurities in the mix can percolate out and into space.
Imagine automobiles built of orbital steel. They'd be much stronger than ordinary cars, yet lighter and more fuel-efficient. There's a market to aim for.
Moreover, in space you get energy practically for free. Sunlight can be focused with mirrors to produce furnace-hot temperatures. Or electricity, from solarvoltaic cells. Without spending a penny for fuel.
The clean, "containerless" environment of orbital space could allow production of ultrapure pharmaceuticals and electronics components, among other things.
Orbital facilities, then, would probably consist of zero-G sections where manufacturing work is done, and low-G areas where people live.
There would also be a good deal of scientific research done in orbital facilities. For one thing, an orbiting habitat would be an ideal place to conduct long-term studies of how the human body reacts to prolonged living in low gravity. Industrial researchers will seek new ways to utilize the low gravity, clean environment and free energy to produce new products, preferably products that cannot be manufactured on Earth, with its heavy gravity, germ-laden environment and high energy costs.
Cars made of "orbital steel"?
Please.
But I guess there's always a fresh market for this kind of overhyped boosterism. I think that it actively hurts the cause of space activism, because people in the know know how unrealistic a lot of it is, and it just hurts the credibility of proponents like Ben Bova.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:29 AMWhat is it with the left and its hatred of cowboys?
And they wonder why they can't pull a majority of the vote.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AMHere's an interesting extended look at the secret lives of conservatives in tinsel town:
Zucker gave Farley the script and, concerned that Farley's agent would advise him against accepting the role because of the film's politics, told the actor not to show it to anyone. Farley, best known for his recurring role in a series of Hertz commercials, read the script and called back the next day to accept.
When he met Zucker and Sokoloff on the set as shooting on the film began, he told them that he, too, had long considered himself a conservative. "I couldn't believe it," says Sokoloff. "We were afraid that he would not want to be involved in something that was so directly taking on the left and that he would not want to play the Michael Moore character."Farley told me this story during a break in filming at the Daniel Webster Elementary School in Pasadena, last April, with Steve McEveety, the film's producer, listening in.
"I thought that the minute we started talking about politics that would be the end," Farley recalls. "There was this dance that we did--a dance familiar to conservative actors in Hollywood. Lots of actors have done it."
"All three of you," said McEveety.
"Yeah, all three of us."
...On one of the days I was on set, McEveety had invited Vivendi Entertainment president Tom O'Malley to meet Zucker. Vivendi had just agreed to distribute the film and had promised wide release--news that had the cast and crew of An American Carol in particularly good spirits.
O'Malley and Zucker chatted about the fact that O'Malley is the nephew of Candid Camera's Tom O'Malley and that they are both from the Midwest, among other things. Zucker thanked him for picking up the movie, which will be one of the first for Vivendi's new distribution arm. O'Malley told Zucker that he was particularly interested in this film in part because he, too, leans right.
Such revelations are common occurrences at the periodic meetings of the secret society of Hollywood conservatives known as the "Friends of Abe." The group, with no official membership list and no formal mission, has been meeting under the leadership of Gary Sinise (CSI New York, Forrest Gump) for four years. Zucker had spent a year working on a film with Christopher McDonald without learning anything about his politics. Shortly after the film wrapped, he ran into McDonald, best known as Shooter McGavin from Adam Sandler's Happy Gilmore, at one of these informal meetings.
"It's almost like people who are gay, show up at the baths and say, 'Oh, I didn't know you were gay!' " Zucker says...
Let's hope that they can come out of the closet some day.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AMHere's the full story of how Sarah Palin was forced out of the anti-Ahmadinejad rally:
Make no mistake that this was an Obama op and that it was Obama operatives directing the screenplay. Upon news of Palin's invitation, it was assured that the event would garner a higher level of attention than it already commanded. And the images and footage of Palin speaking in protest (popular protest, it should be added) of Iran and the messianic Ahmadinejad upon the backdrop of the common perception of Obama's weakness in foreign policy and national security simply could not stand. Furthermore, it would have provided endless campaign fodder with Palin shown standing against the world's foremost state sponsor of international terrorism amid the audio-visual bites of Obama stating he would hold talks with Iran without preconditions. The effects would potentially be more than just stinging.
It had to be derailed at all costs. And the first step in the mission was to characterize it as a politicized event. Getting Clinton to step away from the invitation was easy enough - her own vanity played against her as noted above. Having her spokesmen give a 'politicizing' reason for withdrawing from the rally planted the seed. And the trap was laid expertly.All that remained was Palin and the media hyper-focus on her. If she remained, the meme of a 'politicization' of an otherwise honorable event would be hung around her neck - and Malcolm Hoenlein's - like an albatross. Yet she refused to rescind her acceptance as Hillary Clinton had.
Here's where it gets a bit dirty. The Obama campaign could not publicly cajole her to stay away, yet they needed her away. Desperately. So the pressure was then applied to Malcolm Hoenlein and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.
Meryl Yourish is appropriately disgusted:
The thing that I hate the most about this? It won't stop my liberal Jewish friends from voting Democrat in any way. It won't even make them think twice about the tactics used by the Democrats. And it's far, far worse than Soccer Dad wrote about the other day. CBS didn't have the story about Jewish organizations having their tax-exempt status revoked for having Palin speak at the rally.
That's not a political party pressuring groups to do something. That's outright break-your-kneecap, Mafia-style blackmail threats.In fact, those are precisely the kinds of tactics that the Jewish groups will be protesting on Monday. We just never expected them from the Democrats.
You should have. They've been doing it for decades. Many American Jews seem to have the same relationship with the Democrats as a woman with a wife beater that she keeps going back to.
And I wonder why the media lets them continue to promulgate the absurd notion that if Hillary! had attended by herself, it would have been non-partisan, but that if she shared the stage with Sarah, that would make it partisan.
Well, actually I don't.
[Late morning update]
Speaking of thuggery, Iowahawk has the latest on the Obama voter outreach program.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AMAnd the amusing thing is that even when you tell them this, they don't believe it, and keep doing it anyway.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:26 AMJim Manzi has a good, albeit depressing, description of the financial crisis and its likely outcomes.
[Saturday morning update]
One bit in the piece that I found amusing (and a little depressing):
[They] Promulgated a temporary ban on naked shortselling for about 800 financial stocks (in related news, the new recommended medical practice when you discover that you have a fever is to smash the thermometer against the wall, since this makes the problem go away).
Yes, I don't think this was necessary, and it will probably have bad consequences.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:30 PMThis NRO thing seems to be becoming a regular thing for Bill Whittle. He has some thoughts on confidence in our own culture and nation in the face of those who think it unworthy of defense or preservation:
...most of what I learned about Vietnam I learned from men like Oliver Stone. This self-loathing narcissist has repeatedly tried to inculcate in me a sense of despair and outrage at my own government, my own culture, my own people and ultimately myself. He tried to convince me -- and he is a skillfull man -- that my own government murdered my own President for political gain. I am told daily in those darkened temples that rogue CIA elements run a puppet government, that the real threat to the nation comes from the generals that defend it, or from the businessmen that provide the prosperity we take for granted.
I sit with others in darkened rooms, watching films like Redacted, Stop-Loss, and In the Valley of Elah, and see our brave young soldiers depicted as murderers, rapists, broken psychotics or ignorant dupes -visions foisted upon me by bitter and isolated millionaires such as Brian de Palma and Paul Haggis and all the rest.I've been told this story in some form or another, every day of every week of the past 30 years of my life. It wasn't always so.
But it is certainly so today. And standing against all this hypnotic power -- the power of the mythmakers in Hollywood, the power of the information peddlers in the media, the corrosive power of America-hating professors on every campus in America... against all that we find an old warrior -- a paladin if ever there was one -- an old, beat-up warhorse standing up in defense of his city one last time. And beside him: a wonder. A common person... just a regular mom who goes to work, does a difficult job with intelligence and energy and grace and every-day competence and then puts it away to go home and have dinner with the family.
Against all of that stand these two.
No wonder they must be destroyed. Because -- Sarah Palin especially -- presents a mortal threat to these people who have determined over cocktails who the next President should be and who now clearly mean to grind into metal shards the transaxle of their credibility in order to get the result they must have. Truly, they are before our eyes destroying the machine they have built in order to get their victory.
We'll see.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:18 PMThe NASA OIG says that NASA hasn't provided a good basis of estimate for its costs for its Constellation budget requests.
I'm sure that this is nothing new, given what a perennial mess the agency's books are always in, with incompatible accounting systems, different and arcane ways of bookkeeping at different centers/directorates, etc.
But here's what's interesting to me. This story is about justifying the costs of building Ares/Orion et al so that they can get their requested budget from OMB and Congress. But that's not the only reason that we need to have a good basis of estimate.
Ever since Mike Griffin came in, he, Steve Cook and others have told us that they (meaning Doug Stanley) did a trade study, comparing EELVs and other options to developing Ares in order to accomplish the Vision for Space Exploration. A key, in fact crucial element of any such trade would have to include...estimated costs.
We have been told over and over again that they did the trade, but as far as I know, we've never been provided with the actual study--only its "results." We have no information on the basis of estimate, the assumptions that went into it, etc. If NASA can't come up with them now that's it's an ongoing program, why should we trust the results of the earlier study that determined the direction of that program when it was much less mature, with its implications for many billions of dollars in the future, and the effectiveness in carrying out the national goals? Why haven't we been allowed to see the numbers?
I think that the new resident of the White House, regardless of party, should set up an independent assessment of the situation, complete with a demand for the data.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:27 AMMan, do these "women" (assuming they really are women--obviously, since the advent of Sarah Palin, apparently gender has become a lifestyle choice) have "issues". This almost reads like something out of The Onion. These people are becoming parodies of themselves:
"When I see people crowing about her 'acceptable' speech last Wednesday ... I literally want to vomit with rage," a comment from Anibundel said.
"I am shocked by the depths of my hatred for this woman," another commenter, CJWeimar, wrote."It is impossible for me not to read about her in the newspaper in the subway every morning on my way to work and not come into the office angry and wanting to kick things," a commenter using the name ChampagneofBeers wrote. "My boxing class definitely helps."
Even some prominent figures admitted to being overcome by anti-Palin feelings. "I am having Sarah Palin nightmares," an acclaimed playwright and writer, Eve Ensler, wrote on the Huffington Post. She said she was disturbed by the chants about oil and gas drilling during Mrs. Palin's speech to the Republican convention. "I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination," Ms. Ensler wrote.
And people (OK, well, not people, trolls) accuse me of "hating" Barack Obama.
I'm always amused by the stereotype of the "hateful," "angry" white man. From where I sit, I see more, and a lot more hatred and rage on the left. I can understand, though. They thought that the Messiah would arise by universal acclamation, and now they're having panic attacks that he might actually lose. Which also explains all the angry anonymous moron trolls that I get here.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Jeez...here's a Sandra who really hates Sarah:
When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra's big black brothers, she's being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let's allow, disgusting.
Yes, please. Let's allow.
Somehow, I fail to see the humor in a woman being gang raped, but then, I've never been a big Bernhard fan.
Between Sandra Bernhard and Michael Moore, it makes one ashamed to be from the Flint area.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AMLimbaugh has had enough, and calls out Obama on it.
The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.
I'm sickened by the self righteousness and hypocrisy of the so-called compassionate left.
How long will it take for the rest of the country to see what a fraud this notion of Jerome Wright's most famous long-time parishioner being a "post-racial" candidate is?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:15 AMJim Albrecht is tired of having his home state slandered.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 PMNo, Michelle, if I vote for Sarah Palin, it won't be "because she's cute."
That's just a bonus.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:31 PMJim Treacher: We are the vermin we've been waiting for.
As far as I know, the only precedent in presidential politics is the buffoonish antics of Lyndon LaRouche followers. And I don't think even he ever put out a "LaRouche Action Wire." Probably because he didn't think of it first. Not to mention that he's never had a chance in hell of winning.
Where is the outrage?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AMJoe Biden says that the financial crisis was caused by the Bush tax (rate) cuts.
Does someone besides Joe Biden want to explain that one to me?
At least he didn't blame Global Warming.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:13 PMThis is great. I love the accents, but I think they're Minnesota, not Alaska (though they're closely related).
Of course, the anonymous wanker in comments who is always crying "Pants On Fire" will take it seriously.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:10 PMThe McCain campaign should get with some of the Abe's List folks in Hollywood (like Dennis Miller) and work up some material. Then get SNL to have Palin as a guest where she can do impressions of Tina Fey.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:39 AMNASA Spaceflight has an interesting report on the status of the study.
It sounds about right to me. Retire Atlantis and make it a parts queen or a launch-on-need vehicle, and fly the other two vehicles once each per year. But at that low a flight rate, I wonder if the processing teams lose their "edge" and start to screw up? There's an optimal flight rate for both cost and safety. Too fast and you make mistakes because of the rush, but too slow, and you get out of practice. And of course each flight would cost over two billion bucks, assuming that it costs four billion a year to keep the program going.
And as noted numerous times in the past, this doesn't solve the problem of leaving US crew on the station. They still need a lifeboat of some sort. They discuss this as a "COTS-D Minus":
...several companies have noted the ability to make available a lifeboat vehicle from 2012 (names and details currently embargoed due to ongoing discussions).
Clearly, one of those companies has to be SpaceX.
But this idea seems to never die:
'There is some interest now in developing this (RCO) into a full mission capability, thus enabling unmanned shuttles to launch, dock to ISS, undock and land in 2011 and beyond.''While that's an interesting idea and would be a fun development project, we are working to understand the level of effort the program desires for this study.'
It's not an "interesting idea." It's a monumentally dumb idea. There is little point in flying Shuttle without crew. The ability to fly crew is its primary feature. It's far too expensive to operate to act as a cargo vehicle. If the point of the idea is to not risk crew, then we have no business in space.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:41 AMThat was the essence of an inadvertently hilarious (anonymous, natch) comment about Obama in this post.
To me, that's like Helen Thomas saying "don't hate me because I'm beautiful."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:06 AMCrude has fallen below $90/barrel. That's from a peak of almost a hundred fifty.
Of course, this will be no surprise to regular readers.
[Afternoon update]
Apropo some of the comments, here's a promising new technology for getting oil from shale and tar sands. I don't see a price per barrel, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:03 AMThat's what John McCain is. One of the reasons it's hard to get enthused about him. I suspect that Palin might be a little better.
[Update a while later]
Both presidential candidates are completely economically incoherent.
No surprise, since they're both economic ignorami. Though in Obama's case it's worse, because he thinks that he understands economics, and much of what he knows for damned sure is wrong.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 AMThis is the Beltway/MSM definition of a "compromise": giving the Dems everything they want.
I hope that John McCain (or even Sarah Palin) urge Bush to veto the sham energy bill, and explain why.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:54 AMThat Nancy Pelosi is an ignorant, arrogant moron?
She's going to let the anchor that is Charlie Rangell drag her party to defeat this fall, and she'll lose her job.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:39 AMAds like this.
There are actually a lot of reasons. The only thing that could save him will be ACORN vote fraud in Philly. And that will depend on who Ed Rendell really wants to win. He is a Hillary! supporter, after all...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AMGays for Palin? Why not? As the article notes, Alaska is a pretty libertarian, live-and-let-live place. I wonder if a lot of lesbians think that she's hot?
And of course, this goes against the hysterical stereotype of her in the minds of the left as an extreme "right-wing" social conservative.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AMDonna Brazile says that if The One doesn't win, it will be because we didn't deserve him:
"He has had some moments where he seems unsure of his own voice," Brazile said, "but I still think he can pull this off."
And if he doesn't?"If he doesn't, then Obama didn't lose," she said. "The country just wasn't ready."
Well, she's right, in a way. And we should be thankful that we haven't deteriorated as a nation to the point at which we were.
I'd put it a little differently, though. It won't be Obama losing so much as the nation winning.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AMIt's not just between Mike Griffin and OMB (and the White House?). Now (not that it's anything new) there is a lot of infighting between JSC and Marshall over Orion and Ares:
Design issues for any new vehicle are to be expected, and correctly represented by the often-used comment of 'if there weren't problems, we wouldn't need engineers.' However, Orion's short life on the drawing board has been an unhappy childhood.
The vast majority of Orion's design changes have been driven by Ares I's shortcomings - via performance and mass issues - to ably inject the vehicle into orbit. The fact that the Ares I now has several thousand pounds of reserve mass properties negates the suffering it has brought on the vehicle it is designed to serve.Those penalties Orion had to endure could be seen at the very start of its design process, when the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) reduced in size by 0.5 meters in diameter, soon followed by Orion having its Service Module stripped down in size and mass by around 50 percent.
'Mass savings' would become one of the most repeated terms surrounding the Orion project.
One of the problems that the program had (like many) were caused by the intrinsic concept of the Shaft itself. If you're designing an all-new rocket, it is a "rubber" vehicle in that one can size stages to whatever is necessary to optimize it. But in their determination to use an SRB as a first stage, they put an artificial constraint on vehicle performance. When it was discovered that the four-segment motor wouldn't work, they went to a different upper stage engine. When this didn't work, they went to five segments (which meant that it was a whole new engine).
During Apollo, von Braun took requirements from the people designing the mission hardware, and then added a huge margin to it (fifty percent, IIRC), because he didn't believe them. As it turned out, they ended up needing almost all of the vehicle performance to get to the moon.
This program never had anything like that kind of margin, and now, at PDR 0.5, it's already almost gone. So now they're rolling the requirements back on to the Orion, demanding that the payload make up for performance loss by cutting weight, while also (probably, next year) requiring that it add systems to mitigate the fact that the vehicle is going to shake them like a Sherwin Williams machine. This will result in further loss of margin, redundancy and safety.
This is not a typical development path of a successful program. It is emblematic of one about to augur in.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:04 PM...damned lies, and campaign hyperbole:
...we've all heard the self-serving myth that pits helpless, meek, high-minded, issue-oriented Democrats against mendacious and mean Republicans, who not only detest America -- especially children and small vulnerable creatures -- but will lie and cheat to keep all oppressed.
The facts betray a more equitable story. And it starts with Sarah Palin's assertion that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" and opposed earmarks. This is an elastic political truth.Technically, she did stop the project after initially supporting it. She has taken earmarks -- even lobbied for them while mayor of Wasilla. As governor, though, Palin also vetoed over 300 wasteful projects and made an attempt to reform the process. Her record on earmarks is mixed, but by any measure, it's far superior to either Democratic candidate.
Moreover, if this Palin claim can be classified as an untruth, Obama can be called a "liar" just as easily.
Take, if you will, the foundational assertion of Obama's entire campaign that he is the candidate of post-partisan change. Obama, meanwhile, voted with fellow Democrats 96 percent of the time in Washington. And the bipartisan achievement he most often cites, an ethics reform bill, was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.
Unanimous: ". . . being in complete harmony or accord."
So, then, "Unity" should be referred to as a poetic truth.
And when much of the media acts as if it is personally offended by a questionable McCain ad accusing Obama of voting for a bill that would have provided sex education to kindergartners, you feel the pain. It was, indeed, a massive stretch.
It reminds me of the Obama ad that accuses McCain of having "voted to cut education funding" and "proposed" the abolishment of the Department of Education despite neither being true. Not much anger at that one. Just a lot of talk about the media's responsibility to keep candidates honest. And absolutely, journalists have a responsibility to put every single candidate through the wringer.
Every candidate.
Something for the latest desperate anonymous moron that continues to drive by in comments with its pathetic shrieks of "Liar, liar!" to keep in mind.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AMTo get past the gatekeepers.
I put up a(n admittedly semi-snarky) comment at Keith Cowing's place yesterday, and he chose not to publish it (his comments section is moderated) for whatever reason. His blog, his call.
It was in response to "NASAAstronomer's" comment that:
...if McCain and Palin win, we'll be teaching creationism in our science classes, so how likely is it that space science will get funded?
My (unpublished until now) response:
Yes.
Right. I'm sure that will be one of their first acts, to mandate the teaching of creationism in science classes.Can you explain to me how that works exactly? Will it be an executive order, or what?
This kind of Palin derangement is amazing. Lileks noticed it, too:
Here's your Sarah Palin overreaction of the day. Presumably she took out the entrails, dried them, and used them to lynch librarians. It's really obvious, isn't it? She wants to kill Lady Liberty and all she represents. The plane is included in the picture because she personally shoots polar bears from above, like she's GOD OR SOMETHING. The comments have the usual reasoned evaluations - she's a PSYCHO, a LUNATIC. That picture is so sad and so true.
I don't know if anyone's stated the obvious yet, but this might be the first time people have become unhinged in advance over a vice-presidential candidate. Not to say some aren't painting McCain as something the devil blurted out in a distracted moment during his daily conference call with Cheney, but a Veep? It took a while for people to believe that Cheney commissioned private snuff films with runaways dressed up to resemble a portion of the Bill of Rights, but Palin is She-Wolf of the Tundra right off the bat. And god help us she can use email, which means she will control the government. The most Spy ever did with Quayle was stick him in a dunce hat. By the time we reach the election Oliphant will probably draw Palin sodomizing by an oil derrick with guns for arms. I have to confess: I think Palin is an interesting politician, but the people she's driving batty are much more fascinating.Imagine twelve years of this.
Yes.
Well, we've survived eight years of BDS. I suspect that we'll pull through a swamp of PDS.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 AMThe press refuses to cover Biden's potential gaffes:
...as Air Joe flew from Wilmington to Charlotte Sunday, the only reporters onboard were off-air reporters from the five television networks and correspondents from NBC and Politico. There was only one camera crew. The back of the plane, reserved for press, sat totally deserted.
Heh. As Geraghty notes, the McCain campaign should complain.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:17 AMBut I'm reminded that Jesus was a preacher. Barabbas was the community organizer. And a freedom fighter, like Bill Ayers. Also like Ayers, he got off on a technicality.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:29 AMSo says First Trust, about the current financial problems on the Street. For what it's worth.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:40 AMIs NASA fighting with OMB?
Lots of great comments here, including the fact that Mike Griffin's fear mongering about China is at odds with administration policy. Including this great comment from "red""
it would be a good idea for Griffin to consider what kind of response by NASA would be useful to the U.S. in countering the real military and economic space threats from China. It seems to me that ESAS doesn't help counter these real threats at all.The kinds of capabilities that NASA could encourage, invent, or improve to counter China's ASATs, launchers, and satellites are things like:
- operationally responsive space
- small satellites
- Earth observation satellites
- telecommunications satellites
- economical commercial launch vehicles
- commercial suborbital rockets
- improved education in space-related fields
- space infrastructure (e.g.: commercial space stations, tugs, refueling)It's possible that, if NASA were contributing more in areas like these (through incentives to U.S. commercial space, research, demos, etc), it would find the budget battles easier to win.
No kidding. Especially the last. And Apollo On Steroids makes no contributions to any of these things.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of comments, "anonymous.space" has a description of what NASA's "pat on the back" PDR really means:
This past week, Constellation patted itself on the back for getting Ares I through its first preliminary design review (PDR) but glossed over the fact that Ares I still has to conduct a second PDR next summer to address the unresolved mitigation systems for the first stage thrust oscillation issue, with unknown consequences for the rest of the design. See the asterisk on the pre-board recommendation at the bottom of the last page of this presentation.
The Constellation press release and briefing also made no mention of the recent year-long slip in the Orion PDR to next summer. See NASA Watch, NASA Spaceflight, and Flight Global.So neither the Ares I nor the Orion preliminary design is complete, and one could argue that the Constellation program has been held back a year more than it's been allowed to pass to the next grade.
More worrisome than the PDR slips are the grades that Ares I received in this partial PDR. The pre-board used a green, yellow/green, yellow, yellow/red, and red grading scheme, which can also be depicted as the more familiar A (4.0), B (3.0), C (2.0), D (1.0), and F (0.0) grading scheme. The pre-board provided ten grades against ten different success criteria from NASA's program management handbook. The ten grades had the following distribution:
One "Green" (A, 4.0) grade
Two "Yellow/Green" (B, 3.0) grades
Four "Yellow" (C, 2.0) grades
Three "Yellow/Red" (D, 1.0) grades
No "Red" (F, 0.0) gradesSo seven of Ares I's ten grades were a C or a D. Ares I is NASA's planned primary means of crew launch over the next couple of decades and should define technical excellence. But instead, the project earned a grade point average of 2.1, barely a "gentleman's C" (or a "gentleman's yellow"). See the pre-board grades on pages 3-7 of this presentation.
And even more worrisome than the PDR slips and grades are the areas in which the project is earning its lowest grades. Among areas in which Ares I earned a yellow/red (or D) grade and the accompanying technical problems were:
The preliminary design meets the requirements at an acceptable level of risk:
- Induced environments are high and cause challenges, including pyro shock to avionics and acoustic environments on reaction and roll control systems.- No formal process for control of models and analysis.
- Areas of known failure still need to be worked, including liftoff clearances.
Definition of the technical interfaces is consistent with the overall level of technical maturity and provides an acceptable level of risk:
- Process for producing and resolving issues between Level 2 and Level 3 interface requirement documents and interface control documents is unclear, including the roles and responsibilities of managers and integrators and the approval process for identifying the baseline and making changes to it.
- Numerous known disconnects and "TBDs" in the interface requirement documents, including an eight inch difference between the first stage and ground system and assumption of extended nozzle performance not incorporated in actual first and ground system designs.
See the pre-board grades on pages 4-5 of this presentation.
So, in addition to the unknowns associated with the unresolved thrust oscillation system for Ares I:
- the vehicle's electronics can't survive the shocks induced during stage separation;
- the vehicle's control systems will be shaken apart and unable to keep the rocket flying straight;
- the vehicle is going to hit the ground support structure on liftoff;
- the project is assuming performance from advanced rocket nozzles that don't fit within the vehicle's dimensions;
- the project can't even get the height of the rocket and its ground support to match; and
- there's no good modeling, analytical, or requirements control necessary to resolve any of these issues.
And the real kicker from the press conference was the revelation that Constellation manager Jeff Hanley only has 2,000-3,000 pounds of performance reserve left at the program level and that Ares I manager Steve Cook has no margin left to contribute to unresolved future problems like thrust oscillation impacts to Orion. See, again, NASA Watch.
We know from prior presentations that Orion's mass margin is down to practically zero (286 kilograms or 572 pounds) for ISS missions and is negative (-859 kilograms or -1,718 pounds) for lunar missions. See p. 25, 33, and 37 in this presentation.
When added to Hanley's margins, that means that the entire Ares I/Orion system is down to ~2,500-3,500 pounds of mass margin for the ISS mission and ~300-1,300 pounds of mass margin for the lunar mission. That's between seven and less than one percent mass margin against Orion's 48,000 pound total mass. Typical mass margin at the PDR stage should be on the order of 20-25 percent, about triple the best-case assessment here. Ares I/Orion still has seven years of design and development to go and at best has only one-third of the mass margin it should have at this stage.
Even worse, those Orion mass margins don't account for the mass threats still to be allocated in next year's Orion PDR. In the presentation above, the 90th percentile mass threats for the ISS and lunar missions are separately about 900 kilograms or 2,000 pounds. That reduces the total Ares I/Orion mass margin to between -1,700 and 1,500 pounds. That's a negative (negative!) three percent mass margin on the lunar mission and only a positive three percent mass margin on the ISS mission, at least seven times less margin than what the program needs at this point in time.
Instead of worrying about $60 million Soyuz purchases and extending existing Shuttle jobs, Weldon and his staff need to be worrying about the $20 billion Ares I/Orion program and whether it can ever technically close and replace some of those Shuttle jobs.
Some have attempted to excuse this by saying, "well, every big space program has teething issues." True. Two responses.
First, many of them die from them (e.g., X-33).
Second, I don't know of any comparable program that had essentially zero margin at PDR (and I'm not aware of any that required multiple PDRs or "PDR do-overs") that survived them. Perhaps someone more familiar with history can enlighten me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:00 AMGeorge Will has more on economic ignorance:
The indignant student, who had first gone to Home Depot for a flashlight, says it "didn't try to rip us off." It was, however, out of flashlights. Ruth suggests that the reason Big Box had flashlights was that its prices were high. If prices were left at regular levels, the people who would have got the flashlights would have been those who got to the store first. With the higher prices, "someone who had candles at home decided to do without the flashlight and left it there for you on the shelf." Neither Home Depot nor the student who was angry at Big Box had benefited from Home Depot's price restraint.
Capitalism, Ruth reminds him, is a profit and loss system.Corfam--Du Pont's fake leather that made awful shoes in the 1960s--and the Edsel quickly vanished. But, Ruth notes, "the post office and ethanol subsidies and agricultural price supports and mediocre public schools live forever." They are insulated from market forces; they are created, in defiance of those forces, by government, which can disregard prices, which means disregarding the rational allocation of resources. To disrupt markets is to tamper with the unseen source of the harmony that is all around us.The spontaneous emergence of social cooperation--the emergence of a system vastly more complex, responsive and efficient than any government could organize--is not universally acknowledged or appreciated. It discomforts a certain political sensibility, the one that exaggerates the importance of government and the competence of the political class.
Yes, an exaggeration that is reinforced by the propaganda inculcated into people by government schools.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:08 PM...same as the old change.
I've been amused, or at least bemused, for many months that Barack Obama has gotten away with pretending that his stale, failed collectivist policies represent something "new." So has Michael Ledeen:
Once upon a time, Obama's vision of "change"-which is based on class structure and top-down collective enterprises-was not only contemporary but exciting. It inspired a generation of Americans to create the welfare state. But then the welfare state aged, and now, in the wild-west world of globalization, instant communication, the blogosphere and so forth, it is very old hat. The ideas are still hanging around, however.
Bill Clinton understood that, and since he wasn't really committed to any particular political agenda aside from his own success, he was able to grab many of his opponents' ideas and use them. I remember poor Bob Dole complaining that Clinton was stealing his ideas, and he was right.Obama doesn't get that, I suspect because he really believes those old, now-failed ideas. He can't bring himself to say that the collectivist projects of the sort he promoted in Chicago are bad for the poor, although when pressed he ootches toward more sensible positions (as when, in Saddleback, he confessed that he had probably been a bit too negative about welfare reform). We've all noticed that Obama keeps moving toward McCain's positions on many issues, even on the basic one: the war.
If you hold ideas that no longer work (and indeed don't even explain anything contemporary), it's hard to conduct an inspirational political campaign, and Obama, like almost all the other Democrats, is stuck with the knowledge that he's going to lose most of the policy debates. But he still wants to win. And the only way he CAN win is to destroy his opponents, which is the strategy the left is pursuing, ever more frantically.
Of course, I would be more amused if so many people didn't seem to fall for the schtick. But fortunately, it looks like a sufficient number are on to him that he won't get to implement his "change." As Bill Whittle wrote, Sarah took away his glamour, and now John McCain is purloining his "change" mantra, which was never much, but it was all that he had left.
[Update a few minutes later]
It occurs to me that one of the reasons that young people are susceptible to Barack Obama's "change" hokum is that they have no sense of history. To them, all is new, and only George Bush's policies are old.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:43 AMYou know that Tina Fey has to be hoping for a Republican victory. It's a guaranteed gig for at least four, and maybe a dozen years.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 AMThis screwed up:
After trying unsuccessfully for years to build its own radar satellite, the Pentagon is now turning to its allies for help and has been presented with a plan that would see it buy a clone of Canada's highly successful Radarsat-2 spacecraft.The U.S. Defence Department asked for and received information this week from a number of foreign satellite consortiums on how they could help the Pentagon meet its surveillance needs for the future.
Isn't there anybody here who knows how to play this game?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PMHeh. Instant Godwin:
"Hitler was a community organizer, FDR was a governor." Makes as much sense as the Jeebus/Pilate meme.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AMI'm looking at reporting from what looks like the Sheraton in Clear Lake, and there are reports of furniture with NASA logos floating in the bay. Gotta think that some of the JSC facilities were flooded.
If space were important, we wouldn't have mission control in an area susceptible to floods and hurricanes. The Cape has some geographical reasons for its location, but the only reason that JSC is in Houston is because Johnson wanted it there, and the land was free.
[Update in the afternoon]
Here's more on NASA's fragile infrastructure. The agency's ground facilities are just as non-robust as its space transportation system.
Here is how it seems to work: a hurricane threatens JSC - so NASA shuts off email and other services to a large chunk of the agency. Why? Because NASA deliberately set the system up such that other NASA centers - some of which are thousands of miles away and poised to offer assistance and keep the rest of the agency operating - have their email and other services routed out of JSC - and only JSC (or so it would seem). A few critical users have some service, but everyone else is out of luck for at least 48 hours. Would any self-respecting, profitable, commercial communications company do something as silly as this? No. They'd never stay in business. Only NASA would come up with such a flawed and stupid plan.
That's too harsh. I can imagine the FAA, or DHS doing exactly the same thing.
It's just more of that wise, foresightful government thing.
[Update about 1:30 PM EDT]
Jeff Masters says that Galveston lucked out:
Although Ike caused heavy damage by flooding Galveston with a 12-foot storm surge, the city escaped destruction thanks to its 15.6-foot sea wall (the wall was built 17 feet high, but has since subsided about 2 feet). The surge was able to flow into Galveston Bay and flood the city from behind, but the wall prevented a head-on battering by the surge from the ocean side. Galveston was fortunate that Ike hit the city head-on, rather than just to the south. Ike's highest storm surge occurred about 50 miles to the northeast of Galveston, over a lightly-populated stretch of coast. Galveston was also lucky that Ike did not have another 12-24 hours over water. In the 12 hours prior to landfall, Ike's central pressure dropped 6 mb, and the storm began to rapidly organize and form a new eyewall. If Ike had had another 12-24 hours to complete this process, it would have been a Category 4 hurricane with 135-145 mph winds that likely would have destroyed Galveston. The GFDL model was consistently advertising this possibility, and it wasn't far off the mark. It was not clear to me until late last night that Ike would not destroy Galveston and kill thousands of people. Other hurricane scientists I conversed with yesterday were of the same opinion.
And of course, the lesson that the people who stayed behind will take is not that they were lucky and foolhardy, but that the weather forecasters overhyped the storm, and they'll be even less likely to evacuate the next time. And one of these times their luck will run out, as it did for their ancestors a few generations ago, when thousands were killed by a hurricane in Galveston.
[Update mid afternoon]
Sounds like things could have been a lot worse at NASA, too.
NASA had feared that a storm surge from Galveston Bay would flood some buildings on the 1,600-acre Space Center. Its southeast boundary is near Clear Lake, which is connected to Galveston Bay. However, the water did not rise that high.
Apparently the Guppy hangar at Ellington was destroyed, but it was never much of a hangar--more like a big tent.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:03 AMGeorge Bush's announcement this morning that the administration was concerned about "gouging" reminded me of why I wish that we'd had better options in the last two elections (and still do). I expect that kind of nonsense from Democrats, but you'd think that someone who was supposedly a businessman would know better. Or perhaps he does, and is just pandering. I'm not sure which is worse.
Every time we have a natural disaster like this, this idiotic topic comes up, and we once again have to explain Econ 101 to the products of our public school system, probably in futility. This time, it's Rich Hailey's turn.
Here's what I wrote about it a three years ago, in the wake of Katrina.
[Update late morning]
Jeez, I thought that David Asman was smarter than that. Now he's telling Fox viewers to take pictures of stations with high gas prices so that they can be reported to authorities. It's hard for me to believe that Neal Cavuto would do that.
[Another update a minute or so later]
You know, I think that this is an explanation for socialism and collectivism's continuing grip on the public mind, despite its long history of unending failure. There's just something in human psychology to which it naturally appeals, and rationality just can't break through. It just "feels" unfair for prices to go up in an emergency, regardless of the demonstrably bad consequences of attempting to legislate them.
[Late afternoon update]
Shannon Love explains how the gas station business works:
I'll say it one more time for those who can't be bothered to actually ask someone who owns a gas station. Gas stations set prices for the gas they sell today based on the wholesale price of the gas they will have to buy to replace it. Get it? The price you pay for a gallon today is the cost of the gallon the station will have buy to replace the one you just bought.
Gas stations sell gas at or near cost, so if they did not use replacement pricing any sudden spike in gas prices would shut them down and you couldn't get any gas. I simply do not know why our public and private talking heads cannot understand and communicate this simple fact.
Because either they don't know it, or they think that people don't want to hear it. They operate on razor-thin margins, and can't afford to hand out subsidized gas as charity, even if that wouldn't screw up the market. And note, for those who say it's "big oil" that is "maximizing profits" in the face of a national emergency, even if that were true (it's not) "big oil" isn't threatened with jail for "gouging." It's the gas station owner, who has no control over his wholesale gas costs. So people who demand that we crack down on gougers are essentially demanding that the station operators either operate at a loss, or pay fines, or go to jail. I don't know why anyone would want to be in that business in the face of so much public ignorance about it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AMSupergenius?
OK, so you're running against a guy who for recreation (though not his) used to have his arms tied together at the wrists behind his back, and hang from them for hours, a result of which is that he can no longer raise them above his head. Or other things:
McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes.
And the Obama campaign is making fun of him for not knowing how to email?
When these guys lose, there will be many reasons why.
[Update late Friday evening]
Glenn has a more. A lot more, with lots of links. This one may have legs.
[Late night update]
One more update from Jonah.
As he says, bogus as it gets.
[Late evening update]
Iowahawk (who else!) picks up on the theme. Hilarity ensues.
[Saturday morning update]
Roger Kimball wonders who is sabotaging the Obama campaign?
Hey, as I say in comments, the guy has problems finding good help. Just who we want for president.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:59 PMAn interview with Tom Jones on the subject, over at Popular Mechanics. Note that he doesn't point out that no one ordered Mike Griffin to develop Ares, which is the biggest reason that Orion is delayed and that NASA doesn't have enough funding. He also has too much faith in Orion flying before something else (particularly given the Ares problems). I'm sure we could put up a capsule on an Atlas long before 2014, whether Dragon or something else, if we made it a priority.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:11 AMGlenn has some good advice for presidential candidates:
Take your own camera to every interview, and post the raw video online. The news folks won't like that, but, really, what principled basis is there for objection?
I think that a "principled" basis would be too much to expect from them. It would be amusing to see what their response is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:18 AMAs I've noted in the past, we're going to have to decide how much ISS is worth to us. Chair Force Engineer thinks that we're going to bite the bullet and buy more Soyuzs from the Russians:
Besides the reliance on Soyuz, there are myriad other ways in which ISS cannot survive unless the US and Russia cooperate. The various modules are too interconnected, and neither country can operate their contributions to the station without the other country playing along. It's conceivable that Russia could afford to build Soyuz without American money, by selling the American slots to space tourists. But a Russian-led ISS would still require use of American space modules.
America and Russia are left in a situation where it's unlikely that either will abandon the ISS, even though both nations are mired in growing mistrust. If I had to make a bet, I would say that the US and Russia will learn to grin and bear it, operating ISS jointly until 2017. When Congress looks rationally at its options, it will realize that it will have to begrudgingly buy more Soyuz if it still wants to participate in ISS.
Sometimes, I think that expecting Congress to "look rationally at its options" is asking too much. Particularly when it's robbing money from the NASA budget to provide foreign aid to Ethiopia. Sure, why not? It's not like NASA's spending the money very usefully, anyway. It just proves my oft-made point that space isn't politically important.
Anyway, as I said in my Pajamas piece, this is a policy disaster long in the making, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost. It was naive in the extreme at the end of the Cold War to assume that we and Russia would be BFFs and enter into such an inextricable long-term relationship. Now it's like a very dysfunctional marriage that is being held together only out of concern for the children. Without ISS, the divorce would be swift, I suspect.
[Update a while later]
Speaking of apt metaphors, Clark Lindsey has one for the Ares program:
Yellow and red grades notwithstanding, it has always seemed extremely unlikely to me that Ares I would fail to fly when NASA has so many billions of dollars available to spend on it. However, since I believe the whole Ares I/V program to be a stupendous waste, if technical problems did arise that led to its cancellation, I'd consider it a boon for US space development. If the brakes fail and a huge truck starts to careen down a hill, it's a blessing if the thing blows a tire instead and flops over into a ditch with relatively little damage to people and property. Unfortunately, it appears that Ares will keep rolling no matter what.
Actually, I wouldn't necessarily bet on that. There may be "change" coming to NASA next year, regardless of who wins the election.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 AMMark Steyn comments:
Howie [Kurtz] feels the press is being "manipulated" by the McCain campaign.
Maybe it is. A conventional launch strategy for a little-known vice-presidential nominee might have involved "manipulating" the media into running umpteen front-pagers on Sarah Palin's amazing primary challenge of a sitting governor and getting the sob-sisters to slough off a ton of heartwarming stories about her son shipping out to Iraq.But, if you were really savvy, you'd "manipulate" the media into a stampede of lurid drivel deriding her as a Stepford wife and a dominatrix, comparing her to Islamic fundamentalists, Pontius Pilate and porn stars, and dismissing her as a dysfunctional brood mare who can't possibly be the biological mother of the kid she was too dumb to abort. Who knows? It's a long shot, but if you could pull it off, a really cunning media manipulator might succeed in manipulating Howie's buddies into spending the month after Labor Day outbidding each other in some insane Who Wants To Be An Effete Condescending Media Snob? death-match. You'd not only make the press look like bozos, but that in turn might tarnish just a little the fellow these geniuses have chosen to anoint.
I suspect that it's just going to get worse for them, particularly when they see the generic poll for Congress.
[Update a few minutes later]
John Hinderaker has more on Howie's anger:
I'm not sure what Obama had in mind, but I find it odd that in pages of outrage devoted to the supposed excesses of the McCain campaign, Kurtz finds no room to mention the fact that prominent Democrats (not anonymous emailers, who are much worse) have said that Governor Palin is Pontius Pilate and that her primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion.
The truth is that Sarah Palin has been the object of the most vicious and concerted smear campaign in modern American history. But that fact doesn't cause the media (or Howard Kurtz) to get mad.It's not too hard to diagnose why, as Kurtz correctly says, "the media are getting mad." They're getting mad because their candidate is losing. They've spent years building him up and covering for his mistakes and shortcomings, and he is such a stiff that he can't coast across the finish line. I'd be mad too, I guess, but I think I'd have the decency not to take it out on Sarah Palin.
Not just the decency. Also the intelligence, given how badly it continues to backfire on them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 AMJust a month ago, many Republicans were resigned to hoping at best for the possibility of John McCain eking out a win against Obama, and not losing too much ground on the Hill. Now it looks like regaining Congress is within the realm of possibility:
The issues raised by today's low approval ratings of Congress are reinforced by recent Gallup Poll findings that relatively few voters generally believe "most members" of Congress deserve re-election. That figure was only 36% in July, much lower than the 51% or better reading found in recent election years when the party of the sitting majority in Congress maintained power.
When the generic preference is only 3% among registered voters (not likely voters), the Donkeys are in big trouble, because registered voters almost always overstate actual support for Democrats at the polls.
McCain needs to start running hard against Pelosi and Reid. With all the nasty things that Reid has been saying about him lately, he shouldn't have to work hard to motivate himself to do so.
It would help, of course, if Boehner and McConnell could make some noises to demonstrate that they learned their lesson from two years ago, and that they're no longer going to be the party of pork and privilege. It's a real shame that it looks like Stephens is going to win his primary in Alaska.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:25 AMMy father, Dr. Dinkin Sr. author of Election Day: a Documentary History says that there has never been a VP who had this big an effect on the election--the most is about 5%. Further, that the last time a Party won that was behind in the polls after the second convention is 1964. Pressed he said 60-40 McCain. At intrade, McCain is trading at $0.52 for a security that pays $1 if he wins. Here's what he's trading at now (GMT):
If you smear lipstick on a pig, perhaps you have too much on.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 04:05 AMDid Mark Murray think about what he was writing?
Palin could be heard nearly squealing with delight in the front of the plane at the sight of three of her children at the foot of the stairs, and according to several aides, refused to stay inside the plane.
Emphasis mine.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AMThese numbers over at Gallup should have the donkeys very worried.
Democrats have held a large advantage on party identification for much of 2007 and 2008. But the GOP convention -- and the exposure it gave to John McCain and Sarah Palin as the Republican ticket -- has encouraged a greater number of Americans to identify as Republicans, thus narrowing the Democratic advantage for the moment.
Republicans saw an even larger increase in "leaned" party identification, which is computed by adding the percentage of Americans who initially identify themselves as independents but then say they "lean" to a party to the percentage who identify with that party. Before the GOP convention, 39% of Americans said they identified with or leaned to the Republican Party, but that number has increased to 47%. Forty-eight percent now identify with or lean to the Democratic Party, down from 53% prior to the GOP convention.
This is the Palin effect, and I think that it's undone a lot of the damage that was done to the Republican brand that resulted in the 2006 losses. I wonder if a lot of the Republican legislators who decided to retire this year are having second thoughts?
These numbers also explain why Gallup has McCain leading, while Rasmussen has the race tied. Rasmussen hasn't adjusted his mix yet--I think that it's based on a three-month rolling average, and the recent shift in the political tide isn't showing up yet, and won't until just before the election.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:41 AMPork maven Iowahawk has some fun facts. Be sure to follow the links.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:35 AMFrom one Democrat to others: lay off Palin.
They won't take it, though. They can't help themselves. They're too arrogant, and think that they're smarter than their political opponents. They also think that they understand conservatives and Republicans, when they're completely clueless, as Mr. Sapp points out. So they'll continue to dig themselves a deeper hole.
[Update a few minutes later]
See? They can't stop: they're equating Sarah Palin with Osama bin Laden.
[Update a while later]
Jeeeez. Now Sarah Palin isn't a woman.
Who knew? Sure fooled me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:58 AMJames Pethokoukis thinks so. So do I.
And as he notes, if there's a Palin bubble, it's unlikely to pop before the election, given that it took a year and a half for Obama's to do so...
This is why I've never thought Obama electable, though I hadn't accounted for Sarah. But she just means that there will be coatskirt-tails...
Which will be a good thing in the Senate.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:31 PMRepublicans are stereotyped for not endorsing evolution, endangering children.
Democrats are stereotyped for not endorsing evolution of endangered species.
Jim Manzi isn't impressed with John McCain's energy policy. The best that can be said of it is that it's slightly better than Obama's.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:27 PMThat's what I called Barack Obama yesterday. Here are more thoughts on that subject.
He's not that savvy. He's lucky -- which, as they say, ain't nothin'. But he's like a guy who got called up for the World Series after winning the high school championship: now, suddenly, the fields are bigger, the crowds are enormous and more discerning, and the other team is accomplished, professional and comes to beat your brains in -- not to provide an exhibition in good sportsmanship.
Obama must react to this drastic change, but he is not as smooth as advertised, he simply does not have a well of experience to draw on, and, importantly, the Democrat nomination campaign did not prepare him. He has always had very obvious weaknesses, but the Democrat candidates could not exploit them because their nomination cannot be won without appealing to a hard-Left base which is night-and-day different from the vast majority of the country. They play a hardcore identity politics and they would crucify anyone who so much as hinted that a young, black community organizer with movement-activist (i.e., terrorist) friends and a record of protecting a woman's right to choose even into the 4th trimester was not an ideal candidate.Hillary, who would otherwise have been acceptable to the base, could not exploit Obama's biggest vulnerabilities. She couldn't go after him on terrorism because of the Clinton record of feckless counterterrorism and the pardons of Weather Underground and FALN terrorists (FWIW, that was my point in this piece). And she couldn't go after him on his rise from the seamy world of Chicago politics because of, well, see 1992-2000. But realize that, even with her hands tied behind her back in this way, Hillary would still have beaten him had the race gone on another month or so.
The Dems have been in denial for months about how weak their candidate is. The only thing propping him up has been the favorable environment for their party. But I think a new wind blew in from Alaska a week and a half ago.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:52 AMWell, I have, anyway. What does Camille think about Sarah (both women for whom no last name is necessary, at least now)? Here it is. I think she sort of has the hots for her.
[Update a few minutes later]
For contrast, here's what a Hollywood nitwit thinks. If that's the right word...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:29 AM...to be fired from the Obama campaign?
A lot, apparently.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:52 AM(Democrat) Sandra Tsing Lo writes that the Obamas should have been more supportive of their local school system:
it is with huge grief-filled disappointment that I discovered that the Obamas send their children to the University of Chicago Laboratory School (by 5th grade, tuition equals $20,286 a year). The school's Web site quotes all that ridiculous John Dewey nonsense about developing character while, of course, isolating your children from the poor. A pox on them and, while we're at it, a pox on John Dewey! I'm sick to death of those inspirational Dewey quotes littering the Web sites of $20,000-plus-a-year private schools, all those gentle duo-tone-photographed murmurings about "building critical thinking and fostering democratic citizenship" in their cherished students, living large on their $20,000-a-year island.
Meanwhile, Joseph Biden, the Amtrak senator, standing up boldly for the right to be a Roman Catholic, appears to have sent all three children to the lovely looking Archmere Academy in Delaware. Archmere's Web site notes some public school districts allow Archmere students to use public school buses. Well, isn't that great -- your tax dollars at work in the great state of Delaware because with $18,000 a year in tuition, they can't afford their own buses.
Public schools are for the little people, to be run as the teachers' unions desire, and according to John Dewey's toxic design.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:30 AMJust for the record. These folks have, though, which would indicate that she's really gotten into their heads. I think that there's going to be a huge therapy bill come mid-November.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Has The Atlantic finally leashed its rabid pit bull? I've often wondered the last few years if the HIV has finally caught up with Andrew's mind. Dementia, sadly, is one of the potential consequences.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 AMDale Amon explains why (at least pre-Palin) it was hard to be very enthusiastic about John McCain. But he leaves out a couple key areas: taxes and spending. And of course, the war.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AMIt's been a few years since I last heard from Heather Mallick, but not enough. I could have waited several more with no regrets, but it was not to be.
Fortunately, Lileks has the antidote:
I don't think that Obama meant to call Sarah Palin a pig. Many in the audience may have been heartened by the stray implication, since they already regard her as a hootenanny mama who drinks corn likker from a jug with 3 Xs and smokes a corn-cob pipe after the media leaves, but Obama was just being Folksy and Colloquial in that um-you-know style he reverts to when he's in Authentic Mode. In short, I don't believe a line that stupid was delivered with full knowledge of its implications. I'm in a generous mood.
Or was, until I read this piece by a Canadian writer; it sums up with such delightful perfection what so many believe. So. Let's have a look....At least she's honest about the idea of female solidarity - it matters only if the ideological stars have aligned - no, if the ideological cycles have synced, to use terms she'd probably employ. Or has already. It's not about whether Sarah Palin is a woman, it's whether she's the right kind. She's supposed to restrict snow machines, not ride them or for God's sake get knocked up by some slopey-brow dullard who rides them. (Competitively! Gawd) Nationalize oil companies, don't make deals. Have one or two children, not five - Good Gaia, woman, are you trying to make overstuffed congested Alaska top the one-million-citizen mark all by yourself?
As for guys being irresponsible with their precious bodily essences, who cares? Aren't you using protection? Or are they using vagina-confusing Man-Beams to cloud your mind? As for putting off home repairs, here's a hint: either learn how to do it yourself, or admit there might be yet in this enlightened age a strange vague hangover that divides labor based on innate gender-influenced personality traits. If you expect him to fix things, and you roll your eyes when he tries, and you accuse him of using spit and matches, his motivation will be diminished - and even then he'll probably wait until you're out of earshot before he mutters "what a fishwife." If your man can't fix anything it but whines that he can make a really good white sauce, don't blame him when you have an affair with the electrician.
I know this: Mr. Palin probably doesn't postpone household repairs, or use glue, or old matches. He can probably change the oil in the car, too. There are guys like that. Not every wife has to sit in a cold Jiffy Lube waiting room leafing through Field and Stream, wishing the weirdo in the other chair would stop looking at her legs.
As usual, read all. I really should add a "Sarcasm" post category to complement my "Humor" and "Satire" ones.
Further fisking over at Tizona.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, can't resist. I have to provide one more snippet:
It's a joy to see someone who flung around "white trash" noting that she finds racism "so appalling." All is forgiven; BFF? I don't know what "violently rich" means, except that it certain sounds bad - like you walked up to Tony Rezco and punched him until a nice house deal fell out of his pockets - but yes, most Americans want to be rich, at least as rich as Obama, and there is nothing wrong with this. Most don't have the book-deal / Chicago machine option, so they either play the lottery and plug away at their jobs, or they try to improve their station by the usual means. It is a dearly held American notion that you can do better than you're doing. Even in broken Kansas.
As I said, hie thyself over there. It's all delicious.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AMWill this be the the gaffe of the campaign?
Given the gaffe potential for both sides of the Donkey ticket, it seem unlikely, but maybe...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 PMAn interview with the creator of the Sarah Connor Chronicles.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:27 PMIs this really someone you want in charge of the federal budget?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:30 PMJim Bennett writes that Sarah Palin is a much more savvy political operator than people are giving her credit for:
Far from being a reprise of Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Palin was a clear-eyed politician who, from the day she took office, knew exactly what she had to do and whose toes she would step on to do it.
The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska's energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes - the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having "no international experience" particularly absurd.In short, far from being a small-town mayor concerned with little more than traffic signs, she has been a major player in state politics for a decade, one who formulated an ambitious agenda and deftly implemented it against great odds.
Her sudden elevation to the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket shocked no one more than her enemies in Alaska, who have broken out into a cold sweat at the thought of Palin in Washington, guiding the Justice Department's anti-corruption teams through the labyrinths of Alaska's old-boy network.
It is no surprise that many of the charges laid against her have come from Alaska, as her enemies become more and more desperate to bring her down. John McCain was familiar with this track record and it is no doubt the principal reason that he chose her.
"In office for such a short time, but succeeded in each of her objectives." Sound like Barack Obama? Not really, unless you consider "attaining the next office" his "objective." Here's hoping that he fails in the current one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:10 PMThat's Jennifer Rubin's advice to Obama if he wants to know how he's losing the election. I disagree with this bit of (what is now) conventional wisdom, though:
The obvious blunder was in bypassing Hillary Clinton as VP. With Clinton, the frenzy of excitement would have been for the Democrats and Sarah Palin would be back in Alaska.
Admittedly, having Hillary! on the ticket would have made the Palin pick more difficult--it would have looked too much like "me too." But Obama had good (as well as no doubt bad) reasons to not want to share the ticket with her. The Dems might have thought it was a "dream ticket," but not everyone would agree. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have high negatives, and they're not necessarily with the same group of voters. That ticket would lose votes to both the voters who won't vote for Barack Obama and those would would never vote for Hillary!, and that conjoined set would very likely been more than half the electorate. Her choice would also have fired up the Republican base against her.
And that's ignoring having to share the stage and power with her, and the Bill problem (not to mention having to hire a food taster and have someone else start his car for him every morning). No, I don't think that failing to put her on the ticket was a mistake.
What was a mistake, though was dissing her and her supporters by making it clear that he had never even considered doing so. If he'd been smarter, he'd have at least gone through the motions of vetting her and making it looks as though she was on the list. As it was, it was just one more finger in their collective face.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:52 AMPointed out by VDH:
...don't count on a Palin implosion: if one examines Obama's failed House race, and the weird pull-outs of both his primary and general election Illinois Senatorial opponents, then we sense that he has never really waged a knock-out campaign fight until this past year--and that may not be true of Palin's past scrappy and contested rise to the top.
Barack Obama is a hot house plant. He only beat Hillary! because of his early success in caucuses, and because of the Clinton campaign's early complacency and overconfidence. He lost the last half of the primary seasons.
He wasn't supposed to win the nomination this year--it was just a practice run. But now he's like a dog who chases cars, and has finally caught one. He doesn't know what to do with it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:58 AMRestricting the top speed on automobiles "seems reasonably sensible" to Matthew Yglesias:
...of course the reason you're not allowed to go super-fast is that it isn't safe. A large proportion of car accidents are related to people driving too quickly. Thus, via Ezra Klein comes Kent Sepkowitz's suggestion that we design cars so as to make it impossible for them to drive over, say, 75 miles per hour.
Clearly spoken as someone woefully ignorant of the cause of accidents, and who probably doesn't drive much, at least outside a city, or in the west, or in mountains, or on curvy roads where rapid passing is occasionally necessary. Or someone to whom time (at least other peoples' time) has no value. I suspect that he agrees with Al Gore that cars are intrinsically evil, and wishes that everyone would ride a train, like those enlightened Europeans. It's similar to the idiocy (and yes, there's no other word for it) of a double nickel speed limit (something to which even Charles Krauthammer, who doesn't drive at all) has fallen prey.
Fortunately, most of his commenters take him to school.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:20 AMEngineer's salaries, taking into consideration education and responsibilities, the stress of accelerated delivery schedules and their direct impact on corporate profits and overall success of the company, seem absolutely inadequate.
Well, I've known a few who were. But no, not in general.
In many of these overpaid professions, there's some kind of government-induced market failure going on (e.g., longshoremen), but in a lot of cases, it's just the occasional irrationality of the market place.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:10 AMI was going to have some comments about the administrator's leaked email, but haven't had the time. Fortunately, over in comments at Space politics, "anonymous.space" picks up my slack:
He didn't mean for it to be shown to the outside world, but the revisionism, hypocrisy, and self-adulation in Griffin's email is pretty shocking, even this late into the ESAS/Constellation debacle. It's either that, or he's been lying about his real positions for a long time. Griffin wrote:
"Exactly as I predicted, events have unfolded in a way that makes it clear how unwise it was for the US to adopt a policy of deliberate dependence on another power for access to the ISS."Griffin never predicted this. Instead, Griffin repeatedly stated that the VSE -- including its 2010 date for Shuttle retirement -- and the accompanying NASA Authorization Act of 2005 provide the nation with its best civil space policy in decades. In fact, Griffin said so as recently as January 2008 in an STA speech:
"I consider this to be the best civil space policy to be enunciated by a president, and the best Authorization Act to be approved by the Congress, since the 1960s."
See here.
In fact, just before becoming NASA Administrator, Griffin even _led_ a study that argued as one of its central conclusions/recommendations that the Space Shuttle could and should be retired after ISS assembly reached the stage of "U.S. Core Complete", certainly no later than 2010.
See here.
If Griffin was really so prescient as to predict the situation that NASA's human space flight programs are in now, then he should have spoken up years ago instead of repeatedly signing onto studies and policies that are flawed according to the argument in his email. In fact, it would have been wrong for him to have lobbied for the job of NASA Administrator to begin with if he really thought that the President's policy was so compromised.
Griffin should resign immediately and apologize if his email reflects what he's actually believed all these years. If not, and his email represents how Griffin has recently changed his views, then Griffin should admit that he was wrong to sign onto the policy, argue that the policy needs to be revised, and resign if it is not revised in a manner that he can support.
Griffin also wrote:
"In a rational world, we would have been allowed to pick a Shuttle retirement date to be consistent with Ares/Orion availability"
Griffin is confused about both chronology and causality in this statement. The Shuttle retirement date came first -- as a recommendation about Shuttle operability and certification in the CAIB report and then as policy in the VSE. The replacement for Shuttle (originally CEV in the VSE and then Ares/Orion in ESAS) came second and was supposed to have a schedule that was responsive to that Shuttle retirement date.
In a rational world, a rational NASA Administrator would have picked a rational Shuttle replacement that could be developed rapidly and fielded soon after the 2010 deadline for Shuttle retirement using the available budgetary and technical resources. Instead, Griffin chose an Ares/Orion system that is so technically compromised that it can't complete even its preliminary design review before the end of the Bush II Administration and is so costly that it can't be flown operationally within the available budget until 2015 (and even that date has only a limited chance of being met).
Gemini took less than four years to develop and fly. In the same amount of time, Ares I/Orion will not complete its preliminary design review. That is not rational.
Apollo took seven years to develop and fly (to the Moon). In the same amount of time, Ares I/Orion will still be (at least) three years from flying (to the ISS). That is not rational.
Griffin also wrote:
"We would have been asked to deploy Ares/Orion as early as possible (rather than "not later than 2014″) and we would have been provided the necessary budget to make it so."
Griffin is just making up history with this statement. NASA was never asked to "deploy Ares/Orion" at all. Rather, the VSE directed NASA to develop a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV, which eventually becameOrion), and provided a budget that supported CEV development. The VSE never directed NASA to develop a new launch vehicle that duplicated the nation's military and commercial capabilities with yet another medium- to intermediate-lift launcher (Ares), and the budget never supported such a development. Ares I needlessly busted the VSE budget box from day one, requiring the termination of billions of dollars of ISS research and exploration technology development just to start its design activities.
And why does anyone have to ask Griffin to deploy a Shuttle replacement as early as possible when the VSE gives him the flexibility to develop a replacement anytime before 2014? Is the NASA Administrator really so unambitious and lacking in initiative that, instead of being given a deadline (which he's blown by a year anyway), he also has to be told by the White House to execute a critical replacement program as rapidly as possible?
And then Griffin wrote:
"... for OSTP and OMB, retiring the Shuttle is a jihad rather than an engineering and program management decision."
First, for the head of any federal agency to use the term "jihad" in written reference to the White House offices that set policy for and fund their agency - especially when the same White House has been leading a seven-year war against Islamic extremism - demonstrates such extremely poor judgement that it brings into question whether that agency head is still fit to serve.
Second, the 2010 date for Shuttle retirement was effectively set by the CAIB's expert judgment about and extensive investigation into the vehicle's operational and certification issues. OSTP and OMB (and NASA under the prior Administrator) simply reiterated the 2010 date in the VSE. If Griffin wants to challenge the 2010 Shuttle retirement date, then he needs to challenge the engineering and program management analysis and expertise of the 13-member CAIB and its 32 staff, not OSTP and OMB. OSTP and OMB read and followed the CAIB report on this issue. Apparently Griffin did not and has not.
The only things OSTP and OMB are guilty of is not fulfilling all of the White House's funding commitments to the VSE and not stopping Ares I/Orion at the outset when those projects busted the budget, or later when they ran into insurmountable technical issues and schedule delays that made them programmatically and politically useless.
Griffin also wrote:
"Further, they [OSTP and OMB] actively do not want the ISS to be sustained, and have done everything possible to ensure that it would not be."
For the same NASA Administrator who wiped out billions of dollars of ISS research and who referred to the ISS as a "mistake" in the press to criticize White House offices about their lack of support for the ISS is the height of hypocrisy. See (add http://www):
.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-09-27-nasa-griffin-interview_x.htm):
Griffin needs to stop flailing in the political winds, make up his mind, and stick with a consistent position on the value (or lack thereof) of the ISS.
Finally, and this is a technical nit compared to the issues above, but towards the end, Griffin also wrote:
"The argument that we need to get Shuttle out of the way so that conversion of the VAB/MAF for Constellation can proceed is similarly specious."
This totally misses the point. The VAB and MAF are just really huge shells that NASA can build anything in. It's the launch and rocket test infrastructure (the pads, the mobile launcher platform, and test stands) that the Shuttle and Constellation system share, and which Constellation has to make modifications to, that will interminably slow Constellation development if Shuttle continues to make use of those facilities.
My kingdom for a rational NASA Administrator who reads and follows policy direction, develops programs within their allotted budgets, encourages and listens to independent technical advice, and has the capacity to admit when the current plan is fubar and adjust course in a timely manner.
Maybe in the next administration, regardless of who wins. But don't bet on it. The only area in which I disagree with these comments concerns the Shuttle retirement date. As I noted in a later comment over there:
"...why did they pick 2010? What is magic about that date (particularly when no one really knows what 'certification' means)?
I had always assumed that the CAIB thought that the Shuttle should be retired ASAP, and that if it wasn't, it would have to be 'recertified' for longer life (ignoring the issue that the term was undefined). But ASAP meant no sooner than ISS completion, which (I think even then) was scheduled for 2010 (at least after the Columbia loss and standown). Hence the date (it doesn't hurt that it's a round number).
The Shuttle doesn't suddenly become less safe to fly in 2011, or even 2012. If there is a degradation, it is a gradual one, not a binary condition, and there is no obvious 'knee in the curve.' The date was driven by non-Shuttle considerations, IMO. If someone on the CAIB (e.g., Dr. Day) knows otherwise, I'd be interested to know that."
And if Mike Griffin is now frustrated, and wants to know who to blame, he'll see him the next time he shaves.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 AMAnn Althouse writes that Bill O'Reilly "spouts right-wing economic theories."
What does that mean?
I've heard Bill O'Reilly rant against free trade, complain about "fat cats," whine about "obscene" profits from oil companies, price gougers, etc., but in that, he seems to be more attuned to Democrats than "right wingers." Say what you want about O'Reilly, but he's no "right winger" (at least if, by that, one means a classical liberal who believes in free markets). He's a populist, who is just "looking out for the folks" (at least to hear him tell it--never mind the actual effects of his anti-market nostrums). Just another example of the meaninglessness (and uselessness) of the labels (e.g., "neocon," "conservative," "fascist") that get pointlessly thrown around the arena.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:47 AMThe day job, that is, which seems to primarily consist of running for the next office. Senator Obama tries to bring the funny.
"I mean, mother, governor, moose shooter?! I mean I think that's cool, that's cool stuff," Obama said about Palin's biography.
When discussing McCain's energy plan, Obama poked fun at his line on drilling. "What were the Republicans hollerin', 'drill baby drill'? What kind of slogan is that?! They were getting all excited about drilling!"
Maybe you had to be there.
And how politically stupid is it to make fun of hunters in Michigan (which in fact does have moose in the western UP)?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 AMByron York has an actual history of what Obama did. Jim Geraghty has some related thoughts:
...note that Obama and his supporters speak a great deal about Obama's choice to be a community organizer, and not so much on what he actually did. We're continually expected to applaud the decision to try instead of asking about the results. We never hear, "because of his work, Factory X reopened," or "because of Obama's creation of job retraining program Y, the community's unemployment rate reduced from A to B."Yes, with so-called "liberals," it's always about the good intentions, and we're not supposed to pay any attention to actual results.
Lileks has some thoughts as well:
We're having a block party tonight - yes, another block party; damned community can't stop organizing itself (if I may repeat something I said over at Tim Blair's place - successful communities, or those on track to becoming successful, organize themselves; if you need someone to come in and do your organizing for you, he might as well call himself Mollusk Wrangler or Sloth Herder. I say this as a former community organizer myself, but that's another story) so we'll all stand outside and chat and eat pot luck.If your community needs an "organizer" it's probably not much of a community. It's just a lot of people living in close proximity.
And just a hint for some in comments: given Obama's image problem with his messiah complex, it's probably not politically helpful to compare him to Jesus...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:43 AM
Jessica Gavora, native Alaskan (and aka better half of Jonah Goldberg) has some thoughts on basketball and Sarah Palin:
We didn't play basketball to pad our college applications or fulfill some bureaucrat's notion of "gender equity." We played because the winters were long and cold and dark. There was nothing else to do. Maybe as a result, basketball was deadly serious business. Away games were played at the end of eight-hour bus rides or harrowing plane landings in frozen, remote villages. Our opponents were tough, and the fans were unforgiving. And even though the law that feminists like to credit with all female athletic success, Title IX, was then unenforced in high school sports, we girls wouldn't have dreamed of taking second place to the boys--nor did we.
Palin earned her now-famous nickname on the hardcourt--"Sarah Barracuda." Her enemies have tried to belittle her by pointing to her stint as a beauty queen, but it is clear that Palin's background in sports, more than any other experience, is what has made her the existential threat to liberal feminism (and possibly the Democratic ticket) that she is today.
I wonder how she'd do one on one with Senator Obama? Did he ever win a state championship for his team? Perhaps it's another comparison that his campaign should avoid.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 AMCharlie Martin sorts through all the Palin rumors.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 AMSenator Obama says he's not going to take our guns away, because he doesn't have the votes in Congress. What a politically brilliant thing to say in Pennsylvania. And he says that he's not going to take them out of our house. What he doesn't say is that he doesn't want us to take them out of our house, either.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:25 AMIowahawk is on the job.
By the way, I'm about to get on an airplane to go back to get blown away by a hurricane, so no posting until this evening, if then.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 AMObama's supporters don't seem to believe in the Constitution:
While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama's supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge's sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.
This by itself is reason to vote for McCain.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:19 PMPeople who go to work for the government with the expectation that it will provide them with retirement security are kidding themselves.
Getting local politicians *and* local unions to think more than a year or two is all but impossible. Do you realize that practically no local jurisdictions even have a Liabilities Budget?
It's just part of that visionary and long-range thinking on the part of governments.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:47 PMHere's a Time article on how the Obama campaign plans to deal with Sarah. I was struck by the very first graf.
Nobody was more surprised by John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate than the people who run Barack Obama's campaign. "I can honestly say that we weren't prepared for that," says David Axelrod, Obama's top strategist. "I mean, her name wasn't on anybody's list. It was a surprise to a lot of Republicans as well."
Well, why weren't they prepared for it? A lot of the non-left blogs have been speculating about her for months. Rush reportedly was talking her up months ago, and there have been threads at Free Republic about her. She had come to Arizona to visit McCain's house there. It was no big intellectual challenge to figure out that she was on the list, if not the short one.
Is this kind of intelligence cluelessness the way they plan to run the country?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:01 PMBill Whittle is now sold on John McCain:
I had heard before that John McCain had been beaten in prison, and I admired him for it. But when he said he had been broken . . . I gasped. When this sometimes cocky, arrogant old man told me he had once been a cocky, arrogant young man until he was "blessed by hardship," until he had been broken and remade -- and in that remaking discovered a love of country so fierce and pure that even as a patriot myself I will never approach it -- well, in that moment John McCain won my heart, to add to the respect and admiration he had already had.
When John McCain told me what I and untold millions of Americans have always believed, what others tell me to be ashamed of and mock me for -- that I live in the greatest country in the world, a force of goodness and justice in dark places, a land of heroism and sacrifice and opportunity and joy -- to me that went right to the mystic chords of memory that ultimately binds this country together. Some people don't know what it is, but there is such a thing as patriotism -- pure, unrefined, unapologetic, unconditional, non-nuanced, non-cosmopolitan, white-hot-burning patriotism. John McCain loves this country. I love it too. Not what it might be made into someday -- not its promise, always and only its promise -- but what it was and what it is, a nation and an idea worth fighting and dying for.
He also points out that Sarah has stolen Barack's mojo. Read the whole thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:00 PM...do all the people who were predicting that Sarah Palin would drop out within a couple days look now?
[Update a few minutes later]
More thoughts from Ann Althouse, on foolish Eagleton comparisons.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:23 PM...with Mike Griffin.
Not a lot new here for people who have been following it. And I would have a lot bolder vision for a "perfect world" than simply enough money to fly Shuttle while developing the Paintshaker. And he seems to be ignoring the issue that they share facilities and that mods have to occur (unless he was asking for enough money for new facilities for the new launcher).
And this is a useful point:
Q: When I tell non space people about the gap, the response is almost universally "you're kidding." Why is that?
Griffin: The 'you're kidding' part and the lack of notice, for several years it was something fairly far off in the future. The actual circumstance doesn't even occur in the next president's administration unless that president gets two terms. It certainly wasn't occurring in this president's administration and it doesn't occur in any of the next couple of Congresses, right? Nobody around today was certain to be on scene when the actual consequence occurs. Moreover, I don't think anybody reading about it in the papers ... thought really that it was going to be allowed to come to pass.
A lot of people argue that we need governments to fund things like this because private industry is too short sighted.
Give me a break.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:52 PMThis is just one poll, but it indicates that either Obama didn't get a convention bounce, or it was negated by events since (and the Republican convention didn't really get going until last night). If it's valid, it's hard to see anything other than the Palin selection as the cause. And note the difference between this poll and the one on the weekend (eight points). As I noted previously, weekend polls are notorious for favoring Democrats.
Also, if valid, it's bad news for Obama. If McCain gets a convention bounce, he'll be well in the lead.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:12 PMYou just know the Obama campaign is going to try to scare you out of voting for her. They're gonna say she can't manage her family. And that she kills innocent helpless animals. And did we mention that she's a woman?
If you don't vote for McCain/Palin, you're a sexist. And probably a secret misogynist.
What a delicious trap for the identity politics crowd.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:10 AMAlex Knapp points out that he gets a bad rap, at least in his Senate career. I think that a lot of people tend to focus on all his "present" votes in the IL legislature.
But I don't necessarily judge a legislator by the quantity of laws generated. The quality matters much more to me. In fact, I'd prefer an effective legislator who did nothing other than preventing bad legislation, even if (s)he never originated any. I don't think that the country suffers from a shortage of laws, particularly federal ones. And I'd really go for someone who would work to overturn much of the bad law currently on the books.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:34 AMI should state up front that I'm not easily influenced by speechifying. I never got what people thought was so great about Bill Clinton's speeches--I had trouble stomaching them myself, because they always seemed so fake and disingenuous. And I never understood why Reagan was called "the Great Communicator." Most of his speeches left me pretty cold as well. I mean, I was fine with the content, but I just never got the all the adulation.
Same thing with Governor Palin. She gave a good speech, had a lot of nice swipes at The One, and I liked most of what she said, as far as it goes. It's probably too much to expect a lot of policy, given that she'd just come through several days of one of the most vicious media assaults in history, and had to just get the audience to know her. Her voice doesn't seem as strong as I'd like, but I think that for most people, it must increase her likability factor. It's also impressive that she managed to give it with teleprompter problems, with no obvious flubs. She either had good notes as a backup, or she really knew that speech. Had Obama been in a similar situation it could have been disastrous (which makes one think of the potential for a very dirty campaign trick if one could breach the security and get control of his prompter during a big speech).
I think that she's going to be a very good debater, and show people that she's much more knowledgable than the stereotype so far.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 AMIrene Klotz has been won over by Sarah Palin and Ayn Rand. And the former Democrat is going to be following the campaign from a space perspective. Not sure how much she's going to have to report. I doubt that it will be a big issue outside of Florida.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:44 PMShe should slip this line into her speech:
"Being a mayor is kind of like being a community organizer, except mayors have to get results and are held accountable if they don't."
Please.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:11 PMVictor Davis Hanson defines a new word, sure to go down with "borking." Or "swiftboating," except that what that means depends on who you ask.
The liberal left buys into the Gore notion of offsets--that by backing ever more entitlements, and public assistance, the caring liberal is allowed to feel a little tsk, tsk about Alaska moose-hunters, teenage white girls getting pregnant, and small-town mayorships, without incurring the charge of elitism. Writing a story about a struggling family or an illegal alien wrongly deported, introducing a bill to help working moms, announcing that an Obama speech is the equivalent of the Gettysburg Address, all that lets you unload on the Palin's teenage daughter or Palin herself in ways that any unbiased observer would consider sexist, snobbish, and condescendingly cruel.
Being a mother of a Down syndrome child, raising five children, rising, without money or family influence, to the governorship on an anti-corruption and commonsense platform, in addition to trying to run the largest-sized state in the union, critical to both the energy and defense security of the nation, all that should have made liberals and feminists, if reluctantly, nevertheless appreciative of her success in a mostly male political world.Not this week, perhaps--but soon there will be a backlash against all this creepiness. Just watch...
Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a charismatic senator, with Obama's resume, except that it's a woman (even make it a black woman if you want, but it shouldn't really matter that much). Imagine also an equally charismatic governor of Alaska, a rugged outdoorsman who hunts moose and plays hockey with a philosophy of individualism and self reliance, who has started and run successful businesses, risen through politics and vanquished corrupt politicians in his own party. Make him a Democrat if you want.
Which of them would be perceived to be more ready to lead the nation?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:31 PMMatt Welch has an interesting interview with an Alaskan Democrat:
Q: So libertarian-minded people should be fine with that, right?A: Let me tell you all the nice things about Sarah Palin: Sarah Palin has been a pretty freaking awesome governor. She came in saying that the entire system was corrupt, and that Republicans were evil, and she was going to just mix everything up and get us a gas pipeline and end of story. And she got to power, she was elected overwhelmingly by independents, beat Tony Knowles, who had been governor before.
The Republicans hate her. If you go and talk to the Alaska delegation here, they despise her.
Q: Really?
A: Hate her. Oh my god! This whole thing about her retarded son really being her daughter's was started by Lyda Green, who is president of the senate, a Republican...
Q: I was just talking to someone who claimed to have knowledge of Alaska to some degree, and they say where Sarah Palin comes from it's the equivalent of Humboldt or Chico in California, like, of course, you know, she'd have a Girls Gone Wild phase, and smoking pot. Is this just wishcasting, or what can you tell us about her geographical background?
A: So the Mat-Su Valley, you know, Matanuska-Susitna Valley, otherwise known as Upper Wingnuttia, is full of right-wing libertarian militia fundamendalist Christian gun-toting, pot-growing dope-heads.
Q: Awesome.
Like totally cool, man.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:03 AMI just heard that Fox News reported that they had a poll that indicated that people were more interested in the vice-presidential debate than the presidential one by about two to one. But they left out the most interesting debates (unlikely as they would be). What do you think?
I'll tell you my vote late tomorrow.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 PMRamesh Ponnuru, on Fred Thompson's description of John McCain's POW experiences:
He makes it sound almost as impressive as turning down a Wall Street job.
Or the hard life of being a "community organizer."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:00 PMHeh.
Some Sarah Palin facts. With all the lies and misconceptions out there, somebody had to pull this together. I particularly liked this one:
Death once had a near-Sarah-Palin experience.
and
Jesus wears a bracelet that says WWSPD?Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:20 PM
The latest from the fever swamps:
If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!
The frightening thing is that these people probably really believe this stuff.
[Update a while later]
If health insurance for all, an end to the Iraq War, an end to torture and illegal wiretapping, and a sane energy policy can be obtained at the price of destroying one teenage girl, her family, and the surrendering our self-respect I see that as a cheap trade.
And to think that these creatures consider themselves our moral betters.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:05 PMThere's an interesting discussion in comments between Clark Lindsey and Dwayne Day (and others, though those are less interesting) on how much progress we have made in achieving the goals of the new private space industry over at Space Transport News.
Clark tends to be a glass-half-full kind of guy. Dr. Day thinks there are a few drops in the bottom, and they're poisoned.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:57 PMThat's how the McCain campaign describes stories about their not properly vetting Governor Palin. Surely the media, with all its vaunted layers of fact checkers and editors, would never do such a thing?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:34 PMWell, it's what one might expect from an Alaskan. It also explains why the press and the left are so completely wrecking themselves in attempting to derail her. They don't understand libertarians, only able to think in simple minded terms of "liberal" and "conservative." And I have to say that if this is what John McCain means by "maverick" I'm all for it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:11 AMI want to say that I appreciate both Senators Obama and Biden strongly declaring that candidates' children should be off limits. Of course, they know that this stuff is poison, and can severely damage their campaigns with the non-nutroots.
I hope that their campaign staff (and surrogates) are listening. They can't be held responsible for what Kos and TalkLeft and their ilk (including, sadly, Andrew Sullivan) do (and I expect the vile behavior from those quarters to continue, and I also expect a big backlash against it from McCain supporters, both current and future). But I also hope that if evidence does come to light that a staffer has been feeding this stuff to the bottom feeders that Senator Obama follows through on his pledge and has him or her (or them) shown the door.
No, she's not going to step down. This is only going to make her and her supporters more determined to stay in and defeat these digital brownshirts (and their enablers in the press).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:00 AMDwayne Day has an interesting history comparing undersea exploration technology with space exploration technology.
One other point of coming convergence--the increasing use of underwater suit concepts for space suits (particularly for high-pressure suits that can eliminate the need to prebreathe). Historically, NASA has generally ignored the undersea folks, though there has been a lot of private interaction (Phil Nuytten of Can-Dive has been developing hard suit concepts for decades). It looked like that might be changing with the selection of Oceaneering for the new EMU program, until NASA cancelled the contract and reopened the competition. We'll see what the future holds, and if Hamilton Sunstrand retains their grip on the agency space-suit budget.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:48 AMIs the mainstream media like the World Wrestling Federation?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:15 AMThe government doesn't want you to have access to your own genome data.
Sorry, I outgrew my nanny many decades ago.
[Via Geekpress]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:15 PMDoes John Kerry have any idea how pathetic and stupid he sounds trying to paint Sarah Palin as another Dick Cheney? Apparently not.
How epic is the fail, on so many levels, of such a comparison? Of course, it also assumes that if he can get people to make such an association, that it's politically helpful to him. This kind of idiotic projection of their own derangement and hatred on the American public is one of the reasons that the Dems haven't been able to get a majority of the popular vote in over thirty years.
Hilarious. I just wish that Stephanopolous had asked him to elaborate.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:31 AM...and not safe. Nice catch by Jon Goff that no one else seems to have picked up on:
Basically, unless this source is bogus, or I'm completely misreading things, it's saying that even NASA admits that their odds of losing a crew or a mission using the Constellation architecture are far worse then they had originally claimed. In fact, at least for ISS missions, we're talking almost an order of magnitude worse. For ISS, they're claiming a LOC (probability of losing the crew on any given flight) of 1 in 231, with a LOM (loss of mission) of 1 in 19! If I'm reading this right, that means they expect right now that about 5% of missions to the space station will end up not making it to the station. For lunar missions, the LOC number is 1 in 170, and the LOM number is 1 in 9! That means of every multi-billion dollar mission, they've got an almost 11% chance of it being a failure. While some of these numbers have been improving, others have been getting worse.
In other words, it appears that NASA is admitting that the Ares-1 is not going to be any safer than an EELV/EELV derived launcher would've been, and in fact may be less reliable.
I've never drunk the koolaid that Ares/Orion was going to be more safe than Shuttle (or any previous system). Part of the problem is that (particularly with all of the vibration issues) they're being forced to put systems in that introduce new failure modes. The other is that in their determination to have a crew escape system (as I've mentioned before), they are adding hazards on a nominal mission.
There is only one way to get a safe launch system. We have to build vehicles that we can fly repeatedly, develop operational experience, and wring the bugs out of, just as we've done with every other type of transportation to date. When every flight is a first flight that has to fully perform, you're always going to have a high risk of problems. Unfortunately, NASA decided to do Apollo again instead of solve the space transportation problem.
And along those lines, I should say that I fully agree with Jon:
Quite frankly, I'd almost rather see a gap than try filling it with a kludge like keeping the shuttle flying. The fundamental problem is that even though "commercial" companies like Boeing and LM and Orbital (and hopefully SpaceX if they can get their act together) have been providing the majority of US spacelift for the past two decades, there is no commercial supplier of manned orbital spaceflight in the US. That's the bigger problem, IMO than the fact that NASA can't access a space station that it really doesn't have much use for.
I'd rather see more focus on how NASA and DoD can help encourage and grow a strong and thriving commercial spaceflight (manned and unmanned) sector than how NASA can fix its broken internal spaceflight problems. Once the US actually gets to the point where it has a thriving manned orbital spaceflight sector, there won't be any gaps again in the future. A strong commercial spaceflight sector with a weak NASA is still a lot better than a strong NASA and a weak commercial spaceflight sector.
Unfortunately, absent a real crisis, the politics seem determined to not encourage that to happen. And the ISS crisis, if it is perceived as one, is likely to cause a panic that still won't cause it to happen, though it may still result in something better than ESAS (not that we could do much worse).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:11 AMIowahawk has dredged up a previously unfound work of Homer:
Speak to me, O Muse, of this resourceful man
who strides so boldly upon the golden shrine at Invescos,
Between Ionic plywood columns, to the kleig light altar.
Fair Obamacles, favored of the gods, ascends to Olympus
Amidst lusty tributes and the strumming lyres of Media;
Their mounted skyboxes echo with the singing of his name
While Olbermos and Mattheus in their greasy togas wrassle
For first honor of basking in their hero's reflected glory.
Who is this man, so bronzed in countenance,
So skilled of TelePropter, clean and articulate
whose ears like a stately urn's protrude?
So now, daughter of Zeus, tell us his story.
And just the Cliff Notes if you don't mind,
We don't have all day.
Read all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:50 AMFirst, Governor Palin is not merely, as Jay describes her, "all-American", but hyper-American. What other country in the developed world produces beauty queens who hunt caribou and serve up a terrific moose stew? As an immigrant, I'm not saying I came to the United States purely to meet chicks like that, but it was certainly high on my list of priorities. And for the gun-totin' Miss Wasilla then to go on to become Governor while having five kids makes it an even more uniquely American story. Next to her resume, a guy who's done nothing but serve in the phony-baloney job of "community organizer" and write multiple autobiographies looks like just another creepily self-absorbed lifelong member of the full-time political class that infests every advanced democracy.
Second, it can't be in Senator Obama's interest for the punditocracy to spends its time arguing about whether the Republicans' vice-presidential pick is "even more" inexperienced than the Democrats' presidential one.Third, real people don't define "experience" as appearing on unwatched Sunday-morning talk shows every week for 35 years and having been around long enough to have got both the War on Terror and the Cold War wrong. (On the first point, at the Gun Owners of New Hampshire dinner in the 2000 campaign, I remember Orrin Hatch telling me sadly that he was stunned to discover how few Granite State voters knew who he was.) Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are more or less the same age, but Governor Palin has run a state and a town and a commercial fishing operation, whereas (to reprise a famous line on the Rev Jackson) Senator Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. She's done the stuff he's merely a poseur about. Post-partisan? She took on her own party's corrupt political culture directly while Obama was sucking up to Wright and Ayers and being just another get-along Chicago machine pol (see his campaign's thuggish attempt to throttle Stanley Kurtz and Milt Rosenberg on WGN the other night).
Fourth, Governor Palin has what the British Labour Party politician Denis Healy likes to call a "hinterland" - a life beyond politics. Whenever Senator Obama attempts anything non-political (such as bowling), he comes over like a visiting dignitary to a foreign country getting shanghaied into some impenetrable local folk ritual. Sarah Palin isn't just on the right side of the issues intellectually. She won't need the usual stage-managed "hunting" trip to reassure gun owners: she's lived the Second Amendment all her life. Likewise, on abortion, we're often told it's easy to be against it in principle but what if you were a woman facing a difficult birth or a handicapped child? Been there, done that.
Fifth, she complicates all the laziest Democrat pieties. Energy? Unlike Biden and Obama, she's been to ANWR and, like most Alaskans, supports drilling there.
Sixth (see Kathleen's link to Craig Ferguson below), I kinda like the whole naughty librarian vibe.
[Over at The Corner]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:45 AMHeh.
It's Sarah and John!New campaign motto: "Come with us, if you want to live."
This just keeps getting better.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:25 PMMike Griffin has kicked off a study to consider Shuttle extension for five years.
The problem, not mentioned by the article, is that this doesn't close the gap, unless Ares is abandoned. Shuttle and Ares use the same launch infrastructure, and as long as Shuttle flies, pads and crawler cannot be modified for it. Nor does it allow us to permanently crew the station without Soyuz.
The only real solution (assuming that we want to pay the high costs of continuing Shuttle) is to put a capsule on something else (e.g., Atlas, or Falcon 9 if it ever flies), soon. Maybe Orion, maybe Dragon, maybe something else, but it looks like the Stick is on life support. In fact, as "anonymous.space" says over at Space Politics, it's already dead. It's just that Griffin and others have been doing CPR on the body to keep the coroner from getting to it.
What a fiasco.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:40 PMBoy, you really have to think that the Dems would like to have a do-over. They will be wondering for years how they managed to screw up this election so royally. The answer is their identity politics, and arrogance. But that's not the lesson they'll take. Which is fine with me.
[Update a couple minutes later]
A good point over at The Corner. This won't just help with women--it will help with men. Who would you rather look at for four years: Joe Biden, or Sarah Palin?
[Update a while later]
Not that they've been high, but watch Bob Barr's poll numbers drop. McCain just brought a lot of libertarian Republican home, judging from what I read at Free Republic. Hell, I might even vote for him now.
[Update a little later]
A prediction. Sarah Palin, not Hillary Clinton, will be the first woman president. And the first black president will be a Republican as well (of course, I've always thought that the first black and women presidents would be Republicans).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:05 AMTraditionally, the veep has had responsibility for space policy, as something to do besides waiting for the president to die and break ties in the Senate.
When it comes to space, she's got no track record at all, but an Alaskan would bring an interesting perspective to free enterprise and entrepreneurship.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:55 AMWe'll see if Governor Palin can close the deal with the PUMAs (assuming that the rumor is true--she's reportedly still in Alaska, with no way to get to Dayton by 11 AM--could be another head fake).
People will say that she's not ready to be CinC. Well, she's only running for Vice CinC. And she's at least as ready (with actual executive experience) as the Democrats' nominee.
[Update a while later]
It's looking more certain now, but we won't know for sure for another half hour or so. I wonder if she'll take Senator McCain on a tour of ANWR?
Bob Beckel looked very depressed on Fox and Friends this morning. He knows how badly the Donkeys screwed up a free lunch this year, even if many others are in denial.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Carl Cameron is reporting that it's official.
I'm watching the Tavis Smiley show on KCET before I go to bed on the west coast. He has Julianne Malveaux and Cornell West on, whining that "brother" (and they used that word many times) Obama's speech was too white.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:27 PMIt's Batboy! Hey, we could do worse, and probably will.
The comments are great.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:09 PMHere is an interesting poll.
I'd have to go with Reagan (as long as it was the pre-Alzheimers version). Not that there's much to choose from. Second place would probably be Ike.
But it's hard to take presidents out of their historical milieu and have a good idea how they'd respond. For instance, what if we'd had a Reagan with a Newt-led Republican Congress? We'll never know.
[Later afternoon update]
I just went and actually took the poll. Reagan first, Ike a distant second, with everyone else in the noise. I always get suspicious when large numbers of people agree with me. It's so rare...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:46 PMWayne Hale explains why we should shut down the Shuttle.
Everything he says is true--much of the infrastructure and support contractors for the system are already gone. That's why it will be very expensive to resurrect them to the degree necessary to fly past 2010. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but as I wrote in my PJM piece, we have to decide how much ISS is worth to us. And if we want to keep the option open, and as least costly as possible, we need to stop terminating those suppliers and destroying tooling immediately. It's probably a prudent thing to do, until the next president can make a decision.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:52 AMOver at MSNBC. Actually it's more like Bonnie and Clod.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:24 PMThey really are setting up a replica of a Greek temple from which The One will give his speech tomorrow. I've heard the excuse that they're just trying to make it like the White House (as though that's a good excuse...one more time--you're not president yet). But even if true, it doesn't fly. Yes, the White House is of Palladian style, but it's neoclassical, and only the porticos have columns. It looks more like the Parthenon (at least as far as one can tell from the grainy camera photo).
And you know who lives in Greek temples?
Gods.
It will be amusing to see what the McCain campaign does with this one.
[Update a few minutes later]
It's already started. The Temple of Obama.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here's another one, from Pethokoukis--Illinois Obama and the Temple of Gloom
[One more, late afternoon PDT]
The Temple of Obama.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:55 PMIt just occurs to me that even if we continue to fly the Shuttle through "the gap" that doesn't really solve the problem of actually utilizing the station. We are currently planning on relying on dual Soyuzs (what's the plural of "Soyuz"?) for "lifeboat" capability to allow a six-person crew after completion. If the US is not purchasing Soyuz, we wouldn't be able to leave Americans on board permanently, unless we wanted to risk losing them in emergency. It seems unlikely that this would actually play out politically, but if there were only one Soyuz there while the Shuttle wasn't, it would be a Titanic situation, with only enough escape craft for half the crew. Would the Russians just say, "dos vedanya..."? The OSP was supposed to serve in that function, but it was cancelled when the VSE came along.
What a policy Charlie Foxtrot.
I'll bet that you could find volunteers in the astronaut office, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:04 PMIs ESA getting serious about reusable vehicles? Too bad NASA can't find a clue.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:54 AMCheck out James "Lizardhead" Carville's footwear. Subtle.
I'm actually a little surprised that he wears shoes at all. I've never seen him below the waist before.
[Via Mike Puckett]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:11 PMJeff Finckenor responds to some of his critics in the comments section:
"He's a whiner who didn't get his way and went to the IG"
Not a terribly polite way to put things, but I suppose it is somewhat accurate. Of course "my way" which I was always advocating was a call to do a technical evaluation to determine what we really needed to do. You know, things like writing requirements, then making selections based on those requirements. Some people would call that good engineering. Some would call it federal law. It never happened. Had it happened then I wouldn't have had any arguments to make and would have been shut down a long time ago. Had it happened and there were real reasons for MSFC and Constellation making the decisions they did, then I could have supported them even if I was less then thrilled. You go to the IG to report waste, fraud and abuse. I was duty bound to report what I saw as both a taxpayer and a government employee. If there wasn't any meat to what I was saying, then the IG would have sent me away. They didn't. Those who want to do the search may also want to look up a letter from Senator Grassley to NASA. It was a very powerful letter and appears to have been soundly ignored. It takes a lot of chutzpah to blow off the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, but NASA got away with it.Those who argue with me will trot out an "evaluation" that was done in 2002, except that that evaluation was based on a CM tool ONLY (not CAD management), and it was fatally flawed in how it was performed. And yes, all you're getting here is an opinion, and again my information has been documented and given to the appropriate authorities.
Was I asked to "stop working against management"? I guess that's one way to put it, if I was willing to ignore reality, give up on the vision of what NASA needs to succeed, and toe the party line.
It was wrenching deciding 3 years ago that my job wasn't worth the mess that I was seeing. I had basically decided that a NASA that could make a decision so badly (which is not quite the same thing as a bad decision, though in this case I believe it is the same), and not be able to correct itself was not a good place to work. So I committed to supporting good engineering practice and federal law, knowing that I might be forced out. 3 years later, I have given up, which was again wrenching for me. The politics are too overwhelming, and it is indeed not a good place for me to work.
Go read the whole thing.
All of the comments have to be very disquieting to fans of business as usual at NASA. It's not about CAD. It's about whether this is an institution that, despite the many talented people working for it, is capable of getting us into space in any serious way.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:22 PMAs I noted in my recent PJM piece, if we are going to continue to fly the Shuttle, decisions must be made almost immediately to keep key infrastructure in place, that is due to be dismantled. Several legislators, including the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, have sent a letter to the White House urging just such an action. It will be interesting to see the administration response.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:18 PMBill Clinton continues to be helpful:
He said: "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"
Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."
No, of course not. Just an irrelevant hypothetical.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:30 PMI also thought that this was a very strange pronouncement by Senator Kennedy last night:
"We are told that Barack Obama believes too much in an America of high principle and bold endeavor. . ." Yeah, I know that's my critique of him.
Like Ramesh, I'd like to see an example of just who it was that was telling this to Ted.
[Update a few minutes later]
I should add that I wish Senator Kennedy a long life. As an ex-Senator.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:13 PMSenator Obama got no bounce in the polls from the Biden announcement:
Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 23-25, the first three-day period falling entirely after Obama's Saturday morning vice presidential announcement, shows 46% of national registered voters backing John McCain and 44% supporting Obama, not appreciably different from the previous week's standing for both candidates. This is the first time since Obama clinched the nomination in early June, though, that McCain has held any kind of advantage over Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.
The real bad news for the Big O is that this isn't even "likely" voters. It's only registered voters, which generally overstate support for the Democrats (because Republicans tend to be more likely to vote than Democrat leaners). If it's tied among registered, t will be interesting to see what the likely voter numbers are.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:17 AMA nine-year-old boy has been banned from Little League for being too good a pitcher.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:01 AMThe one in Georgia. Michael Totten reports an interesting press briefing.
And apparently, some people aren't very happy about his reporting.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:21 AMGustav is looking like it's going to be bad news for the upper Gulf Coast:
As long as Gustav is over water, it will intensify. Gustav is currently under moderate wind shear (15 knots) . This shear is expected to remain in the low to moderate range (0-15 knots) for the remainder of the week. Gustav is over the highest heat content waters in the Atlantic. Given these two factors, intensification is likely whenever the storm is over water, at least 50 miles from land. Expect the high mountains of Hispaniola to take a toll on Gustav. Recall in 2006 that Hurricane Ernesto hit the southwest tip of Haiti as a Category 1 hurricane with 75 mph winds. Haiti's mountains knocked Ernesto down to a tropical storm with 50 mph winds, which decreased further to 40 mph when the storm crossed over into Cuba. Expect at least a 25 mph decrease in Gustav's winds by Wednesday, after it encounters Haiti. Further weakening is likely if the storm passes close to or over Cuba. By Wednesday, Gustav will be underneath an upper-level anticyclone. These upper atmosphere high pressure systems can greatly intensify a tropical storm, since the clockwise flow of air at the top of the storm acts to efficiently vent away air pulled aloft by the storm's heavy thunderstorms. With high oceanic heat content also present in the waters off western Cuba, the potential for rapid intensification exists should the center stay more than 50 miles from the Cuban coast. Once in the Gulf of Mexico, Gustav is likely to intensify into a major Category 3 or higher storm. I give a 60% chance that Gustav will cause significant disruption to the oil and gas industry in the Gulf.
This will roil the energy markets (it may be doing so already). It may also be a test, and an opportunity, for Governor Jindal to show that the people of Louisiana were wise to replace his predecessor with him after her Katrina fiasco, which was largely overlooked by the media in their lust to bash George Bush.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:17 AMThere's little new in this piece at the Economist to people who have been following the issue. Well, there is one thing: some signs that the people who have been destroying the industry with this foolish policy may be starting to pay attention.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:59 AM...that I hadn't heard:
At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.
The staffers sit in silence. Finally somebody ventures a response: "I think they'd send it back." Then another aide speaks up delicately: "The thing I would worry about is that it would almost look like a publicity stunt." Still another reminds Biden that an Iranian delegation is in Moscow that very day to discuss a $300 million arms deal with Vladimir Putin that the United States has strongly condemned. But Joe Biden is barely listening anymore. He's already moved on to something else.
Didn't anyone point out to him that Iran is not part of the "Arab world"?
And we want to put this guy a heartbeat away from the presidency?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:53 AM...and a depressing one, of the Vision for Space Exploration. There's a piece missing in the chronology, though. "Safe, Simple, Soon" was not part of the original vision. That was a sales slogan that ATK came up with to promote their particular means of implementing it. As noted, though, it seems to be failing on all three counts.
Note the comment that PDR has slipped into next year.
[Update mid morning PDT]
More on the PDR slip. It's all the way out to next spring.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:31 AM...I really appreciate reading about the seven most retardedmentally-challenged ways that celebrities attempt to go green.
These were all funny at the time, but it's nice to see a well-annotated compendium.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:34 PMThe healing continues, as the convention starts:
A handful of Clinton supporters also dogged MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews, calling him a "sexist pig" and booing him as he walked onto the network's set.
Was his leg tingling?
A group of about ten protestors joined the fray, holding up signs saying, "Clintons 4 McCain."
One woman holding a sign said, "We've been big Hillary Clinton supporters, we've been told to get over it... We want our party back."
Gonna be one heckuva show.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:51 PMJeff Foust reports on last week's anniversary get together.
When we finally start flying affordable space transports, future historians will look back in amazement that policy could have been so screwed up for so many decades, and so stubbornly unamenable to being fixed.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:40 PMOn the eve of the upcoming donkey fight, I just want to remind people again that Senator Obama is not the nominee until the delegates vote, and that the Clintons remain the Clintons. Don't think that there aren't a lot of delegates (and nervous superdelegates particularly) passing around recent polls showing Hillary outpolling Obama against McCain.
One could in fact speculate that the selection of Biden was an attempt by a desperate Obama campaign to hang on to the old guard of the party. I suspect that the coming week will be quite entertaining. It's good that McCain can wait until the end of the week to announce his own running mate.
[Update a few minutes later]
It strikes me that if the superdelegates vote to make Senator Obama the nominee, they will have failed in their intended purpose, which was to prevent candidates who were too far left, in the wake of McGovern. But as I've been saying for months now, they're in a no-win situation. They can anoint The One, and have him lose (and probably with negative coattails down ticket) or they can elevate Hillary! and tear the party apart, probably with race riots. Sux to be them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:50 PMArthur Silber has some belated advice for the Obama campaign:
...it might be best if you took some time to study dramaturgy in addition to...well, everything else. One of the keys to a certain kind of dramatic structure is that the climax occurs at the moment of maximum suspense. The arrival and duration of that particular moment are determined by the ways in which the preceding conflicts have been developed until the opposing forces have reached the point where the conflicts must be resolved, at least in significant part. The climactic moment cannot be prolonged beyond what the accumulated weight of the dramatic structure will bear. If it is prolonged too much, drama and suspense begin to ebb. When it is prolonged far too much, then what had been rigid goes slack; what had been stiff hopes, if you will, begin to droop.
In such lamentable circumstances (which all of us have experienced; yes, you have too, don't deny it), instead of an ecstatic explosion, we are sometimes left with only a pathetic dribble. In this case, the pathetic dribble goes by the name Joseph Biden.A Biden dribble just before the Democratic convention is a shocking failure of dramatic imagination. This exercise in digital manipulation was certainly not good for me, and I can't imagine it was good for anyone, probably including Obama. I very much doubt that even Barack wants a cigarette after this failure to achieve satisfactory completion.
I know I don't.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:27 PMI commented a few months ago about this tendency of anti-war protestors. Well, they're at it again in Denver:
If you want a real invasion over oil to protest, you could march against the Russian invasion of Georgia, but that's not happening. What's next -- protests against Teddy Roosevelt in Cuba?
Hell, some of them are still upset that we didn't lose fast enough in Vietnam to suit them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:38 AMAndrew Ferguson wrote a review of his book last year, as part of a longer piece. John McCormack pulls out the nut grafs:
What does a discerning reader learn from Biden's book that we didn't already know? Perhaps not much, if you're a regular watcher of C-SPAN or a longtime resident of Delaware. But there is something unforgettable about watching the man emerge on the page. His legendary self-regard becomes more impressive when the reader sees it in typescript, undistracted by the smile and the hair plugs. Biden quotes at great length from letters of recommendation he received as a young man, when far-sighted professors wrote movingly of his "sharp and incisive intellect" and his "highly developed sense of responsibility." These qualities have proved to be more of a burden than you might think, Biden admits. "I've made life difficult for myself," he writes, "by putting intellectual consistency and personal principle above expediency."
Yes, many Biden fans might tag these as the greatest of his gifts. Biden himself isn't so sure. After a little hemming and hawing--is it his intelligence that he most admires, or his commitment to principle, or his insistence on calling 'em as he sees 'em, or what?--he decides that his greatest personal and political virtue is probably his integrity. Tough call. But his wife seems to agree. He recounts one difficult episode in which she said as much. "Of all the things to attack you on," she said, almost in tears. "Your integrity?"This lachrymose moment came during Biden's aborted presidential campaign in 1988, when reporters discovered several instances of plagiarism in his campaign speeches and in his law school record. Biden rehearses the episode in tormenting, if selective, detail, and true to campaign-book form, his account serves as the emotional center of the book. The memoir of every presidential candidate must describe a Political Time of Testing, some point at which, if the narrative arc is to prove satisfying, the hero encounters criticism, most of it unjust, but then rallies, overcomes hardship and misfortune and the petty, self-serving attacks of enemies, and emerges chastened but wiser--and, come to think of it, more qualified to lead the greatest nation on earth.
Is there something about pompous windbags that somehow makes them more electable? If so, then maybe an Obama/Biden ticket has a chance.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:06 AMNot.
The healing continues.
If I were a Dem, they'd have to put me on suicide watch. At least, if I weren't in denial.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:38 AMWas Obama hoping that Biden's past (and future) gaffes would overshadow and distract from his own?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:56 PMAnd to think that just a few days ago one of my trolls was trying to convince me that Chuck Hagel isn't an idiot:
"Joe Biden is the right partner for Barack Obama. His many years of distinguished service to America, his seasoned judgment and his vast experience in foreign policy and national security will match up well with the unique challenges of the 21st Century. An Obama-Biden ticket is a very impressive and strong team. Biden's selection is good news for Obama and America."
I don't understand why the guy even bothers to call himself a Republican.
[Late afternoon update]
Oy:
Maybe when I get to Denver I'll find someone who'll explain to me why Biden is an inspired choice. He doesn't have gravitas. He has seniority. We've been waiting for him to mature for decades. Only Chuck Hagel (his chief competitor as Sunday morning gasbag) could make him look wise...Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:03 PM
There are a lot of people Obama could have picked that would have helped him with the south and west. But gun control remains a big issue in those regions. Obama has a problem because he professes support for the Second Amendment, as long as it doesn't actually nullify any gun laws. So you'd think he'd not have picked a running mate who gets an "F" from the NRA. This isn't going to help him with the bitter gun clingers.
[Late afternoon update]
A golden oldie from the primaries: Biden disses a gun owner. Well, the guy was probably bitter anyway.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:56 AMIowahawk has an in-depth report on the Obama campaign's new winning tactics.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:12 AMWhat do you think of when you hear the phrase "Obama Joe Biden"? It could have a subliminal effect.
Anyway, I think that Jonah has the best take on the veep pick:
He says interesting things, from time to time. I think he makes a fair point here and there. He was correct, for example, that Congress needed to have a real debate over the war. I think he has some obvious verbal intelligence. But, again, what's fascinating -- and what might be distracting some folks from seeing his underlying-yet-occassional smarts -- is that he lets his ego and vanity get in the way. The man loves his voice so much, you'd expect him to be following it around in a gray Buick, in defiance of restraining order, as it walks home from school. He seems to think his teeth are some kind of hypnotic punctuation marks which can momentarily disorient the listener and absolve him from any of Western civilization's usual imperatives to stop talking. Listening to him speechify is like playing an intellectual game of whack-a-mole where every now and then the fuzzy head of a good point pops up from the tundra but before you can pin it down, he starts talking about how he went to the store and saw a squirrel on the way and it was brown which brings to mind Brown V. Board of Ed which most people don't understand because [TEETH FLASH] he taught Brown in his law school course and [TEETH FLASH] Mr. Chairman I'm going to get right to it and besides these aren't the droids you're looking for...
This is going to be a very entertaining election. I think that they're going to be a double-barrelled gaffe machine.
[Update a few minutes later]
All politicians have sizable egos, but this may be the most self-loving ticket ever. There's an old saying, "He'll die in his own arms" -- that can apply to both of them. (I've thought of it in connection with McCain, too.) And Obama and Biden are two of the gassiest politicians in all the land -- they are rhetorically impossible.
I suspect that after a couple non-stop months of the Joebama Show, not that many are going to look forward to four years of it.
And the McCain campaign was ready to go with the ad.
[Update at noon]
Hey we not only have a messiah, but a veep who's a certified genius. Just ask him.
[Update half an hour later]
PJM has a link roundup of reax.
[Update in the afternoon]
Man, Limbaugh must think he died and went to heaven. I'll bet he has a huge library of Biden audio gaffes, enough for fresh material every week from here to November.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:51 AMI've never heard of Chet Edwards. And it strikes me that having a running mate with the last name "Edwards" is a little impolitic right now, given the current problems with the one named "John."
At least he seems to have a lot more experience than Obama. But then, he'd have had trouble coming up with someone who doesn't. More signs of an attempt to appear to be moving to the center, and perhaps pick up Texas and do better in the south (though that still seems unlikely).
[Update a couple minutes later]
Actually, in reading his bio, I'd think that this would be an unbeatable ticket if he was at the top, instead of veep. But he's not, and it won't be. All of this presumes, of course, that he actually is the pick. We'll find out soon enough.
[Update in the afternoon]
There are a lot of reasons to think that this is just a head fake. He's a very conservative Democrat, and it would probably push the nutroots over the edge to vote for Nader.
[Another one a couple minutes later]
More thoughts from Geraghty:
Sure, he's very pro-choice, rated F by the NRA, and manages to hang on to a central Texas House district. And Pelosi recommended him. But the debate would consist almost entirely of the GOP vice-presidential candidate saying, "I agree with Chet's old position, the one he had before he put his manhood in a blind trust and flip-flopped to agree with Obama's liberal position." Edwards would constantly be in the awkward position of defending positions he doesn't agree with. Add that to the fact that 90+ percent of Americans know nothing about him, it's a formula for disaster.
Let's hope he does it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:53 AMPaul Breed notes in comments that the decision to require permits or waivers for tethered testing didn't originate with AST (though I never claimed it did), but with the FAA chief counsel's office. To me, this is just one more argument for making the office independent of the FAA and report directly to the SecDot, as it did from its inception until the Clinton administration "streamlined" it into the FAA.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AMHere's a new blog devoted (at least for now) to covering the DNC next week and events leading up to it.
[Via former Traverse Citian and current Denverite Thomas James]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:29 AMA lot has been made (appropriately) of the hypocrisy of the warm mongers, and particularly Saint Al himself, and John Edwards. But John McCain is pretty much just as bad on that score:
Like any limousine liberal, McCain prefers the symbolic gesture to walking the walk. In our News interview, he was asked what kind of car he drove. As with Politico's question about home ownership, he didn't know and had to ask a nearby aide. "A Cadillac CTS," she told him. But then the senator was quick to point out that he had bought his daughter a Prius -- the prefect halo symbol for his green pretensions.
Though it should be noted that he almost certainly actually did know how many houses he had, if not what kind of car.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:23 AMAlan's a great science and tech reporter, but I wish that he'd asked George Nield about this:
We have poured a pad for tethered hover testing at our new location, but there was a recent FAA re-interpretation of the law that absurdly states that testing under a tether, as we have been doing for over eight years, is now considered a suborbital launch, and requires a permit or waiver just as a free flight would. This is retarded and counterproductive in so many ways, and the entire industry is lashing back over it, but it is an issue we have to deal with in the next couple months.
Maybe I will.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:40 PMIf Tim Kaine is the Veep pick, this will be a particularly devastating ad.
Not that that's a bad thing...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:06 PMI won't claim to know Juliette Ochieng, but I had a wonderful dinner with her (and several others, but I sat next to) a couple years ago in LA's Chinatown, and I've read many of her blog posts and opinion pieces. I'm neither religious, or conservative, and I'm sure that there are many issues on which we'd disagree, but if I had a choice between her and Barack Obama for president, I'd vote for her in a Chicago minute. And not just because I had dinner with her.
The black-on-black bigotry displayed in the link against a true African-American woman who criticizes the messiah is disappointing, but by no means surprising.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:27 PMOK, this new (527, not McCain campaign) ad is going to leave a mark. There are still many voters who have never heard of Bil Ayers, and the coverup going on at UIC is just going to make it look worse.
Of course, the Obama camp also started another spork fight with the McCain campaign, and is getting hammered again.
Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people "cling" to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who's in touch with regular Americans?
The reality is that Barack Obama's plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he's completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans.
The problem with their strategy, as is often the case, is that they project their own class envy on the voters (just as they project many of their other personal issues).
But by and large, Americans don't envy the rich--they want to be rich. Let's leave aside the amusing fact that by the new Democrat standard that white guys who marry rich women and end up with several houses are to be demonized as out of touch, that John Kerry shouldn't have had a prayer of getting their nomination.
So-called progressives are envious of the wealthy in the classical sense--they not only want what others have, but they want the others not to have it. In fact, the latter is more important to them than the former, so they promote policies that equally distribute poverty, in effect if not intent.
But the American people don't want to take John McCain's houses from him. They just want more house of their own. It's very hard for me to believe that the number of domiciles that John McCain has, or whether or not he knows how many, is going to be an issue on which the election will turn. And as already noted by the McCain campaign, Barack Obama isn't the best messenger in that regard. Nor were John Edwards or John Kerry. I think they'd certainly prefer a guy who came by his houses honestly--by marrying them--to one who acquired his with the help of a convicted felon for favors still unknown.
But what I don't really understand is the McCain strategy at this point. Less than a week before the convention, Senator Obama's polls aren't looking very good, but there's real dynamite in some of the internals of them, in which one poll showed Hillary! ahead of McCain by several points. So who do they want to run against?
If they weaken him too much this week, the Donkeys may come to their senses and come up with another nominee next week. On the other hand, in doing so, they'd shred the party. Of course, the optimal situation is for Obama to come out the nominee, but one badly bloodied by a huge obstreperous floor fight, so maybe they're betting that the Dems won't be able to jettison their flawed messiah without even more damage to the party. So it's in the Republican's interest for them to finally nominate Obama, but in the weakest possible state, and the worse things look for him going into the convention, the more likely that there will be a movement to oust him. But they should hope that it's not successful.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Here's more on Senator Obama and Tony Rezko.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:46 PM...and the Americans play monopoly. A disturbing and depressing essay from Spengler.
Is there an enlightened solution for Russia's problems?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AMMichael Totten reports from Tbilisi.
On Monday, I visited one of the schools transformed into refugee housing in the center of Tbilisi and spoke to four women--Lia, Nana, Diana, and Maya--who had fled with their children from a cluster of small villages just outside the city of Gori. "We left the cattle," Lia said. "We left the house. We left everything and came on foot because to stay there was impossible." Diana's account: "They are burning the houses. From most of the houses they are taking everything. They are stealing everything, even such things as toothbrushes and toilets. They are taking the toilets. Imagine. They are taking broken refrigerators." And Nana: "We are so heartbroken. I don't know what to say or even think. Our whole lives we were working to save something, and one day we lost everything. Now I have to start everything from the very beginning."
Maybe they exist, but I haven't seen any eyewitness accounts of the supposed atrocities by the Georgians that Russia claims started this.
And be sure to hit his tip jar. It's how he affords to do this reporting.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:36 AMIf he did, I'd actually vote for him, as opposed to against Obama.
Fred Thompson. He'd mop up the floor with almost anyone in a debate (particularly Obama's rumored finalists) and he'd only have to campaign for two months. And in the unfortunate circumstance that something happened to McCain, we'd have him for a president.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:27 PMApparently the Obama campaign forgot their new philosophy today. They brought a plastic spork to the fight, and the McCain campaign leveled a howitzer at them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:46 PMLieberman may switch parties at the Republican convention. If he caucuses with Republicans, that would make it tied in the Senate, which means that Dick Cheney would be the tie breaker, and the Republicans would take over, at least until January. Bye, bye, Majority (non)Leader Reid...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:10 PMVictor Davis Hanson previews what's sure to burst forth among many in Denver next week:
Democrats wanted a bison and got Obambi, whose new 'take no prisoners' rhetoric in front of the VFW sounds like the Italian army in North Africa not the Desert Rats. Just imagine had Obama written "Dreams From My Grandmother" about a working-class white woman who moved to Hawaii sacrificing her all, stressing integration, conciliation, character, and hard work (all true), rather than future career-in-mind idealization and myth-making about a polygamist, alcoholic and absentee Marxist father? Had he done the former, he would have gotten a small advance, few sales--and now bankable proof of his character, rather than money, sales--and an embarrassing revelation of his PC credentials. Harvard Law Review is as essential to wowing a tiny irrelevant Eastern elite as it is meaningless to proving to mid-America that you can easily size up a thug like Putin, see through Euro-trash nonsense, or get some energy leverage back from the mullahs and House of Saud.
The Democrats expected an in-the-tank liberal press to publish charts and graphs of how the "progressive" FDR Obama was better for the blue-collar-worker than the Tom Dewey Republican. Instead they got the last gasp of the 1960s spoiled-brat loudmouths, ranting and frothing how an Obama could at last reify their own narcissistic, guilt-ridden pretensions. The amen-stable at Newsweek, for example, would not have been hired there as copy-editors in the 1960s. If Chris Matthews thinks his tingle up the leg giddiness helps Obama, or Sen. Obama's race speech is the new Gettysburg Address, he doesn't know Bakersfield or Dayton. A Keith Olbermann rant is a veritable McCain campaign ad.
Yup.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:58 PMCongresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who would have been a potential big superdelegate for Hillary! in the event of an insurrection, has reportedly died from an aneurysm. Condolences to friends and family.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:24 AMWhat is the University of Illinois trying to hide?
Has there ever been a presidential candidate with such a sparse paper trail? And as usual, the media assists in the cover up.
[Update in the afternoon]
Here's a lot more.
[Late afternoon update]
Fishier and fishier. To repeat: what are they hiding? What are they afraid of?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:50 AMFrom George Will. I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of capping the pay of fascist CEOs (Lee Iacocca comes to mind as a poster boy).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:24 AMFood is a fuel, of course, though we don't think of it that way. But now that transportation is competing for it, it's having dire effects on everyone, but particularly the poor, largely as a result of idiotic government policies. This should be a good issue for John McCain, if he only understood economics.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:57 AMHe's a flake:
I'm using the term in its generally accepted sense. A flake is not only a screwup, but someone who truly excels in making bizarre errors and creating incredibly convoluted disasters. A flake is a "fool with energy", as the Russian proverb puts it. ("A fool is a terrible thing to have around, but a fool with energy is a nightmare".)
I've long been on record as believing that Obama cannot win (nor, at this point, could Hillary). Nothing has happened to cause me to alter that view.
[Update late morning]
Here's the latest tea leaf that the vice-president pick will be Evan Bayh. If they were smart, they'd put him at the top of the ticket--it would give them a lot better shot.
[Another update a few minutes later]
Some folks over at DU are starting to get worried: "What is Obama doing wrong?"
Nothing, of course. It's our fault, because we're racists. It couldn't have anything to do with his left-wing politics, inexperience and flakiness.
A lot of the commenters are whistling past the graveyard.
[Update a few minutes later]
A leftist sees the future:
All that Obama audacity of arrogance from the smiling, glib politician finally died the death it so richly deserved. Too many pundits will blame his loss on his blackness and racist voters. But the larger truth is that sufficient voters saw through the many lies and deceptions. Obama always had a hard time giving a simple, short straight answer to tough questions. He was always mentally calculating exactly how to game his answers so that he would achieve all the benefits he had his eyes on. He was simply too damn presumptuous and too smart for his own good. In the end, Americans do not want the smartest person in the presidency or endless nuancing. They want someone they can easily understand and trust, despite their skepticism. There were many reasons not to trust the calculating Obama to do anything he promised to do or, for some people, to fear he might.
As Lincoln said, some of the people, some of the time, but not all of them all of the time.
[Update just before noon]
How low do the polls have to go before the superdelegates have second thoughts? Keep the popcorn handy for next week, when Hillary!'s name is put in nomination, and the demonstrations begin.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AMTom Ridge won't be McCain's pick for VP candidate.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:40 PMRoger Kimball, on Barack Obama's politics of envy and "fairness."
[Update a while later]
Like father, like son:
How high should the tax rates be? "Theoretically," he wrote, "there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." Yes, you read it: a 100% tax rate is fine. Obama Sr. continued, " It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings." Free enterprise -- bad. (He was discussing future government economic development.)
This is one of the things that I find most disturbing about Obama. He doesn't believe that tax policy should be based on revenue. He thinks it should be based on "fairness." As he said in that debate, he's fine with less revenue as long as he can punish success.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:58 AMYou know, the more I think about this, the more I think it should always have been a no brainer.
The first rule of wing walking is to not let go of the airplane with one hand until you have a firm new grip with the other. It's pretty simple: don't shut down the Shuttle until you have a replacement in place (and preferably redundantly).
The only reason we're undertaking such a dumb policy is because of the panic after the loss of Columbia causing a desire to end the program ASAP, and an unwillingness to pay what it cost to fund the new development at the same time we were continuing to spend billions annually on keeping the Shuttle going. The notion that we can take the savings from ending the Shuttle to develop the new systems seems appealing, but it essentially guarantees a "gap."
And it's all a result of the fact that space isn't important. Is there any other government activity where we arbitrarily assign a budget number to it, and then demand that its endeavors fit within that budget? But that's the way Congress has always viewed NASA--that there's a certain level of spending that's politically acceptable, and no more. If space were important, we'd do what we did in Apollo--establish a goal, and then provide the funding necessary to achieve it. But it's not, other than for pork and prestige. It's important that we have a space program, but it's not at all important that it accomplish anything of value. Until that attitude changes, we're unlikely to get sensible policy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:35 AMWell, now we know what the "space experts" told John McCain yesterday up in Titusville.
As I noted in my piece at PJM, the options aren't very pretty. The lowest risk course is to continue Shuttle past 2010, but to keep this option open, they have to take some immediate actions to keep production open on consumables, such as ETs. As I've noted before, it's ironic that they're shutting the system down just as they've finally wrung most of the bugs out of it. It still remains horrifically expensive, of course, but no more so than Ares/Orion, and it has a lot more capability. I think that the "recertification" issue is a red herring. Just because the CAIB recommended it doesn't mean that it makes any sense, since no one knows what it really means. Nothing magical happens in 2010 that makes it suddenly unsafe to fly. That date was chosen as the earliest one that they could retire and still complete ISS, not on the basis that anything was worn or wearing out. They could just continue to fly, and do periodic inspections.
I found it interesting, but not surprising, that Lafitte recommended an acceleration of Ares. It would be more in his company's interest to just give up on it and use Atlas, but I suspect that would be too politically incorrect to say with reporters around. He has to live with Mike Griffin for at least another few months.
What would I do if I were king? I'd stop buying Soyuz, and keep the Shuttle flying, I'd abandon Ares/Orion, and provide huge incentives to the private sector by establishing prop depots and paying good money for prop delivery. That would require more money than people want to spend, but we'd get a lot more robust transportation infrastructure, ready to go to either the moon or Mars (or other destinations) at a lot lower mission cost than NASA's current plans. It's what we would do if space were really important. But of course, it's not, so we won't.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:06 AMI'd like to know who those "twenty hand-picked space experts" are. Unfortunately, I'll bet that one of them is Walt Cunningham. But at least he won't be the only one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:01 AMLileks takes on Keillor. Again.
Every column now ends with on-marching truth. But what's this thing about the rich and privileged saying it's not a great country? I hear more distaste and dismay about America from one Senator than the other; I hear more disdain from cosseted movie stars than I hear from ordinary folk; I hear more grumpy, costive old burbling about the dark hole into which America has fallen from a rich and privileged Old Scout than I hear from, say, middle-class bloggers who get 40 hits a day but happen to love the actual country we have as opposed to the theoretical variant which Keillor believes is right around the corner. Next week: an attack, probably, on the smug, self-righteous rich and privileged, who think America's just great. At least we know how that one will end: truth, marching, et cetera.
I think that Keillor has attained that unblessed state that no one dare edit him. Thankfully, we have Lileks.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:37 AMFrequent commenter "Fletcher Christian" is a poster child for this phenomenon. And as one of the commenters at Glenn's post notes, the BBC is largely responsible.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AMEveryone (including Joe Biden, who also thinks he's "clean") says that Barack Obama is articulate. I've never seen any evidence of it, and there was apparently plenty of counterevidence at the Rick Warren thing. Being good at reading a teleprompter is not the same thing as being "articulate."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:54 AMI have a piece up at Pajamas Media this morning on the potential effect of Russia's renewed belligerence on the US space program.
I should note that I may have been a little too sanguine about the situation for the current ISS crew. While the RSA astronauts in Expedition 17 weren't born in Russia, it's possible that they are Russians, and sympathetic to Russia, given the way that Russia had colonized the Ukraine and Turkmen Republic and moved populations of Russians in there. It's all really speculation. Only the crew really know what the atmosphere is up there.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AM...and hope!
Well, not really. The Obama campaign has released its new space policy, and there's not much breaking with the status quo in it. It's basically sticking with the current plan, at least in civil space, but promising (as in all areas) to spend more money. While one suspects that Lori Garver must have played a major role in it, it also reads as though it was written by a committee, or different people wrote different sections, and then it was stitched together, like Frankenstein's monster.
For instance, in one section, it says:
Obama will stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate spaceflight capabilities. NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services is a good model of government/industry collaboration.
But later on, in a different section, it says:
Obama will evaluate whether the private sector can safely and effectively fulfill some of NASA's need for lower earth orbit cargo transport.
If COTS is a "good model," why is such an "evaluation" necessary? Isn't it already a given? I also like the notion that Obama himself would do the "evaluation." As if.
It's got the usual kumbaya about international cooperation, of course, which I think has been disastrous on the ISS. There are also implied digs at the Bush administration, about not "politicizing" science (as though Jim Hansen hasn't done that himself) and opposing "weapons" in space. It also discusses more cooperation between NASA and NRO, ignoring the recent rumblings about getting rid of the latter, and the problems with security that would arise in such "cooperation."
Also, interestingly, after Senator Obama called McCain's proposed automotive prize a "gimmick," the new policy now explicitly supports them. So are they no longer "gimmicks"? Or is it just that McCain's idea was (for some unexplained reasons) but Obama's are not?
Overall, my biggest concerns with it are more on the defense side than on the civil space side. This is utopian:
Barack Obama opposes the stationing of weapons in space and the development of anti-satellite weapons. He believes the United States must show leadership by engaging other nations in discussions of how best to stop the slow slide towards a new battlefield.
Sorry, but that horse is out of the barn, and there's no way to get it back in. No anti-satellite weapons treaty would be verifiable. It is good to note, though, that the policy recognizes ORS as a means to mitigate the problem. That's the real solution, not agreements and paper.
In any event, it's a big improvement over his previous space policy, which was not a policy at all, but rather an adjunct to his education policy. Now it's time for the McCain campaign to come up with one. I hope that he gets Newt to help him with it, and not Walt Cunningham.
[Mid-morning update]
One of the commenters over at NASA Watch picks up on something that I had missed:
Sen. Obama names COTS and several other programs by name, but not Ares or Constellation. He mentions "the Shuttle's successor systems" without specifying what they might be.
That does give him some options for real change. I also agree that a revival of the space council would be a good idea. I hope that the McCain campaign doesn't oppose this purely because the Obama campaign has picked it up.
[Afternoon update]
One other problem. While it talks about COTS, it has no mention of CATS (or CRATS, or CARATS, or whatever acronym they're using this week for cheap and reliable access to space). It hints at it with COTS and ORS, but it's not set out as an explicit goal. I hope that McCain's policy does.
[Update a few minutes later]
Bobby Block has a report at the Orlando Sentinel space blog.
This part struck me (and didn't surprise me):
Lori Garver, an Obama policy adviser, said last week during a space debate in Colorado that Obama and his staff first thought that the push to go to the moon was "a Bush program and didn't make a lot of sense." But after hearing from people in both the space and education communities, "they recognized the importance of space." Now, she said, Obama truly supports space exploration as an issue and not just as a tool to win votes in Florida.
I'm not sure that Lori helped the campaign here. What does that tell us about the quality and cynicism of policy making in the Obama camp? They opposed it before they were for it because it was George Bush's idea? And does that mean that space policy was just about votes in Florida before this new policy? I know that there are a lot of BDS sufferers who oppose VSE for this reason, and this reason alone, but it's a little disturbing that such (non)thinking was actually driving policy in a major presidential campaign.
George Bush greatly expanded federal involvement in education and expanded Medicare. Are they going to shrink them accordingly? I'd like to think so, but I suspect not.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 AMThat wasn't the Wes Clark that I knew.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:52 PMDo Democrats hate men?
It sure seems like it sometimes. And of course, if we object, we're misogynists (and probably racists as well).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 AMIt's hard to think of any sitting (or past, for that matter) member of Congress who has done more for commercial space efforts than Dana Rohrabacher. He's been representing his southern California district for many years, so I was a little surprised to hear that he's in a potentially tough reelection battle. But his opponent is currently out-fund-raising him, and it's going to be a generally tough year for Republicans, even those whose seats had previously been secure. So for those of you who want to keep him in Washington for his space efforts (or for other reasons), a fund has been set up to help make that happen.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:57 AMJeff Foust has a report on the debate in Boulder between Lori Garver and Walt Cunningham. As I note in comments, if Senator Obama is now interested in prizes, that would be a change of position from when he criticized Senator McCain's proposal for an automotive prize.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:19 AMIn Sevastopol? And I don't mean the similar-sounding one in California.
We do need to recognize that we're in a new Cold War with Russia, though many of the former "Republics" in the Soviet Union will now be (in fact have been) on our side, which will make it more manageable, but also more dangerous, with more trip wires.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:25 PMWhen I read this piece by Walter Shapiro, I had much the same reaction as John Weidner did:
You were besotted with Edwards because he was (or was pretending to be) a liberal Democrat. And Edwards almost certainly paid flattering attention to the guy who was writing a book about his campaign. You dolt, Edwards and his wife almost certainly coldly planned how to woo you, and knew what your weaknesses are. That's what trial lawyers do with a jury. They study every scrap of information available on each juryman, and, like chameleons, tailor the message, and paint their very selves, to fit them. (I know about this stuff; my dear wife's on the other side, the good side, fighting scoundrels like Edwards every day.)
Everybody who retained any objectivity could see that he was a phony, and were not surprised by this. When a guy talks populism and green-ism while building the biggest mansion in the county, there's a 99% chance that he's a sham. When a guy spends minutes in front of a mirror fluffing his hairdo, there's a 99% chance that he will not resist the sexual temptations available to a celebrity.
These media love affairs with (liberal) politicians constitute journalistic malpractice. They gave us the corrupt Bill Clinton, from whom, had any of them had done their job and looked into Arkansas history back in 1992, the nation could have been spared. Glenn Reynolds has asked, after the obvious biased non-reporting in the John Edwards case, what else are they deliberately hiding from us? And at least Walter Shapiro, if not the rest of the swooners, should now be asking himself, "by what other politicians am I letting myself be fooled and beguiled?" For instance, how about the inexperienced phony about to be nominated in Denver that is this season's "it" girl for the media?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:46 AMWhy the oil "shortage" is made in Washington.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:25 AM"Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are looking forward to a convention unified behind Barack Obama as the Party's nominee and to victory this fall for America."
Well, at least one of them is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:02 AMI'm not paying any attention to the Olympics, either. I haven't seen a single competition, and didn't watch the opening ceremonies. I don't think I've watched any channel showing it for more than a few seconds.
It's not political--I'm just thoroughly uninterested. I also think that it's highly overrated as a kumbaya enhancer, and I'm more interested in people for their intellectual prowess than physical abilities. I was amused a few years ago when one of my trolls (this one from Norway, but not HH) "warned" me that if the US didn't behave better internationally, we might not be selected for future Olympics. I told him that wasn't a bug--it was a feature.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:07 PMA former Clinton official critiques the US' (and EU's) mismanaging of Georgia.
I've been pretty unimpressed by the Bush state department (one of the reasons that I've been pretty unimpressed by the Bush administration in general). It's not clear whether that's because both Powell and Rice were captured by the bureaucracy and "went native" or because they were squishy by nature, but either way, it's unimpressive. One of the legacies of this administration will probably be its complete inability to win the guerilla wars in the bureaucratic trenches.
Of course, it didn't help that the president imagined that he saw Putin's "soul" through his eyes. We now have a much better idea of the nature of his soul through his subsequent actions than George Bush got from his ocular examination.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:22 AMChuck Hagel won't endorse.
The post title was intended to be ironic, in case anyone had trouble guessing.
Is there anyone who cares what that pompous unprincipled idiot thinks about anything? If so, I sure hope that they don't vote.
[Update mid morning]
Exposing the myth of "Republicans for Obama."
Obama may count prominent GOPers like Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, presidential granddaughter Susan Eisenhower, Fairbanks, Alaska Mayor Jim Whitaker, former Iowa Rep. Jim Leach, former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chaffee and former White House intelligence adviser Rita E. Hauser--all of them namechecked on today's call--among his announced (or likely) endorsers. But are there enough rank-and-file Republicans whispering their support at Obama rallies to actually make a difference on Election Day?
The answer, as noted in the article, is "no." And Democrats who believe this fantasy are fooling themselves, and setting themselves up for a huge disappointment in November. I hope that the taxpayer doesn't get stuck with the massive group therapy bill.
[Update late morning]
Hey, I told you that Chafee is a moron:
Former Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee, who left the GOP last year and later endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president, has signed on with Republicans for Obama, saying that the Illinois senator embodies "my kind of traditional conservatism."
Right.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:41 AMIf you want to know why Constellation is such a godawful mess, here's one reason:
NASA JSC Center Director's Systems Engineering Forum Planned Aug. 21
There actually are people out in private industry (like me) who do this stuff for a living, or at least would, if NASA would give them a contract. But instead of putting out a SETA or some other support contract for systems engineering, as Steidle had planned to do, Dr. Griffin simply decided that NASA would do it. This is where it's gotten him. Had he hired a good SE contractor (and listened) the program would likely not be in the kind of trouble it is, either technically or politically. Of course, it would probably look much different, because a proper systems-engineering approach would never have resulted in the Shaft. That was the danger inherent in putting a rocket scientist in charge of the agency. He thought he was smarter than everyone else.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:03 PMAnd now, idiots:
Byers called Castro a "great guy.''
Maybe he could move to Cuba, and wrestle for Fidel instead. Of course, there's no reason to expect a wrestler to be a deep thinker.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of idiots, here we have Republicans for Obama:
This morning, former Iowa Republican Congressman Jim Leach, former Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee, and prominent lawyer and former White House intelligence advisor Rita E. Hauser will host a conference call to endorse Senator Barack Obama and announce the formation of Republicans for Obama. Across the country Democrats, independents, and Republicans are coming together in support of Senator Obama to bring change to Washington. Obama has a strong record of bringing people together from the left and the right to solve problems, leading with superior judgment on foreign policy issues, and demonstrating fiscal responsibility.
What "strong record" is that? What "superior judgment" is that?
Lincoln Chafee hasn't been a Republican in years, but he's always been a moron. If this is the best that Obama can do in terms of "Republican" endorsements, it's pretty pathetic.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:32 AM...than you were three years ago?
The official IOC for an Ares I crew launch vehicle able to send a crew of six to the International Space Station (ISS) in the Orion crew exploration vehicle is March 2015.
And now that the Russians have shown themselves for what they are in Georgia, isn't it great to be dependent on them for crewed access?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 AMThis must be that new politics we've heard so much about.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 AMJames Lileks awaits the war protesters. In vain.
The anarchists aren't up on it. Nothing from the central Green party. But it's possible they're just getting their blast emails out, alerting everyone to the upcoming World Can't Wait / Protest Imperialistic Imperialism Protest, complete with giant mocking paper-mache puppets of Putin with black oil dripping from his fangs. Who here can do a Putin? C'mon people, I need a big Putin. This international cabal isn't going to collapse on its own! It needs the sort of humiliating defeat only a large, three-dimensional effigy borne on the streets of a Western city in full view of bored policemen can bring.Yes, any day now: the streets will be filled with protestors.
Mao is denounced as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:19 AMRobert Block is wondering if the Stick is dying. I liked this bit:
In the face of the latest reports of trouble, sources say that NASA leaders are looking at a possible replacement design, including one that would use the shuttle's two four-segment solid rocket boosters, and a liquid engine with four RS-68 engines and no upper stage. While it sounds similar to a rocket called the Jupiter 120 or the Direct 2.0 concept which is being proposed by moonlighting NASA engineers, the sources insist it is not the same.
Yes. I have a literary theory that the Iliad and the Odyssey weren't written by Homer, but by another blind poet with the same name.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:48 AMGlenn explains:
No doubt they all go around exchanging Obama Salutes and clicking their heels...
But don't call them a cult!
I guess that it really is all about the "O." Sabine Ehrenfeld is still a lot hotter, though. At this point, given the other choices on the menu, I'm ready to sign up for a Sabine/Paris ticket. Too bad she was born in Germany.
I suspect that Senator Obama's fans may prove to be his worst enemies.
[Update a while later]
Ace has more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AMI wonder how many of the people who are giving Congress single-digit approval ratings know which party is in charge?
I think that it's foolish for John McCain to be running against George Bush. He shouldn't be asking whether or not you're better off than eight or four years ago. That's Obama's line.
He needs to ask whether or not you're better off than you were two years ago, when the Dems started mismanaging Congress. Point out not how much gas prices have gone up in eight years, but in how much they've gone up in two years (probably the biggest percentage jump in history). Never use the word "Congress" without prepending it with "Democratic."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:23 AMAlan Boyle interviews the first man to relieve his bladder on the moon, about the Moon, Mars and the Gap. And it's great to see him (and Lois) still going strong. And as he points out, there are a lot of fortieth and fiftieth anniversary news hooks coming up. I hope to take advantage of them as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:54 AMAmid the fact that Obama's having a bad week, and not jumping ahead in the polls as conventional "wisdom" dictated, it's useful to note that he's not only not president yet (despite his play acting at it with the seal and the overseas visits), but that he's not even the Democrat nominee. I will continue to remind people that regardless of what Hillary! says about supporting him, actions shout where words whisper.
She did not withdraw from the race, and she did not release her delegates. Obama does not have enough "pledged" (i.e., derived from primary victories) delegates to get the nomination--he needs the votes of superdelegates who had previously committed to him in June, but they are still free to vote however they wish in Denver.
If he continues to make gaffes, and look weak, and lose support of the yout' who were supposed to be his big ace in the hole, and Obama fatigue sets in, there may be a lot of buyers' remorse among the once-enthusiastic Democrats. The stage is once again set for a very exciting convention in Denver, in which die-hard Hillary! supporters, despite her demurrals, will put her name in nomination and demand a roll-call vote. And those superdelegates will once again, and finally, be faced with a very ugly choice--go with a demonstrably weak candidate, and mollify the black constituency, or go with the winner of the latter part of the primary, and risk tearing the party apart (not to mention putting up a candidate with continuing high negatives), perhaps complete with mile-high riots. And the worse he seems to be doing, the harder the choice will be.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:22 PMPeter Wood has an essay on the effects of our culture on science education.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:00 PMTwenty-five reasons. You're probably full of hate, too.
And obviously, when Obama loses, it will be because we're all racists. What other reasons could we possible have to vote against him?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:51 PMMickey Kaus makes the case:
The only legitimate reason not to cover this scandal, it seems to me, is simple sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards--and I've gotten enough emails from anguished and angry members of the MSM to conclude, with Estrich, that it's the prime reason for the MSM blackout. True, I also suspect that if Mrs. Edwards were a conservative Republican, or even an unbeloved Democrat, the MSM might somehow find a way to overcome this compassionate sentiment. But that doesn't make it wrong. Reporters don't have to print everything. You could conclude that the need to protect Mrs. Edwards her children is so great, the karma of Enquiring so bad, that all of the obvious, public-interesty reasons for covering the story should be thrown out the window. And if John Edwards were already so damaged that in practice he'd never get a significant public office even if he wants one, I might agree (even if that meant sacrificing the deterrent effect of full exposure).
But that's a point that clearly hasn't been reached yet, at least not while most Americans are being kept in the dark about what, exactly, has led to Edwards' mysterious disappearance from the political oddsmakers' charts. A man arrogant and ambitious enough to think he can run for president posing as a loyal husband while keeping his second family secret, even as he visits his mistress in a famous hotel that is hosting a convention of journalists, will be arrogant and ambitious enough to keep hiding under the shield of his wife's illness until he can attempt a comeback-- if given the chance.The alternative, it seems to me, is to let affection for Mrs. Edwards suck journalists into a Print-the-Legend world where they must spend their time burnishing--or at least accepting--the story powerful people and institutions want them to tell, the story of the wonderful Edwards marriage, rather than figuring out and telling readers the truth. If I wanted to be in that business I'd be a publicist.
That's certainly what the "journalists" have been when it came to Barack Obama. Does anyone doubt that if Edwards were a Republican in similar circumstances, that there would have been a NYT story about it? The question answers itself.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 AMLileks examines the train wreck that is Garrison Keillor's latest:
I'm sorry, but I'm just fascinated by his column. Each is nearly identical in formlessness, subject and general pointlessness. To be fair: we all write at haste and repent at leisure, unless we can somehow get it out of the Google cache. We all make inelegant remarks that seemed wonderfully writerly at the moment but curdle when exposed to another pair of eyes. It's the perils of blogging. But he has an entire week to write these things. Never does he attempt to make an argument or explore a line of thought - it's just flat assertions ladled out with nuance or shading. The sun rises, Bush is bad, life is long but also short and so you should sit outside and drink lemonade and think of the people who came before you and sat outside and drank lemonade and there is a comfort in that continuity and we need all the comfort we can get in these days when nihilists in golf pants are everywhere and the Republic lies in ruins. Also, he is given to run-on sentences. This week has perhaps the finest example yet.
If that's not enough, there is some cereal blogging, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 AMProbably not, but we can always hope. I have a piece over at Pajamas today about fallacious and demagogic debating tactics.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 AM...of capitalism:
Leaving religion out of it, no idea has given more to humanity. The average working-class person today is richer, in real terms, than the average prince or potentate of 300 years ago. His food is better, his life longer, his health better, his menu of entertainments vastly more diverse, his toilette infinitely more civilized. And yet we constantly hear how cruel capitalism is while this collectivism or that is more loving because, unlike capitalism, collectivism is about the group, not the individual.
These complaints grow loudest at times like this: when the loom of capitalism momentarily stutters in spinning its gold. Suddenly, the people ask: What have you done for me lately? Politicians croon about how we need to give in to Causes Larger than Ourselves and peck about like hungry chickens for a New Way to replace dying capitalism.
As Mark Twain once wrote, "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man."
Most people in this country have little appreciation how good they've got it. It's a shame that we no longer teach history in school.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:06 PMLike a woman's supporters scorned:
And what will the Puma members do after the Convention? Murphy concedes, "We're realists. ... We know the DNC is committed to the path of nominating their chosen candidate." In November she explains, "We are protesting the election." Members will sit home, write in Hillary's name or vote for John McCain. She explains, "That up to them. That's part of our whole philosophy."
Kronert says that he won't be voting for Obama and thinks "Obama is running his campaign on the 'Change, Hope, a new kind of Politics' marketing gimmick." He also is one voter who thinks experience matters ("Obama is a two year senator with one year of that being on the campaign trail.")Shanon from Maryland, another Puma member who donated to Hillary and voted Democratic in five straight past elections won't vote for Obama, listing his lack of experience, qualifications and track record among her concerns. She says, "I will vote McCain, third-party, stay home or write Hillary Clinton in. At this point, Ichabod Crane is looking better than the choices I have. But make no mistake, I have a choice." Eli, a self-described "Clinton Democrat" from Massachusetts, says he's not voting for Obama because "Quite simply, he is not qualified."
The healing continues.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:11 PM...versus the community organizer. John Boyd would be pleased.
And yes, there are a lot of similarities between the tactics of Adolf Hitler and Saul Alinsky. This is not a coincidence
That's what Nancy Pelosi claims to be doing. Well, good. She seems to consider it more important than her political career:
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken July 25-27 found that Americans by numbers approaching 2-1 would be more likely to support a candidate who backs expanded offshore drilling.
Well, I hope that she really does consider it so. I certainly do. Of course, it's hard for me to think of anything less important than Nancy Pelosi's political career. Let us hope for a rapid end to it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AMClark has a round up of links.
It was a little strange, and sad, descending into the LA basin yesterday. I had a left window seat, and I looked down at the old Rockwell/North American (and back during the war, Vultee) plant in Downey, which had been abandoned back in the nineties, and saw that Building 6 appeared to be no longer there. A lot of history in manned spaceflight took place there, but now there's almost no manned space activities left in southern California at all. Not in Downey, not in Huntington Beach, not in Seal Beach. It's all been moved to Houston, and Huntsville.
Except, except. A minute or two later, on final descent into LAX, I saw Hawthorne Airport just off the left wing, and quite prominent was the new SpaceX facility, which had previously been used to build jumbo jet wings.
So perhaps, despite the indifference of local and state politicians, the era of manned spaceflight in LA isn't quite yet over. And of course, Mojave remains ascendant.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:42 AMLileks reminisces:
I got all three volumes from the drugstore - which should have told me something about the land in which I lived, that one could buy this work from a creaky wire rack at the drugstore - and it taught me much about the Soviet Union and the era of Stalin. After that I could never quite understand the people who viewed the US and the USSR as moral equals, or regarded our history as not only indelibly stained but uniquely so. Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched. Brother, you have no idea.
Indeed.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 AMSort of.
When I had the privilege of paying American an extra fifteen bucks to check my bag today, I had no idea how much extra service they'd be rendering. Apparently, with this new program, they've come up with an innovative new luggage-handling process that enables them to expeditiously lose your suitcase on a non-stop. And it only took me an hour and a half after the wheels touched down to discover this new capability.
When I got to the carousel that was supposed to be for my flight, it was full of luggage from not one, not two, not three, but four different Dallas flights, as evidenced by inspection of the tags. Apparently, another innovation that the airline has come up with is to get the luggage to the airport before the passengers arrive, and then helpfully leave it all on the carousel, so that the few bags from your own flight from Fort Lauderdale won't feel lonely and ostracized, and can fit in better with the crowd. Or perhaps the aircraft simply arrived in LAX sans occupants, the latter having somehow been spirited away en route by Bushco to be shipped off to Gitmo for the ritual waterboarding and holy book defilation, with the airline complicit in both the act and the cover up.
I reported the miscreant item to the baggage service.
"Did you look at the bags we have outside the door here"?
No, that hadn't occurred to me, because I lacked the imagination to conceive that a bag would be removed from the carousel by the authorities with hundreds still milling around seeking their luggage.
"Let's go over and look."
We go back over to the carousel.
"Sometimes it might have a Dallas tag on it, because it might have gotten rerouted."
This, as there remained hundreds of Dallas arrivals on the swirling machine, whose contents I had now seen several dozen times.
I marveled at an airline that could get a bag rerouted through Dallas and somehow end up there at the same time as I, who took a non-stop from Florida. Does the luggage get to skip the layover?
Bottom line: I am now the proud owner of a receipt that informs me that in the event they locate the missing suitcase, it will be delivered to my room. So I am here for a business meeting in the morning with no clothing except that on my back. Well, OK, and my keister. And, yeah, my feet. But still.
I have to say that I agree with the sentiment.
[Update on early Monday morning]
Well, when I check the web site to track it, it seems to have shown up overnight. It's supposed to be delivered sometime this morning to my hotel. No word on where it had been sequestered. I was kind of wondering if someone else took it off the carousel. They're not bothering to verify tags any more at LAX, as they did in the olden days.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:34 PMJim Manzi explains it to Barack Obama. Unfortunately, both presidential candidates are economic ignorami.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:31 AMIs climate change racist?
Sometimes these people become parodies of themselves (as in the old gag New York Times headline: "World Ends--Women, Minorities Hit Hardest").
I'm sure glad that this issue hasn't been politicized.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:55 PMThe conventional wisdom is that this election is Senator Obama's to lose. Andrew Malcolm explains why he probably will:
Several strategists of both parties sense that Americans want to vote for Obama, but something is holding them back. Or several somethings, as we suggested up top.
Maybe Obama's flips -- his outspoken opposition to denouncing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright until he did; his promise to take public campaign financing, since broken; his eagerness to debate McCain in town halls, now abandoned; his apparent unwillingness to see progress in the Iraq troop surge, which he opposed and predicted would worsen sectarian violence?Is there a simmering concern over arrogance by the Ivy League lawyer and mere candidate who so blithely patted the French president on the back for a well-done news conference? Asked the other day if he ever doubted himself, Obama replied smartly, "Never!" And grinned broadly. Sounded more like a 20-year-old than someone about to turn 47 next week.
I don't pay much attention to polls before the conventions, but the fact that it is so close in the summer, when Dems are usually far ahead, has to be very worrisome to the Obama campaign.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:20 PMAnd a fundamentalist one, at that:
When Salon interviewed me about my new book, "Saving Darwin," I suggested that science doesn't know everything, that there might be a reality beyond science, and that religion might be about God and not merely about the human quest for a nonexistent God. These remarks got me condemned to whatever hell Myers believes in.
Myers accused me of having "fantastic personal delusions" that could actually lead people astray. "I will have no truck with the perpetuation of fallacious illusions, whether honeyed or bitter," Myers wrote, "and consider the Gibersons of this world to be corruptors of a better truth. That's harsh, I know ... but he is undermining the core of rationalism we ought to be building, and I find his beliefs pernicious."Myers' confident condemnations put me in mind of that great American preacher, Jonathan Edwards, who waxed eloquent in his famous 1741 speech, "Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God," about the miserable delusions that lead humans to reject the truth and spend eternity in hell. We still have preachers like Edwards today, of course; they can be found on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. But now we also have a new type of preacher, the Rev. PZ Myers.
And they don't even recognize it in themselves. Dawkins and Myers and Hitchens are doing more harm than good for science in their evangelizing, I think.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:35 PMJohn Glenn is arguing for an extension of the Shuttle program. I don't really give a rip what he thinks, but a lot of people on the Hill (particularly on the Democrat side) will take him seriously. The problem is that it's not just a matter of coming up with more money. NASA has to do pad modifications at 39 A and B to accommodate the new vehicles, and they can't do that if they continue to fly Shuttle. I suspect that it will also start to get pretty crowded in the VAB if they're doing Ares and Shuttle simultaneously.
Sometimes, I think that the best thing that could happen to American space policy would be a Cat 5 hurricane hitting the Cape, and scraping it clean.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here's more from Robert Block at the Orlando Sentinel. Note the comment about there being no appetite on the Hill for a Shuttle extension.
[Update a few more minutes later]
Mark Whittington once again demonstrates his legendary prowess at reading miscomprehension. I agree with Jon (though I'm not going to vote for Bob Barr). As I said, probably the most effective (and perhaps necessary) step toward a revitalization of NASA would be a Cat 5 at the Cape. I don't think that anything less can shake the space industrial complex up sufficiently to get any kind of new thinking or direction.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:50 AMAlan Boyle has another report from Oshkosh (some people get the best gigs).
Griffin downplayed media reports about vibration problems with the Ares 1 rocket, saying that there were "half a dozen means to mitigate that" and that two top strategies would be selected for further study next month. "Let me put it this way: I hope this is the worst problem we have in developing a new system," he said.
Of course he did. That doesn't mean they aren't true. I haven't seen any ways to mitigate it that don't involve a lot more weight and performance penalty on a vehicle that's already out of margins. I too hope that it's the worst problem they have, because if they have any that are worse, the program is in deep, deep kimchi.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 AMIs this really as big a deal as NASA is making of it?
Data from recent missions to Mars has been building toward a confirmation of the presence of water ice. However, "this would be the first time we held it in our hands, so to speak," says Bryan DeBates, a senior aerospace education specialist at the Space Foundation. Evidence from other locations in the solar system, including Earth's moon, Saturn's Enceladus moon and Jupiter's Europa moon, have strongly hinted at the presence of water--NASA confirmed a liquid lake on Saturn's Titan moon on Wednesday--but no direct observation of water has been made.
Haven't we been pretty certain for years that there was ice on Mars (and outer planet moons, and comets)? What's the big deal here? If there's a story at all, it seems to me that it's about the amount of water available, not the fact that we have "direct confirmation."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 AMAt least one will be saved from the coming carbon apocalypse:
Al Gore--or, as he is known in his own language, Gore-Al--placed his son, Kal-Al, gently in the one-passenger rocket ship, his brow furrowed by the great weight he carried in preserving the sole survivor of humanity's hubristic folly.
"There is nothing left now but to ensure that my infant son does not meet the same fate as the rest of my doomed race," Gore said. "I will send him to a new planet, where he will, I hope, be raised by simple but kindly country folk and grow up to be a hero and protector to his adopted home."
Hope the poles aren't so warm there that he can't build an arctic fortress of pomposity.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:17 PM...have spoken.
I particularly liked the Che comparison, and the hope that the messiah will make Americans less "superficial."
[Update a few minutes later]
Is Obama channelling General Zod?
I am General Zod! Listen to me, people of the Earth! Today I bring a New Order to your planet! One which shall last until the end of time!
Each of you... each man, each woman, each child - all will march proudly together in this New Order! Your lands, your homes, your possessions, your very lives... All of this and more you will gladly give to me!There is no longer a need for separate nations in this world, no need for petty squabbles between one group and another. All of you will work together, strive, produce, and sacrifice together - and all for a common goal!
Michelle and Barack will make the humans of planet Earth work, and shed their cynicism.
Actually, Michelle can have my cynicism when she pries it from my cold, dead cynical typing fingers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:56 PMMore on the "flight test" of Ares 1-X, which seems to be mostly for show. Though if it's as risky as indicated here, it may be a more spectacular performance than they count on.
Unfortunately, the same folks who think a flight dynamics test of a four segment SRB with a different propellant, old-style grain design, and inert (that is to say, non-sloshing and stiff) upper pieces is a good idea also thought they could grab a bunch of used equipment (Atlas avionics software, Peacekeeper hardware, etc.), chewing gum, and duct tape (perhaps FEMA is helping the minions) and use it to demonstrate how something "like" ARES-1X might get off the ground after "the gap" has widened to its furthest extent.
And, like all of the shortcuts the Emperor's minions have taken to date, this approach, too, is soon to come back and bite them. The list of critical components going into ARES-1X that are either beyond shelf life or being put to work in an environment for which they were not intended is astounding. And the risks that are being accepted, because of schedule and budget pressures, are equally marvelous.
Hey, it's OK. That's what waivers are for.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:38 AMA report from Michael Totten.
It's a shame that we can't wave a wand and make oil worthless. Perhaps the only other solution is to take it away from them. There's something wrong with a system that gives people so much wealth who have done absolutely nothing to earn it or create it, and use it to subvert the rest of the world.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:08 AMThe one within the Democrat Party:
...if the opposition to Obama reaches the match point and ignites, Obama could be embarrassed in Denver. After Clinton suspended her campaign, Obama thought he had a green light to run roughshod over her supporters. That has proven to be a mistaken view. Clinton supporters want to be heard in Denver. I was surprised a couple of weeks ago to see an advertisement in the Chicago Tribune demanding that Clinton's name be placed in nomination.
My guess is that a very strenuous effort is going to be made to place Clinton's name in nomination in Denver, forcing Obama into a roll-call vote.
I continue to think that people who believe that Hillary! has given up on the nomination are fooling themselves. I think that it's going to be a hot time in the old town of Denver.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:29 AM...that no reporter is likely to ask:
Does Obama believe equal treatment is inherently divisive? What benefits does Sen. Obama believe have been derived throughout history by allowing states to discriminate on the basis of race? Does he favor repeal of California's Prop. 209 and the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative?Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:03 AM
So writes Byron York:
Television comedy writers fretted that audiences didn't want to hear anything even slightly negative about the Democratic nominee. The political press corps went nuts over a satirical New Yorker cover that wasn't even directed at Obama.
And this was about a man who made up his own pretend presidential seal and motto, Vero Possumus; a man who, upon securing the Democratic nomination, said, "I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"; a man who has on a number of occasions seemed to forget that he is not, or at least not yet, the President of the United States, who has misstated the number of states in his own country, who has forgotten on which committees he serves in the U.S. Senate. Professional comedians -- and their audiences -- couldn't find anything funny about any of that?
The fact that the press corps doesn't seem to be able to recognize Senator Obama for the pompous buffoon that he is, is the biggest indicator how deep in the tank they are for him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 AMSome interesting thoughts on the insane notion of banning it to save the planet. Also, comments about law students' economic literacy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:08 AMGirls have caught up with boys at math.
Does this vindicate all of the mature, liberated women who had to hie to their fainting couches at Larry Summers' comments a few years ago?
Not really. He never said that boys were better, on average, than girls. His comment was that there was a much higher standard deviation for boys, which was why there were more brilliant mathematicians among them (it also means that there are more innumerates among them). This was posited as a possible explanation for the disparity in math PhDs and faculty between men and women, a conservative proposition for which he was hounded from the presidency of Harvard (though it was really just the last straw, and excuse).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:17 PMFrom Carolyn Glick:
I generally try to stay as far away as I possibly can from people who say they can make oceans recede. Our paths didn't cross. In fact, I managed to be out of the country on Wednesday.
...Obama acts like a European leader in his treatment of Israel. On the one hand, he professes this profound respect for Israel and the Jews, and goes on and on about how our security is important to him. On the other hand, he espouses policies that undermine Israeli security and threaten its survival, and demands that the Jewish state become the only state that turns its other cheek towards our enemies as they try to kill us. This is the same sort of message that we hear from all Europeans leaders. And it is tiresome and insulting.Beyond that, Obama is in a unique situation because of the adulation he enjoys from the U.S. and Western media. The media is willing to ignore all of the substantive contradictions inherent in his policy pronouncements and to base their support for him on a quasi-religious faith. I don't remember this ever happening before in an American election -- at least not to the same extent. It is an interesting sociological phenomenon that is worthy of academic research. On a political level, it makes debate very difficult since Obama is treated more as a symbol than a politician. And it is hard to debate a symbol.
How long before this bubble pops? Robert Bidinotto thinks it may have already started.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:53 PMThe presidency as therapy?
That was a big problem with Bill Clinton.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:24 AMJohn Tierney has the latest:
What we have to keep in mind here is that nutrition is a science (or at least should be) and science is about generating hypotheses, making predictions from our hypotheses, and then seeing if they hold true. The relevant hypothesis here -- i.e., what we've believed for the past 30-odd years -- is that saturated fat causes heart disease by elevating either total cholesterol or LDL cholesterol, specifically. So our prediction is that the diet with the higher saturated fat content will have a relatively deleterious effect on cholesterol. We do the test; we repeat it a half dozen times in different populations. Each time it fails to confirm our prediction. So maybe the hypothesis is wrong. That seems like a reasonable conclusion. No one is proving anything here -- as some of your respondents like to decry -- we're just looking at the evidence and trying to decide which hypotheses it supports and which it tends to refute.
...These latest trials just happen to be the best data we have on the long-term effects of saturated fat in the diet, and the best data we have says that more saturated fat is better than less. It may be true that if we lowered saturated fat further -- say to 7 % of all calories as the American Heart Association is now recommending -- or total fat down to 10 percent, as Dean Ornish argues, or raised saturated fat to 20 percent of calories, as Keys did, that we'd see a different result, but that's just another hypothesis. The trials haven't been done to test it. It's also hard to imagine why a small decrease in saturated fat would be deleterious, but a larger decrease would be beneficial.
I think that what the nutrition industry and the FDA have done over the past decades with their pseudoscience war on dietary fat borders on the criminal. I'm pretty much convinced at this point that the biggest culprit in both our health and weight is starch and refined sugars, and that the FDA "food pyramid" has been, and remains (despite recent improvements) quackery, not science.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 AMGerard Baker finally sees the light himself:
As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.
And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.
And the polar bears rejoiced.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:39 AMHeh:
...thank Gore that the ice is melting just as we need the oil. It's like divine Providence at work.
This from someone who worked on his 1988 presidential campaign.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:44 AMLileks reviews Obama's empty speechifying in Berlin. It's not a pretty sight:
He also called for an end to nuclear weapons. (This was also Reagan's dream, but he had a different way of going about it.) Of course, this isn't going to happen, but it sounds nice. Who wouldn't want a world in which everyone decommissions the nukes, and Iran says "wait, what? We thought these were cool. Well, then, we'll give them up. Geez, next thing you'll tell us, Izod shirts with popped collars are out." We will never poke the Genie back in the bottle, and Obama knows this. But the words loft well on the breath of the assembled. The problem, however, is that he didn't just set forth ideas humanity would be wise to make manifest - he made them moral imperatives that must be done now, because the THIS IS THE MOMENT, and NOW IS THE MOMENT THAT THIS IS, and the moment to come in a few moments is also the moment, but it's a few moments past the previous moment, which was also now. THIS IS THE MOMENT to do something about Darfur. Fine. What? THIS IS THE MOMENT to do something about Burmese dissidents. Fine. What?
Nothing will be done about either; they are, unfortunately, matters inconsequential to the general order of things. This is not to say that they are not obscene, or horrific, or more evidence of human perfidy both general and specific, but just as the world summed the strength to turn away from Rwanda and Cambodia, it will manage to struggle with the daunting task of doing nothing about Darfur or Burma. The drone of a jet engine outside your window, bearing you to another international conference, does an admirable job of masking the sound of a machete striking bone down below.
As always, read the whole thing.
[Update a while later]
I have to also say that the unexplained image of the Magritte painting in response to the Obama campaign claim that the campaign speech was not a campaign speech was brilliant. One of the things that's great about Lileks is that he respects his readers' intelligence.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 AM...with women.
Somehow, it reminds me of this classic Martin Mull (and Steve Martin) sea shanty.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:45 PMThe "rocks have rights" crowd are worried again about vandalizing space:
Edward O Wilson has suggested that biophilia, our appreciation of Earth's biosphere, is a by-product of evolving in this environment. If he's right, we might find we don't care about other worlds in the same way. This raises the alarming prospect of rapacious lunar mining altering the view from Earth.
Maybe our biophilia will kick in here: after all, our view of the Moon is one of Earth's natural vistas. Surely we can agree that we don't want that changed? It is an awesome thing to look up and remember that human footprints once marked the Moon's surface. It's quite another to imagine the moon looking like an abandoned quarry.
No, we can't agree. Note that this was in the context of a discussion on "eco issues" on the moon.
Here's the "eco issue" on the moon (and in the rest of the universe, as far as we know right now). There is no "eco" there. There is also no "bio" for our "biophilia" to kick in about. Ecology and biology are about life, something that exists only on earth. It's one thing to want to preserve an ecosystem, but when one simply wants to preserve the entire universe in its current "pristine" state, there's something unsettling and misanthropic going on.
Why is it all right for a meteroid to slam into the lunar surface and leave a crater (which has happened billions of times throughout history, and continues today) which is how the moon got to look the way it is, but a pit for mining is verboten? Would he object to seeing the lights of a lunar city up there? Does he have any idea how far away it is and how much mining one would have to do to see it from earth, even with a telescope?
What is this worship of entropy? What is this loathing of humanity? What is this apparent loathing of life itself?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:47 AMJim Lindgren on compulsory volunteerism. This is the kind of thing that we're in for in an Obama administration. It's the new New Deal. As some commenters note, I wonder if we get to wear arm bands.
[Mid-morning update]
Princess Obama?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:53 AMOr does he just not know what committees he's on? And not on?
And which is worse? Not to mention his inability to keep his story straight about Jerusalem.
Get the man a teleprompter, quick!
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:27 PMOf course they can, despite this misreading of my exploration piece on Monday. History is replete with them, though there are far fewer of them than men (more now, with more opportunities for them). For instance, the "mountain men" who explored much of the west were, pretty much to a...man, men.
I recently received an email from someone who made an analogy between what I wrote and saying that a "white" boy could be an explorer as long as the school system didn't "blacken" him. I find the analogy completely spurious. Briefly, race is not gender.
This was my point, and one that will no doubt set off a crowd of angry blank slaters who think that gender is purely a social construct charging up the hill to my mansion with pitchforks and torches.
There are such things as masculine and feminine traits. All people have some of both--they are androgynous to one degree or another. We define the two by noting that most men are (by definition) more masculine, and most women are more feminine, and viva la difference. So things that most men do, and few women do, are called masculine, and vice versa for feminine (and of course there is a wide range of things that are neither). When men cook, garden, sew, etc., (as I do, though I don't sew much) they are indulging in their feminine side, and when women explore, go shooting, chainsaw trees, drive Indy cars (among other things) they are being sort of manly. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with either doing either. There's plenty of femininity to Danica Patrick, from what I can see.
There are a number of evolutionary psychological reasons to think that an urge for exploration is more of a male trait, and the Economist piece gives one more. If such an urge is an attention-deficit issue, it's indisputable that (at least as it's currently diagnosed) the preponderance of occurrence of it is in boys. At least, it is they who are being medicated the most for it in the schools. There may be some girls who are being similarly abused who would also be good explorers, but girls can be good explorers even when they act like girls in the classroom, because it's a lot easier for them to act like girls in the classroom (even if they have some male characteristics) because they are, well...girls. They still learn, but aren't having their exploratory urges browbeaten out of them. So to the degree that we are inhibiting budding explorers with a misguided educational system which defines good behavior as feminized behavior, the boys are taking the brunt of it. I could have, when referring to the future Neil Armstrong, said "her," instead of "him," but it would have seemed a little strained in political correctness, not because Neil was a man, but because not that many girls are being diagnosed ADHD and getting Ritalin.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:49 AMThe distinction again is that Obama appeals to the gullible and puerile as a sort of James Dean candidate. And thus he is not to be cross-examined, but instead free to shun interviews and clarifications, and prone to avoid reporters who might be less than adulatory -- the normal stuff that so irritates the supposedly sensitive press that has now gone brain-dead.
What is fascinating about the tingly-leg press is that they are exhibiting the very symptoms of arrested development and star-struck immaturity that they always accuse America in toto of suffering. The usual critique of the elite media is that we are a nation of mindless followers, who go from one fad to another, and value looks, youth, and pizzazz over substance.But the current spectacle suggests something worse -- that the press who claims they know better and are more sophisticated are, in fact, far more infantile than most Americans, and essentially Access Hollywood, People Magazine, and the National Enquirer dressed up with network logos and NY-DC bylines.
I think that's been clear since Katie Couric was given the anchor at the CBS Evening News.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:27 AMCharlie Rangel has filed an ethics complaint against himself.
Will he lead the investigation, as well?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:24 AMWell, actually there are multiple causes, but this is one of them. The launch escape system is very heavy. And it's heavier than it needs to be because of the inherent inefficiency of the engines resulting from the cant outward (necessary to avoid blasting the capsule with the exhaust). Note that each opposed pair are fighting each other with the horizontal components of their thrust, contributing nothing whatsoever to the mission. This is called a cosine loss because the effective amount of vertical thrust is the total thrust times the cosine of the angle they're canted at. Since the lost thrust is the sine of the angle, you need more thrust overall (and hence a heavier engine) to compensate, making a bad problem worse.
People have considered putting the escape motor underneath the capsule for this reason (I think that Mike Griffin even drew a napkin sketch of it--we looked at it in OSP as well), but that complicates jettisoning, since it goes between the capsule and the service module. That would mean that you'd have to carry it all the way to orbit on each mission, and then separate, jettison, and redock with the SM, which carries performance and safety risks in itself. Or if it goes under the service module, then the motor has to be a lot bigger, and then you have to do a CM/SM separation after motor burnout but before rotation for entry. So they stuck with the Apollo tractor configuration, in which the capsule is pulled away in an abort.
The other solution, which would give them a ton (actually, literally tons) of margin would be to get rid of the damned thing. It's only there as a backup in case something goes wrong with the launch vehicle, and then only if specific things go wrong (for instance, a loss of thrust wouldn't require it). The weight and design is driven by the extreme case in which the upper stage is exploding beneath you and you have to try to outrun the flying debris. This is an extremely unlikely failure mode, but politically, they have to have the system there, because no one wants to take the chance that they'll have to testify before Congress that they killed astronauts because they didn't have it. With it, the estimate is a one in five hundred chance of losing a crew. Without it, it's much higher (though there are no doubt many astronauts who would accept the risk regardless, since they're already doing so now on the Shuttle).
Also, as Jon Goff has pointed out in the past, they're putting a lot of effort into safety during ascent, when this is actually one of the lesser hazards of a total lunar mission.
But that's the way that politics drives a government space program, and why it is so horrifically expensive.
[Update a while later]
It just occurs to me that the other case where you need it is an on-pad, or shortly-after-liftoff abort, when there is insufficient altitude for safe chute deployment.
But the thing to keep in mind is that it made a lot more sense in Apollo, because in the early sixties, "our rockets always blew up." The technology is much more mature now, and the failure modes for which it would be needed are much less likely, even in an expendable.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:18 AMMaybe in an Obama administration, the House will set up a Pro-American Activity Committee, and properly investigate these subversives out in Hollywood:
David Horowitz, another Hollywood conservative and founder of the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture, said the group is serving a good purpose but he worries its members won't be aggressive enough.
"There's a kind of ... intellectual terror in this town. People are terrorized; they're afraid to say what they think. So what Gary is doing to provide aid and comfort to its victims is admirable, and I applaud him for it," he said. "But my concern is it's not going to be much more than that."
They told me that if George Bush was elected, that brave artists would live in fear of losing their livelihoods for their freedom of expression. They were right!
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the National Rifle Association?"
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 AMThis probably isn't it, but in the immortal words of Marlon Brando, it has to be "a contendah." Particularly at the level of the court from which it was excreted. Of course, the real problem is the ADA, which opened the doors to such nonsense.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:25 AMLileks practices his fine art on his fellow Minnesota scribe, once again:
",,,I want to see my man excited by the prospect of victory and not shrink from it as so many Democrats do. They've read too many books about heroic dissenters and it makes them nervous about being in too big a crowd."
I have no idea what he's talking about. Seriously. Perhaps in Pasedena there's some alternate-universe Barnes and Noble where the shelves are stacked high with books praising the administration and shouting the myriad & infinite glories of America the Perfect, but I was at B&L today and there was a table six feet long heaped with books about how we're screwed and broke and lied to and misled and all the other merry sentiments that abound in the land these days. I don't think any of the authors are worried about selling too many books, and ending up in too big a crowd. If he's saying that the Modern Brave Soul automatically questions his principles if they're accepted by the masses - the loutish, stupid, cat-strangling masses - then he seems to have missed that portion of the internet that practices Heroic Dissent on a daily basis. Or maybe he spends all day reading the Daily Kos and wonders why these people are so timid and gunshy.Let's keep going with that crowd idea:
"The huge crowds that Barack draws are stunned by the fact that someone like him, with that interesting name, is - hang on now - a mainstream candidate for President of the United States, and that he is, on close examination, One of Us."
That's the line that pinged out at me, and made me file away the column for future fiskery. One of us. Never mind the gabba-gabba-hey connotations, or the "mainstream" line - I'd love to hear a Woebegon ep in which Rev. Wright brings his race-based rhetoric to a small Lutheran church. ("Think twice about who you put your arm around, Senator McCain," the Scout cautioned in another column, back in the olden times when associations were relevant..) No, by "one of us" Keillor, I suspect, means the "us" of the smart set, the people who read the New Yorker even if one out 52 covers offends, the people who went to college for real instead of floating by with frat-boy grins, the people who protested the war instead of fighting it, the people who grapple, you know, with issues, seriously, and express a certain soulful anguish at the complexity of it all, and file away the details about zoning disputes with neighbors to be worked into a novel six years hence, when the whole incident has ripened into a metaphor.
Lots more where that came from.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:18 AMIs Barack Obama too young to be president?
Sure seems that way to me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:44 AMFrom Instapundit.
I think that this stuff is going to sneak up on us, and the political establishment is going to not have any idea how to respond to it. But it will be a disaster for social security in its current form, as well as pension plans, though a boon for those of us who have never counted on it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:10 AMThe New York Times sends John McCain's op ed back for a rewrite.
Words fail.
Can we call them biased yet?
And just what does he means when he'd like to see McCain's piece "mirror" Obama? Does he mean that as in a reverse counterpoint? Or does he mean (as in servers) an exact copy?
Thoughts from Rick Moran, as the Times continues, unwittingly, to write its own obituary.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:09 PMTime to end it. It's a technology we need in space, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:48 AMIf true, this has to be a Secret Service nightmare:
According to security officials coordinating deployments of forces with the PA for Obama's Ramallah visit, members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah's declared military wing, have been called upon by the PA to participate in the protection of Obama, particularly in securing the perimeter during a scheduled meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas...
Hey, maybe Obama could also get Khaddafi's female ninja bodyguards to help out.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:31 AMI explore the proposition, over at The Space Review today. Also, editor Jeff Foust has a good writeup on a recent panel discussion on the prospects for government and private spaceflight.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:58 AMThat's the briefest review of the new Batman flick that I've seen.
I'll probably wait untll the DVD. I'm not that big a fan of dark movies.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:13 PMDid the Mossad help free the Columbian hostages?
Vanguardia's Tel Aviv correspondent said the Mossad operation consisted of two agents unknown to each other separately infiltrating FARC.The pair managed to penetrate the Marxist guerrilla group so effectively that they ultimately controlled what FARC did or didn't know, the Catalan newspaper said.
All the more reason, of course, for the left to hate the "Zionists."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:33 PMObama's three hundred foreign policy advisors apparently weren't enough. His new choice of location for his German sermon from the mount, to win over valuable electoral votes of the German people, seems to have backfired as badly as the attempt to emulate Kennedy and Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate:
Andreas Schockenhoff, deputy leader of the conservative bloc in Parliament, said Sunday that the choice of the Victory Column, also known as the Golden Angel, was an "unhappy symbol" since it represented so much of Germany's militaristic past.
Rainer Brüderle, deputy leader of the opposition Free Democrats, said Obama's advisers had little idea of the historical significance of the Victory Column. "It was the symbol of German superiority over Denmark, Austria and France," Brüderle told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag.The monument was built in 1864 to commemorate Prussia's victory over Denmark. When it was inaugurated, Prussia had defeated Austria during the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71.
The column has been originally located near the Reichstag, now the Bundestag, or German Parliament, which is close to the Brandenburg Gate. But Adolf Hitler relocated it about two kilometers, or one mile, toward the western part of the city to the Grosser Stern, or Great Star.
Too bad Leni Riefenstahl isn't around any more to film the event for him. Then later, he could reenact his grandfather's liberation of Auschwitz.
Maybe if he gets a couple hundred more advisors, he can find one with a clue. I've never seen anyone have so much trouble getting good help. It must be tough being a messiah.
I do have to say, though, that watching this kind of thing for four years would be entertaining. I just wish that he wouldn't be in charge of anything important during the show.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:28 AMSome thoughts from a German on Obama's grandiosity:
...apart from questions of sensitivity and protocol, the proposal was also politically short-sighted. A German government cannot and will not intervene in foreign power struggles. It is simply a matter of political common sense for democratic countries to refrain from getting involved in the elections of other countries. This is a matter of respect, but also of calculated self-interest. Since you never know who will win, it is more advisable to stay neutral. As consequence, the German government cannot show preference to Obama: whatever Obama is permitted, McCain must also be permitted. Even before becoming American President, Obama has thus managed to embarrass one of his most important allies. Hardly an intelligent move. But he evidently does not think in terms of the long-term categories of real politics, but rather in terms of the short-term effects of political spectacle.
Yup. It's very hard to take him seriously.
He's not a "lighworker." He's a lightweight.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:51 AM...why can't we kick the fossil fuel habit? Well, we can, but not the way we put a man on the moon, and certainly not within a decade. On the thirty-ninth anniversary of the first landing, I explain.
[Afternoon update]
It's interesting to note that the original landing was on a Sunday as well. I don't know how many of the anniversaries have fallen on a Sunday, but I would guess five or so. It's not too late to plan to commemorate the event with a ceremony at dinner tonight, with friends and family. Also, a collection of remembrances here. If you're old enough to remember it yourself, you might want to add one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:38 AMMaybe. These were clearly unsustainable prices--the only question was how long it would take them to drop. And what do you know? The market works:
Gas may be getting just a bit cheaper, but major changes in how Americans live and drive are already in motion.
Car buyers have been fleeing to more fuel-efficient models. U.S. sales of pickups and sport utility vehicles are down nearly 18 percent this year through June, while sales of small cars are up more than 10 percent.While slashing production of more-profitable trucks and SUVs, automakers have been scurrying to build their most fuel-efficient models faster.
Toyota Motor Corp., which hasn't been able to keep up with demand for its 46-miles-per-gallon Prius hybrid, said last week it will start producing the Prius in the U.S. and suspend truck and SUV production to meet changing consumer demands.
Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. also have announced plans to increase small car production, and GM has said 18 of the 19 vehicles it is launching between now and 2010 are cars or crossovers.
And what do you know, they didn't do it because their intellectual superiors in Congress passed a law making them. They did it because gas was four bucks a gallon. Maybe people aren't the stupid sheep that technocrats think they are.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:24 AMChris Bowers: on why "progressives" should support space programs. There's a lot of typical mythology in the comments section about NASA and the military, and spin-off. We would have had PCs without Apollo, honest. We needed microchips for the missiles, which was at least as big a driver.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:04 PMThe heretic Lord Monckton has a request today of the president of the American Physical Society:
The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC's viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."
This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.
Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur's findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council's decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?
It will be interesting to see the response.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:40 AM...on the high seas. Though he doesn't discuss it explicitly, Chris Borgen makes another case for why we need to get off the planet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:35 AMRon Bailey reports.
Well, OK, it's just a conference on the subject. Which isn't as interesting, but a lot less scary.
[Saturday morning update]
We have met the enemy, and he is us:
"All of the biggest risks, the existential risks are seen to be anthropogenic, that is, they originate from human beings."
All the more reason to get some eggs into baskets other than this one. Also, the rise (again) of the neo-Malthusians. It's hard to keep them down for long, even though so far, they've predicted about five out of the last zero world overpopulation crises.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:49 PMCharles Krauthammer, on Senator Obama's overinflated self regard:
Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush 41 -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?
Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work I a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.
I suspect that the American people are going to get pretty tired of this as it goes on for another three months, and not be looking forward to four years of it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:21 AMSometimes it seems like it:
In front of a roomful of 500 General Motors employees -- of all places -- John McCain paraded his radical Green credentials this morning. McCain embraced California's lawsuit against the EPA demanding that states be allowed to set their own auto mileage standards.
"I guess at the end of the day, I support the states being able to do that," he said at the town hall meeting at GM's Technical Center in Warren, Mich.California's policy is strongly opposed by the auto industry because of the nightmare patchwork of regulatory standards such a proposal would set. The industry prefers national standards -- a position that McCain had supported until this morning. McCain's flip-flop on the issue (assuming he meant what he said, and his campaign doesn't quickly move to correct the gaffe) would put him at odds with the Bush administration and longstanding Republican policy.
No way he has a prayer of winning Michigan (and probably not Ohio, either) if he persists in this stupidity. And it's not going to give him California, either.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:04 AMJennifer Rubin wonders why Senator Obama has so many foreign policy advisors. And why he still gets such lousy advice. Be sure to follow the link to Kondracke's piece, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:18 AMLord Acton seems to have gotten it right:
...when recently denied free coffee from new management, Garvin allegedly told managers that he could change the police department's response time if they refuse to give him complimentary drinks.
Garvin is accused of saying, "If something happens, either we can respond really fast or we could respond really slow. I've been coming here for years and I've been getting whatever I want. I'm the difference between you getting a two-minute response time, if you needed a little help, or a 15 minutes response time."
Some have more resistance than others, but this should be cautionary for people who want bigger government. Unfortunately, it's the new problem we have in Iraq, now that the war seems to be over.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:38 PM"I wasn't born in America - but I got here as fast as I could."
That's an American.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:24 PM...of the low-fat diet myth:
Although participants actually decreased their total daily calories consumed by a similar amount, net weight loss from the low-fat diet after two years was only 6.5 lbs. (2.9 kg) compared to 10 lbs. (4.4 kg) on the Mediterranean diet, and 10.3 lbs. (4.7 kg) on the low-carbohydrate diet. "These weight reduction rates are comparable to results from physician-prescribed weight loss medications," explains Dr. Iris Shai, the lead researcher.
The low-fat diet reduced the total cholesterol to HDL ratio by only 12 percent, while the low-carbohydrate diet improved the same ratio by 20 percent. Lipids improved the most in the low-carbohydrate, with a 20% increase in the HDL ("good") cholesterol and, 14% decrease in triglycerides. In all three diets, inflammatory and liver function biomarkers was equally improved. However, among diabetic participants, the standard low-fat diet actually increased the fasting glucose levels by 12mg/dL, while the Mediterranean diet induced a decrease in fasting glucose levels by 33mg/dL.
I've blogged about this before, but I continue to be amazed and frustrated at the ongoing ignorance in the medical and dietetic community about this. They persist in thinking that it is a simple thermodynamics problem--all calories are equal--and will not accept the notion that what we eat can affect our metabolism (how fast we burn energy, and how much it influences how we burn body fat).
It's why I pay no attention to either physicians, or nutritionists (or the FDA), when it comes to dietary advice. As Glenn says, it's fortunate that I also like a Mediterranean diet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:34 PMIs Senator Biden a secret operative for John McCain?
Biden's letter brought attention to the fact that Obama did not attend two of those three hearings -- and for the third, on March 8, 2007, Obama only asked one question, one unrelated to Afghanistan.
Don't worry. Unlike Jake Tapper, most of the press won't mention it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:05 PMDefined, of course, as a politician accidentally blurting out the truth.
Shocked, shocked I was to read that Sen. Boxer, in complaints about possible Democratic defections on the question of opening up California waters for drilling to help alleviate the nation's energy crunch, complained "This is our ethanol!"
Of course, Senator Boxer, being one of the dimmest bulbs in the upper house (quite an achievement, considering the competition), has no idea how revealing her comment is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:51 AMSusan Estrich is worried about Obama's chances. All of his supporters should be.
I'll be eagerly watching Fox on election night to see if she shows up hammered, like she did when Kerry lost in '04.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:45 AMWho said he wasn't funny? Here are a bunch of Obama light-bulb jokes.
[Update a while later]
And now, knock-knock jokes.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:32 AMSome follow-up thoughts on Lileks' bleat today. If people aren't aware, this is what Kuntar did, as described by the remaining family member, the wife and mother:
As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.
But the next part is the most tragic, and it illustrates the point I made the other day with regard to shouting out to the universe:
By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.
In any event, had an Israeli, soldier or civilian, deliberately shot an Arab parent to death in front of his young child, and then smashed in her skull with a rifle butt, in front of eyewitnesses, he would have been arrested, tried, and probably sentenced to life in prison, by the Israeli government. He would have also been condemned by Israeli society as a vicious monster. In contrast, this bloodthirsty psychopath was welcomed as a hero in Lebanon.
As long as this asymmetry of attitude toward wanton and deliberate murder, and worship of death and those who brutally bring it persists in the Arab world, there will be no peace in the Middle East, regardless of how much we appease them, even if we allow them their only true goal, which is the destruction of the state of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants. As someone once said, Arabia has always had bloody borders.
[Update in the afternoon]
"Bodies' abuse made ID difficult."
Rabbi Yisrael Weiss, former Chief Rabbi of the IDF, who was present during the transfer of the fallen soldiers yesterday, said that "the verification process yesterday was very slow, because, if we thought the enemy was cruel to the living and the dead, we were surprised, when we opened the caskets, to discover just how cruel. And I'll leave it at that."
What is he complaining about? It's not like they had women's panties on their heads, or a Torah was flushed down a toilet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:58 AMThe American Physical Society admits that a significant number of its membership are heretics:
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors."
Have the deniers arrested, tried and punished. They must confess their sins.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:38 AMRick Moran, on the Obama campaign's counterfactuals. It's hard to imagine the press letting a Republican get away with this kind of thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:33 AMLileks is on a roll today:
I heard more interviews with learned politicians informing me that "drilling for oil" will not affect anything, least of all the quantity of oil. We must apparently wait until 2015, when a magic engine that runs on unicorn flatulence is invented. I have to ask: why is anyone investing in unicorn flatulence today, when it won't make any difference for several years? The answer's simple: the engine will Appear at the chosen moment, borne from the clouds by starlings, but only if we have repented of our foul ways, and the last of the sinners has left the cul-de-sac to reside in a home located a sustainable distance from his or her place of employment. When the last suburban outlying development is empty, when the homes of whose size we disapprove has been abandoned, when the last citizen has been gathered unto the bosom of the urban center, where his profligate ways are sneered upon and the measure of his yard shall be no greater than the standard lot size decreed in 1902, then shall the magic engine appear. Until then, the wind and the sun will bear us onward.
Honestly, it's like FDR coming into power promising "bold, persistent experimentation - except for any sort of government involvement in the economy. That's off the table."No, in the Land of Inversion, we've decided to do things that run completely counter to human nature - at least to the nature we perceive in our domestic opponents. Don't give an inch to your domestic foes; they'll read it as weakness! To everyone else, though, it's olive branches strewn like ticker-tape at an astronaut parade. In Israel, for example, this horrible prisoner swap - child-killer exchanged for murdered soldiers. The fellow is welcomed home as a hero by Hezbollah and Lebanon's Prime Minister and President, because in the Land of Inversion, heads of state clear their calendar when child-killers breathe the sweet air of freedom again. It's all relative, really. One man's child-killer is another man's freedom fighter, and if you point out that the "another man" is a Jew-hating idiot fanatic who'd be proud to blow up the Holocaust Museum in DC and take out a busload of Iowa tourists, you're ignoring the significant impact this exchange had on the Climate of Trust that will lead to peace. I mean, it's not like the entire cabinet turned out to meet the guy. In the delicate calculations of the region, that counts for something.
There are some tart words about the Archbishop of Canterbury as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:01 AM...against leftist idiots. This always seemed like a strange thesis to me:
Perhaps even more bizarrely, a few people in the comments are citing China as an example of how capitalism undermined democracy. Apparently I missed the section in history class where we covered the vibrant democracy that existed in China prior to pro-market reforms. Because in the history I learned, the openness and transparency required to support the market reforms have enabled what little movement towards liberalization China has had.
I think that a lot stronger case can be made that democracy undermines capitalism than the reverse. Once people get the ability to vote to take wealth from one and give to another, capitalism, which consists of voluntary exchange, is severely weakened and diminished.
Not to imply, of course, that either thesis is an argument against either democracy or capitalism.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:10 AMBut I agree with Instapundit that it's a good one:
Obama is humorless, and full of himself. That would make him a great target for satire, except that his followers take the position that any mockery or criticism is racist. The prospect of four years of that sort of thing is the best reason I can think of not to vote for him.
I don't think that the Obama worshipers have any sense of what a turn-off he is to the rest of us.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AMI know what you're saying -- "who invited the fat chick to the Twister party?" Certainly, all of us (with the possible exception of Randy) wish she wasn't here. But it's important to remember that fat chicks are often an important source of party supplies, and we must take the good with the bad. In the same way, Fannie Mae supplies the critical financial weed and beer to keep our national economic party going.
The numbers are complex, but let me boil it down for the economic layperson. Fannie Mae is a government company type thing that has a large pile of money, which I will call "A". The first thing it does is create $20 million bonuses for high performance executives like Franklin Raines, James Johnson and Jamie Gorelick, which I will call "B." Next, it allocates an amount "C" to lobbyists to make sure important Congressmen always get a thoughtful holiday card from Fannie Mae. After subtracting B and C from A, they are left with D, which is lent to homebuyers. These homebuyers then pay back the amount E, which, when subtracted from D, leaves F, the amount Congress has to come up with. In order to keep this important financial system humming along at peak efficiency, it is necessary that you, the taxpayer, are F'ed.
RTWT, and save the Dave!
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 AMI would love an Obama presidency with a Republican-controlled Congress.
Unfortunately, that's not a choice realistically on offer. The best we'll probably be able to do, absent some political earthquake, is a McCain in the White House, with Dems continuing to misrule the Hill. That's not a good thing, but it's better than the donkeys running the whole show (despite the fact that McCain isn't much of a Republican, either).
On the other hand, a Democrat monopoly on power would have salutary effects on the elections in 2010. But I fear the SCOTUS replacements that would almost certainly ensue in the interim, which are much harder to undo. That's really the bottom line to want to keep Obama out of the White House.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:24 PMLife is rough in Michelle Obama's America, in which all six hundred bucks buys is a pair of ear rings. As for the fresh fruit, she can't afford a refrigerator for the mansion?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:33 PMMike Griffin again disquisites on the Yellow Peril.
Well, actually he doesn't. Here's all he says (unless there's some elaboration to which the BBC is privy, but we are not):
Speaking to the BBC News website during a visit to London, Dr Griffin said: "Certainly it is possible that if China wants to put people on the Moon, and if it wishes to do so before the United States, it certainly can. As a matter of technical capability, it absolutely can."
What does that mean? If he means that if China made it as much of a priority as we did during Apollo, and if we continue on our own disastrous plans, that they could reverse engineer what we did and put some Taikonauts on the moon before NASA lands astronauts, sure.
But how likely is that? And even if it happened, what's the big deal? We were first on the moon, they were second. Big whoop. There's no way on their current technological trajectory to do it in any sustainable way, and even if they did, there's nothing they could realistically do there that would constitute a threat to us, either in terms of national security, or our own ability to do things there on our own pace.
My take?
It is extremely unlikely--the Chinese are not fools. They know how much it will cost to do a manned lunar mission, and it's not a high priority, particularly when their economy is potentially a house of cards (something not made better by the current energy prices, which will result in either a curtailing of their fuel subsidies, or a decline in economic growth, or both). If and when they are serious about going to the moon, it will be quite obvious, and we'll have plenty of time to do something about it if we think that it's actually a problem.
But Mike apparently thinks that he'll have a better chance of getting increased funding for Apollo on Steroids if he can frighten uninformed people about the Chinese taking over the moon.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:19 PMHey, he said he was about change!
As Glenn notes, this could be a hint of how an Obama administration would behave.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:59 AMYou know, we lowly, benighted citizens are always told that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Well, considering the size of the federal code, and that of all the states in which we live, and occasionally move to, often on short notice, how does one justify this?
It's not just about the ability for citizens to take pictures of police officers in public places (though that's important too; see: King, Rodney). It's about the officer's behavior -- specifically his attempt to bully this man into compliance with an illegal demand, using his power as an officer of the law in the service of his personal pique, at the expense of the citizenry that he is supposed to "serve and protect." It is absolutely, totally and completely unacceptable for police officers to use the authority conferred by their badges to violate people's rights in this manner, and society needs to send that message loud and clear.
Should ignorance of the law be an excuse for this man? Call me crazy, but it seems to me that those enforcing the law should be much more responsible for knowing it than those who are being oppressed by ignorance of it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:57 PMOrion, already overweight, just got heavier:
"Preliminary estimates show that if this 30-40% [turbulence] heating augmentation heating is applied to the aerothermodynamic database the heat shield mass may increase up to 20%," says an internal NASA report obtained by Flightglobal.
I wonder if, instead of using an ablator, a tile system would be lighter? It would be more maintenance intensive (particularly with water landings), but it wouldn't be as bad as the Shuttle, because many of the tiles would be symmetrical and more mass producible. We were never really allowed to do this trade in Phase B at Northrop Grumman--NASA just told us they were going to supply the TPS.
I'm actually quite surprised at this--I would have thought that they'd have modeling an ablative shield down to a science by now. Apollo was way overdesigned, because they didn't have any experience or good analytical tools to indicate how much shielding they needed. If you look at the heat shield on an Apollo capsule, you can see that it is just slightly charred, with most of it unburned; it could have done a couple more missions without refurbishment or replacement. But based on that experience, we should have been able to predict the optimal weight of an ablator designed to come back from the moon pretty well, and years ago. How did this come up just before PDR?
Anyway, now they have unexpected weight growth in the program at the same time that they have weight and performance problems with the Ares 1. And apparently there are budget problems at LM, as well, if this report is true:
The ORION contractor is overrunning. The minions are out of money. Where can 20-30% more funds be dredged up to cover this miscarriage? You guessed it...the little man.
The minions have let the contractor off the hook for meeting its small business obligations this year. The same obligations that were bid as part of the winning proposal, ostensibly offering a better package than the opposing team, are now null and void. As a result, some of those little companies will start disappearing, lacking jobs and income.
They seem to be achieving the trifecta--failing on performance, schedule and budget. It's a program manager's nightmare.
[Update a few minutes later]
Some further thoughts over at Gravity Loss:
What will the payload landed on the moon be? What propellants are used? What is the Altair's or Orion's mass? And work back from there to TLI mass and ultimately to launch from Earth, all with generous margins. And it has seemed that a certain cycle has formed. First a solution on Ares I is based on some logic linking it to Shuttle hardware, infrastructure or Ares V with common elements, which should save a lot of money and time and keep the workforce etc etc. Somewhat later, rumors about a severe performance shortfall on either launcher start circulating. Then after a while NASA announces a new configuration where the commonality is disrupted. And again forward we go.
Unfortunately, the concepts seemed to be driven more by politics than engineering. That was often the case in Apollo, too. The Manned Spaceflight Center could have remained at Langley, but there were political reasons to move it to Texas. Marshall didn't have to be in Huntsville--they could have moved the rocket team at Redstone to somewhere else (e.g., the Cape, whose location really was driven by geography and not politics). But there were two differences in Apollo. It had essentially unlimited budget, and its success was politically important. Neither applies to the VSE, yet NASA, by Mike Griffin's own admission when he announced the architecture, not only chose to do Apollo over again, but to do it "on steroids."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:28 PMJennifer Rubin makes a pretty good point:
Obama claims that experience is not as important as "judgment" or "change." By manufacturing or existing accomplishments, however, he suggests that he does not buy his own pitch.
Rather, his repeated attempts to bolster his resume indicate that he may be nervous about his non-existent record of achievement. Not trusting that voters will buy his disparagement of experience, Obama is now resorting to a common, but risking tactic of under-qualified job-seekers: fudge the resume.Resume fraud carries grave risks. If the employer finds out you are lying, you are unlikely to get the job, even if the competition is weak. And for Obama, who is already belaboring under an avalanche of tough press about his many policy flip-flops, he hardly needs another storyline which sheds doubt on his credibility and character.
I think that it's things like this that are the reason the polls now seem to be even, even with the media love affair continuing.
[Update a while later]
Victor Davis Hanson lists some of Senator Obama's other problems:
Obama has a poor grasp of history, geography, American culture, and common sense -- whether the number or location of states in the Union, basic facts about WWII or where Arabic is spoken, or his sociological take on Pennsylvania, etc. His advisors realize this, and are playing 4th-quarter defense by keeping him out of ex tempore, non tele-prompted hope and change venues, where his shallowness can manifest itself in astonishing ways.
I was just listening to NPR in the car, and Terry Gross was interviewing Ryan Lizza on Fresh Air. He just had a long piece in the New Yorker about Obama's Chicago history. He was talking about the Rezko housing project problems, and he said that Obama didn't seem to be involved in the corruption, that the worst you could say about him was that exercised bad judgment.
Well, that in itself is saying something pretty bad, given that his claim to the presidency is that, while he may not have as much experience as his opponents, he has good judgment. But was his Rezko involvement good judgment? Was his attending a bigoted church for twenty years good judgment? Was it good judgment to pre-declare the surge a failure before it even began? So now it's hard to make a case for either his experience or his judgment.
I know that the Senator believes that to know him is to love him, but I think he may find out that as the campaign actually engages after the conventions, the more people learn about him, the less inclined they'll be to make him the next commander-in-chief.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:50 AMDid the Obama campaign have a bad June? Geraghty asks:
Is it possible that Obama's decision to forsake public financing was a mistake? Between the Denver convention running low on funds, Hillary's demands for help in retiring her debt, the RNC outraising the DNC five to one, and a steady decline in Obama's donations month-to-month (a tough economy hitting Obama's small donors? The buzz and hype have passed?), is Obama the candidate with the campaign that has to watch its pennies?
It will be deliciously ironic if, after having flipped on the issue, and turning down federal campaign bucks, Obama ends up without enough funds.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:23 AMThe president has lifted the executive order banning offshore drilling.
This puts Congress in a political fix. He's calling on them to lift the Congressional ban now, but that would require Congressional action. They can simply ignore it (though at their political peril). The neat thing is that they can't ignore the issue forever. There is a default position not to their liking. It will expire at the end of September anyway (as it does every fiscal year) and will have to be renewed with a Congressional vote. Usually, this is uncontroversial, but not this year. We'll see if they're willing to do it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:35 AMAl Gore thinks (or at least thought at one time, and there's no reason to think that he's changed his opinion) that Rousseau is worth quoting.
You know, if I were going back in history and assassinating someone to prevent great harm to the world, my first choice would not be Hitler. It would be Jean Jacques Rousseau, the father of totalitarianism in all its forms. Though probably someone else would have come up with his vile notions independently.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Somehow, this seems related. An excellent essay on Obama's charisma, and messianic campaign.
The danger of Obama's charismatic healer-redeemer fable lies in the hubris it encourages, the belief that gifted politicians can engender a selfless communitarian solidarity. Such a renovation of our national life would require not only a change in constitutional structure--the current system having been geared to conflict by the Founders, who believed that the clash of private interests helps preserve liberty--but also a change in human nature. Obama's conviction that it is possible to create a beautiful politics, one in which Americans will selflessly pursue a shared vision of the common good, recalls the belief that Dostoyevsky attributed to the nineteenth-century Russian revolutionists: that, come the revolution, "all men will become righteous in one instant." The perfection would begin.
The Founders were Lockean. Obama seems more an heir of Rousseau, though perhaps an unwitting one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:40 AMWhen people ask me if there's anything I don't like about the Bush administration, while there are many things, this is close to the top of the list:
"It's serrated." He is talking about the little row of teeth along the edge. Truth be told, the knife in question, which I've had for years, is actually smaller and less sharp than the knives currently handed out by my airline to its first- and business-class customers. You'd be hard-pressed to cut a slice of toast with it.
"Oh, come on. It is not.""What do you call these?" He runs his finger along the minuscule serrations.
"Those ... but ... they ... it ..."
"No serrated knives. You can't take this."
"But sir, how can it not be allowed when it's the same knife they give you on the plane!"
"Those are the rules."
"That's impossible. Can I please speak to a supervisor?"
"I am the supervisor."
Admittedly, it's a job that's probably hard to find smart help for. What person with a brain would want to do that all day?
Anyway, as the author points out, and has been obvious for years, ever since 911, it's security theater. Unfortunately, too many people fall for it, and actually believe that it makes them safer. Just one more reason that flying sux, and why the industry is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:39 AMJeff Foust wonders if new government energy initiatives will crowd out space budgets.
Maybe. His piece reminds me of an idea I've had for an essay on why energy independence isn't like landing a man on the moon.
In fact, I had a related comment over at Space Politics this morning, in response to a comment from someone named...Someone...that cost-plus contracts are a proven means of success in space:
I know alt.spacers see cost-plus as some sort of ultimate evil. But recognize its been successful in the past, from the Saturn V to the Pegasus. And the X-33 would likely have been finished and test flown if NASA had used its traditional cost-plus approach instead of the fixed price model they used. If NASA had funded the X-33/VentureStar under the same procurement model as the Shuttle it would be flying today.
To which I responded:
But recognize its been successful in the past, from the Saturn V to the Pegasus.
Only if by "successful," you mean it eventually results in very expensive working hardware. Not to mention that Pegasus was not developed on a cost-plus contract.And the X-33 would likely have been finished and test flown if NASA had used its traditional cost-plus approach instead of the fixed price model they used.
Perhaps. At a cost to the taxpayer of billions. And probably a radically different vehicle than the one originally proposed.
If NASA had funded the X-33/VentureStar under the same procurement model as the Shuttle it would be flying today.
Perhaps. And likely just as big an economic disaster (and perhaps safety one as well) as the Shuttle.
We don't like that form of procurement because historically, in terms of affordable access to space, it has repeatedly been proven not to work.
Anyway, I do need to write that essay. We're not going to get energy independence from government crash programs (though prizes may be useful).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AMEzra Levant says that Congress should put Canada on the human rights watch list. I wonder if that would get Ottawa's attention?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:30 AMDavid Brin has a warning for irresponsible astronomers.
When in danger, most people in a group recognize the responsibility to be quiet, and not give themselves away to an enemy by making noise, sometimes to the point that a crying baby will be stifled, and even suffocated. I think that this is a similar case where people should be enjoined, by force if necessary, because we cannot know the consequences. I see very little potential benefit to this, and a great deal of risk. The apparent insularity of the SETI folks cannot continue--we are all on this planet, not just them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 AMThat's what Ferris Valyn wants Barack Obama to do.
It's good advice for John McCain, too. I don't think that it will have any political effect on the election if he does it now, though. Space simply isn't a voting issue for very many people.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:31 PMIowahawk has gotten a hold of the latest hirabi recruitment brochure:
As you have possibly heard by now, Team Satan and their subsidiary Iraqi Security Forces have made several key market acquisitions in the last few months. In order to meet Q3 Return-on-Mayhem targets and maximize stakeholder value, we need to refocus our client-facing resource model. As we are currently seeking a 17th round of venture funding, budgets are extremely tight, and this will require reducing our internal work team payroll load through adaptive right-sizing on a go-forward basis. Accounting estimates indicate that much of this will be achieved via natural attrition and Apache Hellfire missiles. Still, in order to achieve costing targets, we will need to engage in involuntary outboarding.
The Communications department will be most directly effected by this initiative, as we continue transitioning of our day-to-day public relations efforts to low-cost offshore service providers like Huffington Post, DailyKos, and Democratic Underground.
Hey, you get what you pay for.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:01 PMIf you're near an EIB station, he's subbing for Rush today.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:27 AMCan we do word substitutions in php by passing a variable to the URL?
This works, too, and it even fits within the box.
Have fun in comments.
[Via the non-liberal non-fascist]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:53 AMSome thoughts on Barack Obama's junior moments.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 AMOver at Res Communis.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:00 PM...if, say, a white man expressed the desire to castrate a black man? Particularly the first black man to be a major-party presidential nominee?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:31 AMI've often made this argument, but never as concisely:
The Right believes in biology, but not in evolution; the Left believes in evolution, but not in biology.
It's a little oversimplified (as is any statement about the "Right" or the "Left"), but a good generalization. Of course, when it comes to sexual orientation, the Right doesn't believe in biology, either. But I think that the Left is much more prone to a belief in the Blank Slate myth.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:09 AMThe Dems are finally starting to come to their senses about energy production, but not quite:
One idea floated by Reid would require that whatever oil is drilled in newly opened areas would need to be sold in the United States.
This is pure, unadulterated economic ignorance. Senator Reid, go to the board and write one hundred times, "OIL IS FUNGIBLE." WTF difference does it make where the oil is sold? The important thing is to get it on the market. If we are pulling new oil off the north slope, it might make sense to ship it to Japan, improving our balance of trade with them, and relieving them of the cost of shipping it all the way from the Persian Gulf. It might in fact make sense to simply ship new oil from the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf refineries, but that should be a market decision, not an arbitrary and idiotic political one. "Energy independence" is an economic myth.
And then, we have this:
Democrats also want any compromise plan to include investments in clean and renewable energies, a crackdown on oil speculators and proof that the oil and gas companies are fully utilizing land that is already leased for exploration.
What does a "crackdown on oil speculators" mean? It's called a futures market, and a lot of people play. It serves a function of reducing risk for many in the industry. "Speculation" is simply a dirty word for "investment." This new scheme where people can buy gasoline ahead of time at a fixed price? That's speculation, folks.
And this:
"If they were showing in good faith that they were drilling on some of the 68 million acres they have now, it might change some of our attitudes," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).
So, in order to get access to leases with high potential, they have to waste their money drilling on leases with low potential? Brilliant.
The only way to change the attitudes of people like this is Economics 101. And I doubt if even that would help.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:44 AMA rainbow hole? An African-American hole?
This is as ignorant and stupid as the complaints about the use of the word "niggardly."
Actually, now that I think about it, it's also as dumb as complaints about my proper use of the word "fascist." A subject on which Jonah Goldberg has some further thoughts today:
People say fascism means brutality, therefore liberalism isn't remotely fascist. It works as a debater's trick, and it's certainly a source of real opposition to some of my arguments, but it doesn't work as an actual argument in the true sense of the word.
One can use the same "argument" about Communism. "Communism is about brutality. Liberals aren't brutal. Therefore liberalism has nothing to do with Communism." The only difference here is that for reasons discussed at length in this space and in my book, the man in the street doesn't equate Communism with brutality to the same extent he equates fascism with brutality, even though Communism is just as brutal as Fascism. I think that's a problem that needs to be combated rather than surrendered to.I simply don't think the woeful state of popular ignorance should be considered a powerful argument against the accuracy of historical truth.
Nope. As he says, if that makes the job harder, so be it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 AMFerris Valyn has some candidates. Most of them seem implausible to me. The only ones that I can imagine are at all realistic are Patti Grace Smith, Lori Garver and Pete Worden (the latter would certainly shake things up, which is one reason that he almost certainly won't get the job). Certainly Hansen has nothing in his resume that would qualify him--he's a scientist.
Of course, much depends on who the next president is. One likely name not on the list, assuming that McCain wins: Craig Steidle.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:51 AM...and change. It looks like John McCain may have come to his senses, and dropped cap and trade. Let's just hope that he doesn't attempt to revive it after he wins.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:16 PMThere's a piece over at the WaPo today by Marc Kaufman that lays out pretty well the problems that we face in civil space policy, though I think that the international competition aspects are overstated. The pace of all these other activities remains almost as glacial as our own, and until someone develops a transportation breakthrough (and by that I mean a high-flight-rate reusable system, not warp drive or space elevators) none of it presents a serious threat to us. But it points out that the policy apparatus, as I always says, doesn't view space as very important. The beginning of the article, and first two pages, are all about budget constraints, and I was wondering if he would ever get around to mentioning ITAR. Toward the end of the piece, finally, he did. In terms of our losing our dominance in commercial space, this is the number one reasons. It's really been a disaster, and a bi-partisan one.
It's a little out of date, since it mentions that Mike Griffin claims that additional funding could accelerate Constellation by two years, to 2013, because Griffin's own program manager now says that it probably wouldn't.
I disagree with Mike Griffin's comment here:
"We spent many tens of billions of dollars during the Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth," said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who said his agency's budget is down by 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms since 1992.
"We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40 years and have not . . . chosen to invest at a level that would preserve that commanding lead."
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on human spaceflight over the past four decades, more than enough to have developed a robust transportation and in-space infrastructure that would have kept us well in the lead. The problem was not how much was spent, but in how it was spent. Jobs were more important than progress. That sadly remains the case today.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:05 AMIowahawk has found a draft of an Obama speech explaining the refinement of his positions:
Let me be crystal clear: if elected president, my first act will be to call for the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. I have always been consistent and forthright in this position, and I want to reassure my supporters that my recent statement backtracking from it was just some bullshit my staff came up with to tack to the center for the general election. To win this election, it will be critical to appeal to the dwindling but stubborn group of idiots who cling to fantasies of American "victory" in this tragic disaster. It's an unfortunate part of the complicated game of presidential politics, but let's face it: I can't stop this war if I'm not in the White House. However, you should know by now that whatever I may say from now until November, once elected I will immediately pull the rug from these gullible pro-war rubes.
Or will I? As is obvious to all but the most deluded HuffPo retard, the surge in Iraq has produced dramatic improvements in security throughout Iraq, and the roots of a stable pro-American democracy. We have the terrorists on the run, and it would obviously be crazy for us to pull our troops from the region just as we are on the verge of victory. And it is equally obvious that everything I said in the previous paragraph was designed to placate the naive hipster moonbats I brilliantly exploited to destroy the Clintons. (You're welcome.) Now that the nomination is in the bag, I am finally free to stake out my genuine pro-victory Iraq position, and have a good laugh while the dKos morons screech like a bunch of apoplectic howler monkeys. Let's face it: at the rate I'm heading right on national security, I'll be raining nukes on Tehran by February.
Well, that should settle the issue.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:15 AMJames takes on, once again, his fellow Minnesota scribe:
Mr. Keillor feels he has done okay in the last eight years but has a hot collar and ground-up teeth thinking about what the Current Occupant has done to the country the little girl will inherit. He's mad about spending - I'm with him there, although a bit perplexed to find Keillor coming down on the side of spending less - and he doesn't approve of the war. It ruined his Rockwell moment.
Being unable to watch a kid play baseball because you are mad at George Bush does not necessarily mean you are a better person or a person more attuned to truth and the future.It might mean, at best, you are a person who writes run-on sentences stringing together predictable assertions; at worst, it might mean you're anhedonic, and looking for scapegoats. I look at my daughter and consider her future, and I see possibility and peril as well. But that's up to us, and while I'm sure Mr. Keillor anticipates the day where he is legally required to pay the taxes he heretofore feels he is morally required to pay, we can do fine without him. We've done fine without his money so far, and I think we can keep that up. Unless he's been paying in at the pre-tax-cut level, of course. In which case: hats off! A principled man is rare in any era.
You know, I actually greatly enjoy Keillor's books, but when you let him loose on an editorial page, he seems to go completely nuts. Bush derangement is a very real thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:14 AM...not for me:
The lavish dining arrangements - disclosed by the Japanese Government which is hosting the summit in Hokkaido - come amid growing concern over rising food prices triggered by a shortage of many basic necessities.
On the flight to the summit, Mr Brown urged Britons to cut food waste as part of a global drive to help avert the food crisis.
Maybe they could start by cutting the PM's rations.
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:53 AMThat's not the Barack Obama that I knew:
In one excerpt from the audio book that Hewitt played on his show in March, Obama alters his voice to mimic Wright's and repeats passages from a sermon decrying a society "where white folks' greed runs a world in need." Later Obama says of Wright's preaching, "I found the tears running down my cheeks."
If the Dems don't think that this will be powerful stuff this fall, they're deluding themselves.
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time. They actually thought that Senator Kerry's war record was a feature, rather than a bug.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:18 PMI think that this is a legitimate criticism of George Bush and his management style, though it's unclear how much the problem is of Bush's vacillation, and how much is guerrilla warfare within the bureaucracy. But even for the latter, I fault Bush for doing too little about it, starting with leaving George Tenet in place. While I never had high hopes for his administration, I was disappointed nonetheless (particularly by Cheney, for whom I did have higher hopes). About the best that can be said is that he was still far better than either of his opponents would have been.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:08 PMSo, the recent news out of the Obama camp is that they're planning a huge rally with thousands of people in a stadium, want to create a mandatory youth corps for national service, and are thinking about a big dramatic speech in Berlin.
Ein Volk, Ein Reich...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:21 PMThat's the recursive bit of wisdom that Douglas Hofstadter came up with, that goes "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law."
Jeff Foust has a good example of it today, as he examines the state of the suborbital industry. It looks now like no one is likely to enter commercial service prior to 2010, unless Armadillo can make it. Which brings up a little problem.
When the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (CSLAA) was passed in 2004, the industry got regulatory relief for eight years--until 2012--in which FAA-AST would not regulate the vehicles with respect to passenger safety, as long as there were no accidents involving passenger loss. This was in recognition of the fact that a) the agency didn't really know how to do that and b) if it attempted to do so, the industry might be still born as a result of a costly and time-consuming regulatory overburden. The eight-year period was provided to allow the companies time to develop and test vehicle design and operational concepts, with informed consent of the passengers, that would provide a basis for the development of such regulations as the industry matured (as occurred in the aviation industry in the twenties and thirties). In light of the SS1 flight in fall of that year, there was an expectation that there would be other vehicles flying in another two or three years (as Jeff notes--Virgin was predicting revenue service in 2007), which would have provided a five-year period for this purpose.
But if few, or none are flying until 2010, that leaves only two years before the FAA's regulatory power kicks in, which will be an insufficient amount of time to meet the intended objectives of the original maturing period.
Assuming that the logic still holds (and it certainly does for me, and I assume most of the industry and the Personal Spaceflight Federation) the most sensible thing to do would be to simply extend the period out to, say, 2018. Unfortunately (at least in regard to this issue), the most sensible thing is unlikely to happen.
In 2006, control of the Congress passed to the Democrats, which means that Jim Oberstar of Wisconsin took over as chairman of the relevant committee. He was opposed to the regulatory relief, railing against it as a "tombstone mentality" (whatever that means). He was unmoved by the argument that overregulating now would save passengers, but only at the cost of none of them ever getting to fly. Being in the minority at the time, he lost the battle, but now that he's in charge, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get an extension from him. In fact, even an attempt to do so might result in losing it altogether if the issue is revisited under his jurisdiction.
For those hoping for what would seem to require a miracle--Republicans regaining control of at least the House, this would be one more reason to wish for that, if they're fans of this nascent industry. Either that, or at least hope that Oberstar (and his partner in dumbness, Vic Fazio) moves to a different committee.
[Afternoon update]
Not that it affects the point in any way, but as a commenter points out, I goofed above. Oberstar is from Minnesota. I could have sworn he was a Badger.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:32 AM..."of running the country, the Dems would be the comedy hit of all time."
Quote from comments. I have to agree.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:50 PMI don't know how many major American politicians have died on Independence Day. The most famous examples, of course, are Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who both died on July 4th, within a few hours of each other, half a century after the signing. But whatever the number is, there's now one more. Here are some more thoughts on the man, written in February, in the context of a review of a biography that came out several months ago.
I was never a big fan--while I think that the complaints about the affirmative action campaign ad were overblown, I do agree with John Hood's assessment:
...by mixing a defense of property rights with less-savory references to "Negro agitators," out-of-state provocateurs, and Martin Luther King's subversive friends, Helms and other Southern commentators ended up weakening the very limited-government principles they espoused, with unfortunate and lasting consequences for American liberty. To make a truly persuasive libertarian case against federal regulation of private business decisions, it would have been necessary to marry every criticism of government overreaching with calls for the South's social and moral transformation and clear denunciations of racist business owners. Given that the segregation syndrome was largely the work of decades of intrusive laws and electoral abuses by state and local governments, there was at least a plausible conservative case to be made not just for federal intervention, but also for anti-discrimination laws to dismantle white supremacy and remedy the social and economic consequences of past state coercion.
Yes.
But he was also, by all accounts a kind and personable man, and a tireless fighter for human freedom as well, as the Solzhenitsyn story reveals. As one of those who helped win the Cold War, that part of his legacy shouldn't be overlooked by those who can only blindly (and probably unfairly, given all the caricatures) perceive a racist.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:41 PM...causation?
Maybe. The problem is, McCain is likely to be as bad in some ways, with all of his stupid talk about "obscene" profits.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 AMThomas James notes some irony in Dwayne Day's piece:
...when one follows the Google search link he does provide, a good number of the results have to do with James Hansen calling for trials of oil executives and others who question the political orthodoxy of global warming...trials whose political nature and predetermined outcome would no doubt have pleased the arguably fascist Roland Freisler.
Not exactly the point that Dr. Day was trying to make, I suspect.
[Previous post here]
[Update a couple minutes later]
Speaking of fascists, Thomas also offers a preview of August in Denver:
...come on..."Students for a Democratic Society"? As if the hippie nostalgia of Recreate 68 wasn't bad enough, we now have someone reanimating that corpse? I thought it was the right that supposedly clung to the faded glories of a distant golden age.
OK, so I guess it won't be another Summer of Love.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:47 AMEric Raymond sees the same disturbing things I do in Senator Obama:
I am absolutely not accusing Barack Obama of being a fascist or of having the goals of a fascist demagogue. I am saying that the psychological dynamic between him and his fans resembles the way fascist leaders and their people relate. The famous tingle that ran up Chris Matthew's leg. the swooning chanting crowds, the speeches full of grand we-can-do-it rhetoric, the vagueness about policy in favor of reinforcing that intoxicating sense of emotional identification...how can anyone fail to notice where this points?
There are hints of grandiosity and arrogance in Obama's behavior now. As the bond between him and his followers become more intense, though, it is quite possible they will not remain mere traces. I'm not panicked yet, because Obama is still a long way off from behaving like a megalomaniacal nut-job. But if the lives of people like Napoleon, Mussolini, or Hitler show us anything it's that the road from Obama's flavor of charismatic leader to tyrant is open, and dangerously seductive to the leader himself.There is one more historical detail that worries me, in this connection. There is a pattern in the lives of the really dangerous charismatic tyrants that they tend to have originated on the geographical and cultural fringes of the societies they came to dominate, outsiders seeking ultimate insiderhood by remaking the "inside" in their own image. Hitler, the border Austrian who ruled Germany; Napoleon, the Corsican who seized France; and Stalin, the Georgian who tyrannized Sovet Russia. And, could it be...Obama, the half-black kid from Hawaii?
Again, I am not accusing Barack Obama of being a monster. But when I watch videos of his campaign, I see a potential monster in embryo. Most especially do I see that potential monster in the shining faces of his supporters, who may yet seduce Obama into believing that he is as special and godlike as they think he is.
I don't know if the McCain campaign has the savvy or moxie to properly go after Obama, but I think that there will be a lot of 527s who will, once the campaign really starts in the fall.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:25 AMThat was Glenn's title for this post by Eric Raymond. I couldn't think of a better one.
This is a real problem and one that is dramatically underreported.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:24 PMJim Geraghty has some observations.
But I found this interesting (not that I hadn't seen it before):
...many religious believers probably couldn't imagine anything worse than not having their relationship with God. They don't see their relationship with their Creator, by whatever name they call the divine, as something they could be "free" from, and in fact a fairly common definition of Hell is in fact "complete separation from God."
This is one of those intellectual gulfs that separates me from believers. I not only can imagine not having a relationship with God, but I live the dream. Yeah, if I really believed in the fire and brimstone thing, and the imps <VOICE="Professor Frink">and the poking and the burning and the eternal tooooorment...glavin...</VOICE>, then I might decide that sinning wasn't worth it. But if hell be "complete separation from God," something that I've had all of my life, bring it on. All it gets from me is a shrug.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:23 PM...and civil rights:
The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, upholding the Second Amendment right of individuals to own firearms, should finally lay to rest the widespread myth that the defining difference between liberal and conservative justices is that the former support "individual rights" and "civil liberties," while the latter routinely defer to government assertions of authority. The Heller dissent presents the remarkable spectacle of four liberal Supreme Court justices tying themselves into an intellectual knot to narrow the protections the Bill of Rights provides.
I think that this is also an excellent example of how confusing and misleading, and useless really, the two labels are.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:51 AMFrom Powerline:
So Kerry's military experience was better than McCain's because after serving for four months in Vietnam, he returned to the U.S. and falsely accused his fellow servicemen of being war criminals. I think it's time for Wesley Clark to be ushered quietly off the stage.
Well, he was certainly quietly ushered out of Europe.
But it would appear that the man has neither brains nor shame.
I should add that I don't think that what he said on Face the Nation was reprehensible. I didn't hear it as denigrating McCain's service so much as simply pointing out that it didn't necessarily give him the experience needed to be president, which is a reasonable position. It would be even more reasonable if it weren't a straw man, since as far as I know no one, including McCain himself has ever claimed that it did.
But it was a stupid thing to say, considering the experience level of his own candidate.
[Afternoon update]
Heh.
Obama wants to get us out of Iraq, but he can't even get us out of Vietnam.
I think that what's happening is a result of the Democrats delusions about "swift boating." They think that John Kerry lost because people denigrated his military record, so they're hoping that they can neutralize McCain the same way.
And it might work if there were any parallels to the situation other than that both spent time in Vietnam during the war.
But unfortunately for the donkeys, McCain didn't:
But other than all that, all of this denigration of his service just might work.
There's a lot more over at Instapundit.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AMLike me, Chair Force Engineer isn't backing down, either.
[Update in the late afternoon]
What a pompous ego.
What "job" does Mark Whittington imagine that he has that he fantasizes is being made more difficult by his imaginary "Internet Rocketeers Club"?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:48 AMPatrick Ruffini says they're the key to a McCain win.
I wonder how much a Bradley effect (people telling pollsters they'll vote for a black man when they don't behave that way in the booth) is going on in the polls? In any event, pre-convention polls don't have much value.
[Late morning update]
If Patrick is right, this would be a good pick--Kasich for Veep.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:09 AMJacob Sullum writes that Barack Obama believes in an individual right to arms, except when he doesn't think they should have them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AMIt's been a hundred and fifty years since Darwin first presented his thesis. Charles Johnson has some thoughts. I may have some as well, later. Or not.
[A minute or so later]
Well, actually, I do now, in light of Lileks' comments this morning, in which he pointed out the simplistic, stilted views of many across the political spectrum. I'll repeat:
Really, if one wants to cling, bitterly, to the notion that a believe [sic] in lower taxes and strong foreign policy and greater individual freedom re: speech and property automatically translates to a crimpled, reductive, censorious view of pop culture, go right ahead.
Similarly, if one wants to cling, bitterly, to the notion that a concern about Islamism, and an inability to realize what an evil stupid fascist criminal George Bush is translates to a belief that the world was created by Jehovah six thousand some years ago, complete with dinosaur bones, go right ahead.
Before 911, Charles Johnson was a Democrat, and a jazz musician. Almost seven years ago, he got mugged by reality. That, combined with some scary things that were happening at a mosque near his home in Culver City resulted in a change in emphasis at his web site. Now many of the left wingnuts who read LGF stupidly assume that he's a "right" wingnut. Yet here he is, defending science from places like the Discovery Institute, on a semi-daily basis.
I get the same idiotic treatment, much of the time. I've often had discussions on Usenet whereupon, when I argue that maybe it wasn't necessarily a bad idea to remove Saddam Hussein's boot from the neck of the Iraqi people, and that I don't believe that George Bush personally planted the charges in the Twin Towers, I am told to go back to whatever holler I came from and play with my snakes, and am informed that my belief in a Christian God, and my lack of belief in evolution is just more evidence of my irredeemable stupidity, despite the fact neither religion or science had been on the discussion table.
I then take pleasure in informing them that I am an agnostic and for practical purposes an atheist, and that I am a firm believer in evolutionary theory, it being the best one available to explain the existing body of evidence. Whereupon, I am sometimes called a liar. Really. It's projection, I think.
Same thing often happens here, in fact. I tell people that I'm not a Republican, and have never been, nor am I a conservative, and I'm accused of lying about my true beliefs and political affiliation.
C'est la vie. There's no reasoning with some folks.
In any event, happy birthday to a controversial but powerful (as Dennett
[Late evening update]
Well, Iowahawk has the comment du jour:
I'm a dope-smoking atheist writer for a San Francisco lowbrow culture mag; I also enjoy seeing 7th century genocidal terrorist shitbags getting waterboarded. I really don't see the contradiction.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:09 AM
Lileks discusses the grief that he's gotten over the fact that he enjoyed the movie:
Shannen Coffin at the Corner notes that you never know how much hate mail you'll get until you take on a Pixar film. I'd add that the opposite is oddly true as well: I got a lot of very negative email about the review, some of which had to do with "shilling" (as one writer put it) for Disney, but most of which had to do with buying an eco-scary / anti-capitalist agenda because the characters were cute. Apparently I can write for years and demonstrate skepticism towards catastrophic doom-mongering, and it counts for nil. Ah well. Look, I think "JFK" is a pretty good piece of filmmaking. Its ideas are rubbish and its effect pernicious, but I still think it's a compelling work. Doesn't mean I believe a single frame.
Sometimes you separate the ideas from the movie, sometimes you can't, sometimes you shouldn't, and sometimes you don't want to because you approve of the ideas. Asking me to reject Wall-E because its unrealistic premise has contemporary overtones is like asking me to swear off Star Trek because Roddenberry wanted a post-religious collectivist one-world government that eschewed money and property.
He also chides Andrew Sullivan for stereotyping:
Apparently Andrew Sullivan took note of the review, and while I appreciate the patronage, this rankles a bit:
"Well Lileks loved it. Not all conservatives are stupid ideologues."And not all liberals are stupid anti-consumerists who spaz out when someone praises the Works of Walt! Who'd have thunk it. Really, if one wants to cling, bitterly, to the notion that a believe in lower taxes and strong foreign policy and greater individual freedom re: speech and property automatically translates to a crimpled, reductive, censorious view of pop culture, go right ahead.
Last night, I watched the end of Ratatouille, and afterward was a history of Pixar. Interesting stuff. It was a great example of the powerful synergy you can get when you successfully meld C. P. Snow's two cultures and combine traditional animators with computer geeks.
As good as they're getting at this stuff, though, I don't think that it's the death of 2-D animation. I suspect that as the 3-D stuff continues to asymptotically approach verisimilitude, there will be rebellious young turks who want to draw cartoons, and so the cycle will begin anew.
In any event, the foofaraw makes me want to see the movie in the theater, something I haven't done with a Pixar movie since Toy Story (though I wanted to with Ratatouille).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:56 AMMaybe they'll set up a gulag in flyover country.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:13 PMSteve Chapman explains:
Gun control didn't work...Laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated--with no ill effects...The Second Amendment got a second look.
Yes, it was pretty much that simple. Of course, a lot of people (like Juan Williams) will persist in the delusion, in the face of all the counter evidence, that gun control works, and that increasing availability will result in a blood bath. But at least now, they won't be able any more to enact their delusions into laws that affect the rest of us.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:40 AMWho dare call it fascism? Jeffrey Lord does:
...when faced with a disagreeable problem (in this case the lack of jobs) the answer for Obama always seems to get back to the manipulation of the political process to achieve the desired result.
Are Obamalanders uncomfortable with the free-market driven success of talk radio? Then they will "figure out ways to use the political process" to shut it down. In the case of talk radio, how else to explain the threatening Reid-Obama letter to Rush Limbaugh's business partner? How else does one explain the attempt to retrieve the "Fairness Doctrine" from the dustbin of history? These are nothing more or less than the "use of the political process" to subvert someone else's freedom. Period.Are Obamaland followers hostile to oil? Do they hate SUVs? Do they think you have no right to heat or cool your own home beyond what they consider politically correct? Do they think you should pay $5 -- or $6 or $7 or $8 or more -- for gas at the pump to ensure you conform to the Obamaland world-view? Yes, they do think all of this and their Obamaland answer is inevitable. They will "use the political process" to stop drilling off shore in its tracks. So too with stopping the use of oil shale or ANWR or anything else that even hints at allowing average Americans their basic freedom to drive whatever vehicle wherever they damn well please whenever they damn well please. In Obamaland it is not only perfectly acceptable, it is gospel from the secular bible that they must use the political process to stop refineries from being built, to keep nuclear power plants from being built, to keep coal from being burned. Use the political process to forcibly mandate the temperature inside every single American home. As a matter of fact, why not just go all the way and nationalize the oil companies -- this actually being suggested by Obamaland's New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey.
He also has the full quote from Obama that I'd missed part of the first time around:
"We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership."
This is economic idiocy. Why in the world would energy consumption be expected to correlate with population? Yes, we have much higher per-capita energy usage than much of the world (e.g., Africa). But we also produce much greater wealth per capita than much of the world, and much of that wealth goes to make the world wealthier, in many ways. The notion that we should only use energy in proportion to our population is economic ignorance of the first rank. In other words, it's exactly what I would expect from a Democrat, and particularly Obama. Though to be fair, there are a lot of economically ignorant Republicans as well, including their current standard bearer, by his own admission. But unlike Obama, he at least admits it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:22 AM"The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place. That's the only way we're going to win." The Left, as you know, favors democracy, power to the people, and nondiscrimination, except when it doesn't.
Indeed. Which is all too often.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AMHas the Supreme Court abandoned its role as a third branch of government?
It often seems that way.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:36 PMArthur Silber has concerns about the Obama cult:
People had better wake the hell up, and they had better study some history very damned fast. I have sometimes remarked, and I repeat the warning here, that the twentieth century was a nonstop train of horrors -- yet in one sense, the most terrible and horrifying aspect of the twentieth century is that we learned absolutely nothing from it.Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:56 PM
Among the horrors of the twentieth century were several notable leaders who initiated events that led to slaughter and destruction on an ungraspably monumental scale. These charismatic leaders evoked a response from their followers almost identical to that called forth by Obama. These leaders specialized in "personal stories of political conversion." Doesn't anyone see the connection? Doesn't anyone remember any of this?
It's been a hundred years since Tonguska, but we're still not taking the threat seriously.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:00 PMHillary!'s supporters are going to love this bit of hypocrisy:
The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)
McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.The Obama campaign did not respond to written questions submitted on the matter Thursday by Cybercast News Service .
No, I imagine not.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:32 PMI heard the interview with Wesley Clark on Face The Nation yesterday, and was awestruck by how stupid the former General came off as in his pathetic attempt to defend Barack Obama on foreign policy. So was Ed Morrissey. And I have to say, good for Bob Schieffer in calling him on his inane comments.
[Update at noon]
Here's more on Clark and his slander of McCain. I liked this excerpt:
"Interviews with a wide variety of current and retired military officials reveal that Clark was disliked by only three groups: Those whom ranked above him in the chain of command whom he ignored, his peers at the same rank whom he lied to, and those serving beneath him whom he micromanaged. Other than that, everyone liked him."
Also note that he's not the only Democrat denigrating McCain's war record.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Vets For Freedom have a response for General Clark.
[Early afternoon update]
[Another update a couple minutes later]
That's not the Wesley Clark I knew.
Man, it's got to be getting crowded under that bus.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 AMDwayne Day is complaining today at The Space Review about my and others' use of the word fascism to describe NASA's human spaceflight program, though he doesn't call me out by name (interestingly, when you do the Google search he suggests, this post doesn't even come up in the top ten, though it's only a link away from some of them).
I'll make two points. First, if he actually read Jonah's "screed" (his word), it isn't obvious from this review. For example, he says that Jonah doesn't criticize conservatives for their own fascist tendencies in the book, but that's patently false. And he seems to fall back on the old leftist paradigm that the epitome, almost definition of fascism were the Nazis and Mussolini's Black Shirts:
Fascist governments do not allow other competitors to exist. The first thing they do when they gain power is to eliminate their opposition at the point of a gun. Usually they started with the primary threat, the communists, then the fascists turned their weapons on less organized and non-political groups, like the Jews and the gypsies. Fascist groups have also reveled in their militaristic attributes such as discipline and uniforms and strength and weaponry. The groups most identified with fascism--the Nazis and the Italian fascists--were paramilitary organizations that sought to enact their goals through force. It is impossible to separate fascist ideology from the methods used to implement it.
Take out the words "communists," "Jews," and "gypsies," and in what way does this not describe Stalin's USSR? Did they not eliminate their opposition at the point of a gun? Did they not have "discipline and uniforms and strength and weaponry" (recall all those May Day parades with the missiles and tanks rolling down the streets, and goose-stepping Soviet troops)? Did they not "enact their goals through force"? Is not the same true of North Korea? Or Cuba?
What Dr. Day is talking about is what fascists do when they actually gain power, but fascism is not just the use of force. It is a set of ideas, to be implemented by whatever means necessary.
My second point, as I wrote in the previous post, is that those ideas are described in Jonah's book, particularly in reference to Apollo.
From the first edition, pages 210-211 (my annotations are in square brackets, and red), "Even Kennedy's nondefense policies were sold as the moral analogue of war...His intimidation of the steel industry was a rip-off of Truman's similar effort during the Korean War, itself a maneuver from the playbooks of FDR and Wilson. Likewise, the Peace Corps and its various domestic equivalents were throwbacks to FDR's martial CCC. Even Kennedy's most ambitious idea, putting a man on the moon, was sold to the public as a response to the fact that the Soviet Union was overtaking America in science..."
He went on. Again, the red text is my annotation of his words.
"What made [Kennedy's administration] so popular? What made it so effective? What has given it its lasting appeal? On almost every front, the answers are those elements that fit the fascist playbook: the creation of crises [We're losing the race to the Soviets! We can't go to sleep by a Russian moon!], national appeals to unity [They are our astronauts! Our nation shall beat the Soviets to the moon!], the celebration of martial values [The astronauts were all military, the best of the best], the blurring of lines between public and private sectors [SETA contracts, anyone? Cost plus? Our version of Soviet design bureaus?], the utilization of the mass media to glamorize the state and its programs [The Life Magazine deal for chronicling a bowdlerized version of the astronauts' lives], invocation of a "post-partisan" spirit that places the important decisions in the hands of experts and intellectual supermen, and a cult of personality for the national leader [von Braun..."Rocket scientists"...not just Kennedy Space Center, but (briefly) Cape Kennedy]."
Obviously, this can go overboard, and Dr. Day has some legitimate complaints. While certainly leftists use the term (as Dr. Day describes) to simply insult anyone who disagrees with them and shut down discussion, and have done so for years, that is not the way that it is being used here, at least not by me. I don't think that it's an insult to call something fascist (though I've certainly been called that enough times myself when that was the clear intent). I am not merely being Seinfeldian when I always append the phrase "not that there's anything wrong with that" to my usage of the word. I really mean it. Hitler gave fascism a bad name. Not to imply, of course, that I think that these are good ideas. Just that they're not intrinsically evil, and many millions of people in this country apparently buy into them, as demonstrated by Obama's campaign success.
In any event, I do think that it is a useful prism through which to view the program for the purposes of analyzing it, and trying to develop a more useful space policy. If we can recognize it for what it is, we stand a much better chance of moving things in a more useful direction, and one more in keeping with traditional American values, and classical liberalism.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:42 AMKyle Smith isn't impressed with WALL-E. Lileks loved it (though he's an admitted Disney/Pixarphile).
Guess I'll have to see for myself now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 AMI've always thought that Allan Lichtman is an idiot. His book, per its title, and as reviewed by David Frum confirms my beliefs. One doesn't have to be a conservative to think that much leftist criticism of conservatism is completely clueless, and brainless.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:28 PMChanging their middle name to "Hussein." As Glenn notes:
Our own lives are weak and meaningless. Only through identification with a great leader
Eric Raymond and I are on the same wavelength:
Gun owners who are (like me) libertarians and swing voters are in the same fix as SayUncle. Many of us have good reasons to loathe McCain; mine, as I've previously mentioned, is that I think BCRA (the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" act) was an atrocious assault on First Amendment liberties. Others can't stand McCain's position on immigration, or the idiotic blather he tends to spew on economics-related subjects. But for those of us who think Second Amendment rights are fundamentally important, voting for anyone who would appoint more anti-firearms judges (a certainty from Obama given his past views) is just not an option.
That translates into votes for McCain. Probably including (though I shudder and retch at the thought) my vote. It's not like there's any chance Obama's going to push for the repeal of BCRA. So I'm left with a choice between a candidate hostile to both my First and Second Amendment rights and one that supports the Second Amendment. (Normally I'd vote Libertarian, but the LP's isolationist foreign-policy stance seems so batty after 9/11 that I can't stomach that option in this cycle.)
Yup. One of the arguments that McCain will make with the bitter gun clingers is that he will be able to provide a Supreme Court that strongly, not narrowly supports gun rights. That's going to be very important now as the various cases work their way through the courts to define the limits of the "newly found" (that is, one that has been there since the Founding, but which many have attempted to pretend didn't exist for the past several decades) right.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:52 AMI'll bet that the Obama campaign does, too and worries about it. Hillary! supporters for John McCain:
I believe strongly that all of us should now unite for McCain because he needs all of badly...I am sure all of us won't vote for Obama and then all of us want Hillary badly to return 2012.....
The only way to make sure that Hillary will be our President 2012 is to make sure that McCain will win 08....
You know that's what Hillary! is thinking, regardless of the "Unity" speech.
[Afternoon update]
Here's someone else who is bitter, though it's not clear if he's clinging to God and guns:
A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for his support.
A second source said that the former president has kept his distance because he still does not believe Mr Obama can win the election.
Whatever else you want to say about Bill Clinton, he's not politically stupid. Though perhaps his judgment is slipping, based on the behavior in the campaign (which could in fact be a result of his heart surgeries). Either way, this isn't going to help heal the rift.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:55 AMFlorida just bought 300 square miles of cane fields in the everglades to return them to wetlands. They paid $1.75 billion. That buys out US Sugar that was responsible for 10% of the US sugar lobby. In April, in response to one of Rand's posts, I wrote that we needed to find a way to buy out big sugar. For 6 MT times $0.10 implicit subsidy/lb, that's $1.2 billion/year. US Sugar's share of that is $120 million per year. So $1.75B is a pretty good price for their concession.
Sweet deal, Rand! Thanks for taking one for the team as a Floridian to lower sugar prices nationwide.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 07:24 AMWretchard says perhaps:
Time will tell whether the Six Party talks will succeed in denuclearizing the Korean peninsula or whether it will founder, as did the Agreed Framework before it, on some new difficulty. But two factors make the new agreement more robust than the 1994 agreement. First, the multilateral format means that any North Korean double-cross would alienate not only the United States, but South Korea, Japan, Russia and most importantly, Pyongyang's patron China. North Korea has a lot more to lose by welshing on the Six Party Talks than it did on the Agreed Framework.
Secondly, because their fissile production line will effectively be dismantled -- the Yongbon cooling will be demolished -- North Korea's remaining blackmail leverage consists of a mere handful of low-yield nuclear material. And with the United States positioned to watch Pakistan and Iran, the future of any clandestine program is in serious doubt.
Expect complaints from the Bush deranged in the peanut gallery, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:11 AMThe Canadian Human WrongsRights Commission has dropped the charges against MacLeans and Mark Steyn.
In a sense, it's too bad. They were probably starting to feel the political heat. Now they will be free to go on and continue to abuse the free-speech rights of less prominent people, rather than being reined in as they should be.
[Update a few minutes later]
Ah, no worries. They can move right on to the next heretic:
Earle says Canadians are too politically correct.
"They pissed me off so I said some rude things. Does that mean I should go to court because ... they were based on some kind of minority or discrimination or something-something?"The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal will decide whether Earle's comments, which the complainant Lorna Pardy claims were "homophobic," violated the Human Rights Code on the basis of her "sex and sexual orientation."
Earle is now looking for a lawyer and he's hoping his newfound fame might help pay his legal bills. He's planning a comedy fundraiser for next month.
The complainants, of course, will have their legal bills paid by the province. Not that the lawyer will do him any good. It is foreordained that he will lose.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:36 AMJim Geraghty has some observations:
It's easy to wonder whether the candidate who talks about "real change" and pledges a government that will "heal the sick" and "stop the oceans from rising" actually knows how to get big things done - or whether he had the patience. Obama would seem to have the skills and brains to be a legendary community organizer, or state legislator, or U.S. senator. But momentous accomplishments in each of those positions take time, and at each level, Obama hit a wall, and turned his attention to a position of greater power.
This election will be about form (and glamour) over substance.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:59 AMI agree with Jonah Goldberg that George Bush did commit an impeachable offense when he signed McCain-Feingold. He took an oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution, yet when confronted with legislation that he himself declared to be unconstitutional, he signed it anyway, and punted to the Supreme Court which (as has been the case much of late, though fortunately not yesterday) flubbed it as well. I wish that someone, like Karl Rove, had said, "You know, Mr. President, that's a violation of your oath of office. It's an impeachable offense." But Karl Rove was never going to do that--the bill was perceived to be too popular.
I don't think that he should have been removed from office for it, but he should have been impeached. It might have wonderfully concentrated his mind for future signings. And that of future presidents as well.
Of course, that was never going to happen, because the grounds of impeachment would have been that he signed an unconstitutional bill that Congress had passed, so why would they complain? It would have required that the Congress itself take the Constitution seriously, something that, as Jonah points out, hasn't happened in decades. And of course, if they did, they never would have passed the abominable legislation in the first place and given the president an opportunity to violate his oath of office.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here's a useful follow-up post on how disastrous the 17th Amendment has been:
The reason why Congress debated whether proposed legislation violated the U.S. Constitution in the 19th century is that U.S. Senators were elected by the state legislatures at that time. The U.S. Senate was a check on the power of the federal government by giving the states as a group a collective veto over proposed federal action. Any time a state governor or a powerful state legislator was unhappy about the federal government trampling on the prerogatives of a state, they could call their man in Washington and have him do something about this problem. A U.S. Senator knew he had to keep the governor and majority leaders in his state legislature happy or he was out of office. This meant keeping the federal government small and not going beyond the enumerated powers listed out in the U.S. Constitution. Also, it meant being able to explain the constitutionality of proposed legislation to a small number of very sophisticated constituents back home at the various state capitals.
The tragedy of the Civil War was that, in order to rectify the (perhaps unavoidable at the time) toxic nature of the founding, and grant universal freedom, it ended up significantly enhancing the power of the central government far beyond what the Founders ever envisioned.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:14 AM...but are Supreme Court justices entitled to their own facts?
The call for impeachment in comments is a little harsh, but shouldn't there at least be a call for extreme embarrassment and apology? I mean, this was a fundamental plank in the foundation of the dissent, and none of the justices, or their clerks, caught it?
It makes one wonder how unfactually based many of their other opinions are. And it really emphasizes that "opinions" are all they are, which is a pretty sad commentary on the state of the SCOTUS. Unfortunately, an Obama would appoint more just like them.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jim Lindgren writes that Breyer's dissent is self refuting.
If you're waiting for me to be surprised, don't hold your breath. This court is an embarrassment. Or at least a minority of it is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:53 PM...begins.
I explained to Chief McCann my history as a freedom activist. Notably, my role in helping defeat the Communication Decency Act back in 1996.
I told him that I had been intending to speak with him for several weeks, to inform him that I intend to begin exercising my right to open carry of a firearm (quite legal in Pennsylvania and in most other states as well). I explained that I thought it best he and the local police knew of this in advance in order to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings. See opencarry.org for background on this fast-growing form of civil-rights activism.I also told him that, in the wake of the Heller ruling, I intend at some future point to deliberately violate the Pennsylvania state law forbidding concealed carry without a state-issued permit. The Heller ruling does not enumerate those among permissible restrictions, and I would be happy to be PA's test case on this point. As a citizen of the United States (I explained) I believe I have not only the right but the affirmative duty to challenge unjust and unconstitutional laws; and that since the founders of the U.S. pledged their lives and fortunes and sacred honor to sign the Declaration of Independence, merely risking imprisonment to challenge this law seems to me no more than my duty.
And by a tested and true freedom fighter.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:28 PMIt's just one of those things that white people like to do. This part is a little off, though:
It's also critical that you avoid the fatal mistake of getting creative and comparing people you don't like to other evil dictators, such as Joseph Stalin or Fidel Castro. With few exceptions, white people are actually fond of almost any dictator not named Hitler, and your remark that "this is just like something Mao Zedong would do" will be met with blank stares and possible social alienation. This is because, with the exception of Hitler, oppressive dictators share a passion for many of the things white people love- such as universal health care, conspiracy theories, caring about poor people while being filthy rich, and cool hats. Stick to the script and compare things you don't like to Hitler, and Hitler alone.
While it's good advice, actually, being the National Socialist Party, the Nazis did in fact have universal health care. Well, for the people they didn't exterminate, anyway. But that was true for Stalin, Castro and Mao as well. I think that the problem here is that the white people who like to do this don't really understand how much else Hitler had in common with their other socialist dictator heroes.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:56 PMI haven't read the dissents on this morning's ruling (and don't know if or when I will, given time constraints), but is it possible that the majority isn't as narrow as it looks? Four justices ruled that the DC ban was Constitutional, but they didn't necessarily do so on the basis that the right to keep and bear isn't individual. For instance, as Ed Whelan notes:
Stevens doesn't dispute that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but he finds the scope of that right limited to using weapons for certain military purposes. He argues that the text of the Second Amendment (5-17), its drafting history (17-27), and the Court's precedents--especially its 1939 ruling in United States v. Miller (42-45)--support his reading.Breyer argues that even if the Second Amendment does protect a right of personal self-defense, D.C.'s law is constitutional because the burdens it imposes are not disproportionate in light of the law's legitimate objectives. (That sure sounds like a meaningful test, doesn't it?)
So now we have at least six justices who agree that it is an individual right (Whelan doesn't say what Breyer's opinion on that score is, since Breyer doesn't accept that the ban would be Constitutional under that interpretation). And since Ginsburg and Souter joined the Stevens dissent, and didn't write one of their own disputing the individual right interpretation, doesn't it really make it at least eight to one?
I think that it's going to be pretty untenable at this point to argue that the right is a collective one in light of both the ruling and the dissents.
[Evening update]
Dale Carpenter agrees with me, and confirms that the acknowledgment of it as an individual right was in fact unanimous:
Chief Justice Roberts came in with the hope of producing more unanimous decisions from the Court. While today's decision was 5-4, it was actually unanimous on one point: there is an individual right protected by the Second Amendment. The split came over the important question of the scope of the right and whether the D.C. law itself was constitutional, but the underlying individual-right theory prevailed over a collective- or states-right interpretation that would give no single person the ability to challenge any type of arms regulation. Thus, an idea that not so long ago seemed radical and even frivolous to many academics and judges now has the assent of all of the Justices, representing a wide range of views about constitutional law and theory.
Emphasis mine. It was a huge victory when Bellesilles' propaganda was shown to be fraudulent. I think that it was the beginning of the end for the nonsensical notion that the right only applied to members of the National Guard, partly because the proponents had so overreached with his nonsense about few people having or using guns in colonial times. He has a lot of other good comments about the ruling as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:05 PM...about space policy
The three say they don't know for certain why the White House has failed to provide the appropriate guidance and funding needed to implement the Vision, "though we suspect it can be explained by Bush not knowing all the facts about what the real impact of NASA's annual budgets has been since the loss of the Columbia in 2003."
I think the problem is less in the funding, and more in the lack of guidance. Once Griffin was hired, the White House apparently decided that it was mission accomplished, and refocused to much more pressing issues, despite the fact that NASA's implementation seems to fly in the face of the original vision and the recommendations of the Aldridge Commission.
And Clark Lindsey gives them a lecture of their own:
These Senators don't seem to know that NASA could have chosen to pursue an innovative low cost approach to space development and lunar exploration rather than choosing a very long and very expensive path to two new vehicles, both of which will be very costly to operate. These Senators apparently don't even know about COTS, the one modest effort taken by the agency towards lower costs for space hardware development and operations.
Well, what most Senators don't know, particularly about space, could fill a small library. Maybe even a large one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:18 AMI'm disappointed that it was such a narrow majority:
District of Columbia v. Heller (Second Amendment challenge to D.C. handgun ban): Scalia majority opinion striking down ban. 5-4 ruling. Breyer dissent, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg. (No concurring opinions.)
If Obama does somehow get into the Oval Office, I'm glad that this case was handled this year. Almost certainly whoever his choice of nominees would be would have gone the other way. Of course, for the Dems, it will only be maintaining status quo, since it's the "liberal" justices that are most likely to step down soonest, I think.
Souter in particular was a disastrous pick for a supposedly Republican president.
Anyway, now on to the next case, depending on who brings it (I'm guessing someone in Chicago), which will bring in the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation. But at least the court is now on record as having declared the right an individual one (again, I'm saddened, but no longer shocked, that four justices bizarrely think otherwise).
[Update a few minutes later]
I'll add that, based on what I've seen so far, it looks like the majority got it right. It's an individual right having nothing to do with state militias, but not an unlimited one. A gun ban in shopping malls or campuses is stupid, but not unconstitutional.
[Update a little after 11 AM EDT]
Eugene Volokh already has some initial thoughts, with more surely to come later, after the opinion is read. This is an interesting political point:
This split should be useful to either of the Presidential candidates who wants to make either gun control or gun rights into an election issue -- my guess is that this is more likely to be McCain. Expect McCain ads in states where there are likely many pro-gun swing voters stressing, "your constitutional right to keep and bear arms hangs by one vote." Also expect fundraising letters to likely pro-gun contributors stressing this at length.
Also expect questions of Obama whether he continues to support the gun ban in Chicago. And whether he still thinks that gun sales should be banned within five miles of a school (i.e., almost everywhere).
[Afternoon update]
I haven't read the dissents (and don't know if or when I will, given time constraints), but is it possible that the majority isn't as narrow as it looks? Four justices ruled that the DC ban was Constitutional, but they didn't necessarily do so on the basis that the right to keep and bear isn't individual. For instance, as Ed Whelan notes:
Stevens doesn't dispute that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but he finds the scope of that right limited to using weapons for certain military purposes. He argues that the text of the Second Amendment (5-17), its drafting history (17-27), and the Court's precedents--especially its 1939 ruling in United States v. Miller (42-45)--support his reading.Breyer argues that even if the Second Amendment does protect a right of personal self-defense, D.C.'s law is constitutional because the burdens it imposes are not disproportionate in light of the law's legitimate objectives. (That sure sounds like a meaningful test, doesn't it?)
So now we have at least six justices who agree that it is an individual right (Whelan doesn't say what Breyer's opinion on that score is, since Breyer doesn't accept that the ban would be Constitutional under that interpretation). And since Ginsburg and Souter joined Stephens dissent, and didn't write one of their own, doesn't it really make it at least eight to one?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:50 AMOr a PC?
[Update in the afternoon]
Why we should want big government to be a PC:
You know I love the products, but Apple is a fascist company. I should know -- I worked there. Even got personally cussed out by Steve Jobs (may his name be praised forever).
Apple products are based on centralized command-and-control. Apple makes the hardware, software, and -- increasingly -- many key applications ("everything inside the state, nothing outside the state"). The Apple faithful believe that the computing world dominated by Microsoft is bad (if not outright evil) and must be redeemed. If only everyone changed to their way of computing, we would reach computing nirvana. And society would be changed for the better, too. If only.
The analogy may be getting a little strained.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AMThere's an interesting article over at the NYT about the Pentagon's difficulty in getting good engineers, particularly systems engineers.
In short, the pay is too low, it's not seen as exciting as a lot of the other opportunities for new grads (e.g., Google, or other fields such as finance), programs take too long and are technologically obsolescent, and there's too much bureaucracy. Sounds kind of like the reasons I left fifteen years ago.
This was amazing to me, but I guess that after almost three decades in the business, it shouldn't be:
Their report scolded the Air Force as haphazardly handling, or simply ignoring, several basic systems-engineering steps: considering alternative concepts before plunging ahead with a program, setting clear performance goals for a new system and analyzing interactions between technologies. The task force identified several programs that, hobbled by poor engineering management, had run up billions of dollars in overruns while falling behind schedule.
I've seen this happen at NASA many times over the years, but that doesn't surprise me because space isn't important. National defense is, or at least should be. One wonders how to change the incentives in the system to get better performance. Part of the problem is that the services themselves, particularly the Air Force (with which I have the most experience) don't value procurement highly enough as a career path. It's a lot easier to become a general via the cockpit than it is through logistics or development. The other problem is that you often having young lieutenants and captains given responsibility for programs of a size far beyond what they'd be managing at a similar experience level in private industry. This is good from the standpoint of encouraging recruitment, but it often means that they lack the experience to handle the job, and even (or especially) when they're good, they may be promoted up and out of the program. That's one of the Aerospace Corporation's primary functions--to provide program support to the blue suits, and maintain an institutional memory to make up for the fluidity of personnel changes of the AF staff.
In theory, it's a big opportunity for people like me (I actually have a masters degree in aerospace program management), but it's hard to get consulting work as an individual due to arcane procurement rules. Also (though the article didn't mention it) it's a hassle to deal with a clearance, and I'm not in any rush to renew mine, though I'm starting to consider it, because I really do need the income. Blogging just isn't paying the bills.
Oh, one other thing. The description of the problems above bears a strong resemblance to a certain controversial large NASA project, where maintenance of the job base and pinching pennies seems to take precedence over actually accomplishing the goal. Or "closing the gap."
[Via Chicago Boyz]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:24 AMThough not necessarily change you can believe in. That's not the Mike Klonsky I knew.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:28 AM...at Lileks' place:
It happened when it usually happens, too - every gets home, flips on the air conditioner and turns on the TV, and the brittle infrastructure, held together at the moment with masking tape and some alligator clips, spazzes out completely. This will continue - there's a controversy going on here about some new power lines and generating plants. A judge blocked the latter, because the utility hadn't invested enough in wind power, as per the law. That's the sort of sentence that makes your heart very heavy: a judge ruled that they can't build the power plant. I'm all for trying everything - wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, switchgrass, algae, hydrogen, steroidally enhanced gerbils running in cages attached to generators, steam, hydro, shale, and installing small pedals in movie theaters people can push to power the projector, but DO SOMETHING. NOW.
The world has gone nuts. People complain about high energy costs, and the Democrats' response is to fight every sensible attempt to increase supply, and tell us that the price isn't high enough. And so far, they seem to be paying no penalty at the polls for it. It would help, at least a little, if we didn't have a faux Democrat (at least when it comes to economics) at the top of the Republican ticket.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:45 AMIf ethanol is so great, why doesn't he support its importation from Brazil? Surely it's not because he's in the pocket of ADM?
ADM is based in Illinois, the second-largest corn-producing state. Not long after arriving in the U.S. Senate, Obama flew twice on corporate jets owned by the nation's largest ethanol producer. Imagine if McCain flew on the corporate jets of Exxon Mobil.
Corn-based ethanol gets a 51-cents-a-gallon tax subsidy that will cost taxpayers $4.5 billion this year. McCain opposes ethanol subsidies while Obama supports them. McCain opposed them even though Iowa is the first caucus state. Obama, touted by Caroline Kennedy as another JFK, was no profile in courage in Iowa....Last year, as President Bush was about to sign an energy cooperation agreement with Brazil, Obama said the move would hurt "our country's drive toward energy independence."
Really? The only thing it might hurt is Obama's drive to the White House.
Must be that new politics. You know, "change"?
And it's also amusing to note that the Democrats don't want to wait for drilling to pay off, but they're perfectly happy to wait for switch grass.
[Mid-morning update]
If it's intended to cut the nation's energy bill, Obama's ethanol policy makes no sense, if it's intended to secure the nation's energy supplies, Obama's ethanol policy makes no sense, if it's designed to improve the nation's relationship with a major Latin American trading partner, Obama's ethanol policy makes no sense, but, if, on the other hand, it's just another example of good old porkbarrel politics, Obama's ethanol policy makes a great deal of sense.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:11 AM
"Obama's positions are like diapers: they are discovered to be full of carp, and then they are changed."
Not clear whether the misspelling was deliberate or not, but we get the point.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:13 AM...and its senior senator, Chris Dodd. Luckily, he's a Democrat, so it's no big deal. They're never corrupt, and never do anything without the best interests of the people in mind.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 AMSorry I didn't mention it yesterday so you could listen live, but hey, the ability to download and listen at your own convenience is one of the features of the Interweb. Last night I did a one-hour interview with Rick Moran on space stuff. Download it here.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AMMore thoughts on James Hansen's demand of an auto de fe by those in the pay of Big Oil (further cementing the notion that this isn't science--it's a religion). No one expects the WARM MONGER'S INQUISITION...
Read the comments.
I do wonder if this is a violation of the Hatch Act.
[Wednesday morning update]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 PMAs usual, Doug Cooke defends ESAS:
The "direct" variation fails to meet NASA's needs on several grounds. It is vastly over-capacity and too costly to service the International Space Station, but worse, its lift capacity would not be enough for NASA to maintain a sustained presence on the moon.
Advocates for the "direct" variation are touting unrealistic development costs and schedules. A fundamental difference is that the Ares I and Orion probability of crew survival is at least two times better than all of the other concepts evaluated, including "direct"-like concepts.
Also as usual, he provides no evidence for his assertions. We are simply supposed to accept them because Doug Cooke says so. Have we ever seen the actual report that came out of the sixty-day study, with a description of methodology and assumptions? I haven't.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of "Direct," but his statement raises more issues than it answers. Why doesn't the "lift capacity allow a sustained presence on the moon" in a way that ESAS does? Why should it be assumed that NASA's new launch system will service space station? I thought that this was what COTS was for? What are the marginal costs of an additional Jupiter launch versus Ares 1?
Give us some numbers, and provide a basis for them, and we might take this seriously.
[Wednesday morning update]
More thoughts and comments at NASA Watch, and from Chair Force Engineer.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:02 PMRich Lowry is feeling sorry for Senators Dodd and Conrad.
You know, people who don't know what a kind-hearted and sensitive soul Rich is might think that he's being sarcastic.
Seriously, if these were Republican Senators, you know that the media would be howling about it, with demands for hearings and Justice Department investigations. But they're not.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:09 AMThat's what Barack Obama, and anyone who supports US ethanol price supports and tariffs against Brazilian imports is.
I agree.
By the way, so are Algore and James Hansen...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:13 PMThis would be an interesting development:
As Father Dall'Oglio warns darkly, Muslims are in dialogue with a pope who evidently does not merely want to exchange pleasantries about coexistence, but to convert them. This no doubt will offend Muslim sensibilities, but Muslim leaders are well-advised to remain on good terms with Benedict XVI. Worse things await them. There are 100 million new Chinese Christians, and some of them speak of marching to Jerusalem - from the East.
As Spengler notes, the Muslims should be worried. That truly would be the first real challenge to them, if not since the founding of the religion, at least since the Crusades.
Whose side do you think that the left will take? How many guesses do you want?
[Evening update]
In comments, Carl Pham asks:
What's to be appalled about in the Crusades, eh? Is this just regurgitating some politically-correct pap y'all were fed in public school?
I'm only appalled by the Crusades in the same sense that I'm appalled by the Middle Ages in general (I don't actually recall learning about them in public school, which in itself, regardless of the learning content, is an interesting commentary about public school in the sixties and early seventies. It's no doubt worse now, since it's better to know nothing of the Crusades than to be mistaught them).
And in being appalled, I'm judging it by modern sensibilities. As I said, Islam was more (much more) appalling in its behavior.
Then. And more importantly (and even more), now.
But I'm sure I'll get more Anonymous Morons in comments, whom I'll take great pleasure in appropriately naming, unwittingly making my point about which side the leftists will take.
Also:
If you want to look for unpleasant proselytizing by Christian nations, take a look at South and Central American under the Spanish in the 1500s and 1600s. The Crusades do not quality. Islam is only pissed about them because they coincided with the high-water mark of Islam's own effort to conquer the world.
Agreed. Latin American's dismal state is a consequence of having been colonized by Spain (and it was a Christian Spain). It continues to be mired in a feudal culture, which has only transmogrified into a socialist/fascist one, as exemplified by "liberation theology." Which is (unfortunately) not that far off from the "black liberation theology" of Senator Obama's former church.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:21 PMOr is it a sleeping possum?
Am I the only one to think that this was a misfired strategy by Obama to be all things to all people? The latte drinkers would be impressed by the Latin, and the possum would appeal to the bitter guns'n'God clingers. You know, the ones with the bumper stickers that say "Eat More Possum"?
Nahhh, the campaign is clever, but it's not that clever. Or maybe it's too clever by half.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:08 PMAmity Shlaes, on Barack Obama:
The New Deal exists principally on an emotional plane for Obama. To him the New Deal is something you play like a song, to make you or your constituents feel better. Let me be clear: It's too early to judge Obama on economics. But he does seem unaware of the economic consequences of government expansion that happens under the New Deal name.
Politicians generally act as if there is no cost to reconnecting with voters by building new New Deals. But the whole exercise of writing law out of New Deal nostalgia is a form of national narcissism. Call it New Deal narcissism.We could afford to burnish our social contracts if there were no competition from abroad. But there is.
Which is one reason why the so-called progressives hate globalization. And ironically, one of the primary reasons for the Great Depression, and certainly for its length and depth, was economic isolationism in the form of Smoot-Hawley. The New Deal was a flawed, fascist attempt to make up for our economic disengagement from the world. The war ended the depression. Unfortunately, much of the New Deal, and the mentality that led to it, remains in place. Obama is simply the latest Great Man, a man of Change, and Action, to want to preserve and expand it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:31 AMEven under the most generous reading imaginable could any of that count as passing legislation that extended health care for wounded troops? The Chicago Tribune noted the problem on its blog last week but defended Obama by pointing out that John McCain didn't vote for the bill either. That would be an interesting piece of information if John McCain had cited this bill as among his chief legislative accomplishments.
The Obama team's desire to pad the resume is understandable -- it's awfully slim after all. But this kind of dishonesty will catch up with them...or at least it should.
Yes, it should, but maybe it won't. Bill Clinton's supporters didn't seem to mind that he was an inveterate liar. But Obama's supporters (which includes much of the media) not only don't mind, but actually hope he is.
[Afternoon update]
Is he finally losing his teflon?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AMI'm sure that Ian McEwan will be arrested presently:
'As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticises it is racist.
"This is logically absurd and morally unacceptable. Martin is not a racist.'And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on - we know it well.
It will be interesting to see if the authorities come after him for this bit of politically incorrect truth telling. He's lucky he doesn't live in the police state of Canada.
Speaking of which, Professor Reynolds has a pithy comment:
When the stormtroopers wear clown shoes instead of jackboots, it's easy to forget that they're still stormtroopers.
And so far, the circus up there continues.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 AMMore historical ignorance from Senator Obama:
Obama's unfavorable comparison of the legal treatment at Gitmo with that at Nuremberg suggests either that he doesn't know what he's talking about - or that he feels free to exploit the ignorance of audiences that don't know the truth of the matter.
Hey, it's all about fooling the rubes. The sad thing is that the press never questions him on this kind of thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:14 AMLileks has more thoughts on the subject:
It is amusing, really - after sticking people's heads in the muck every day for years, promoting every faddish scare, fluffing the pillow beneath every yuppie worry, swapping the straight-forward adult approach to news with presenters who emote the copy with the sad face of a day-care worker telling the children that Barney is dead - in short, after decades of presenting the world through the peculiar prism that finds in every day more evidence of our rot and our failures, they wonder why people are depressed. Hang the banner, guys: Mission Accomplished.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:04 AM
Of course, not everyone feels this way; I'd guess that people who watch television news are more inclined to pessimism. But there's another side to this: the pessimism among some may not stem from some impotent feeling that one is a cork toss'd in a sea of cruel destiny, that you can't do anything, that nothing will get better - no, the pessimism may arise from the suspicion that there's something abroad in the land that's had a good hardy larf about "Horatio Alger" and all the other manifestations of individual initiative for 30 years. The cool kids and the clever set have always smirked at that sort of stuff. You can get them going if you make a speech about our ability to solve things, but you'd better phrase it in the form of a government initiative, or brows furrow: well, then, how do you propose to do it?
It looks like Virginia Postrel's thesis is starting to be borne out:
It is weird how so many who claim to like Obama hope he is lying.
Or maybe it's not weird at all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:39 AMIf you wanted to emphasize to voters that the Democrats' nominee is a bit stuck up, it would be hard to do better. I suppose he could start requiring reporters to stand when he enters the room. ... The seal probably started out as a bit of fun. But unless David Axelrod is insane, the thing will never be seen again.
Let us ponder the possibility that Axelrod is insane. After all, he let this thing happen in the first place...
Anyway, the next step to me would be to have a band strike up "Hail the Messiah" (only a slight variation on "Hail to the Chief") and project a holographic halo over his head whenever he enters the room.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:34 PMI'm with "Demosophist":
Obama is formidable, ruthless, smart, charming and probably unbeatable. I see a landslide brewing. If it happens, we will see a first 100 days comparable only to Reagan's, when the country made a 180 degree turn.I just want to make clear that I don't think the US taxpayer should be liable for the massive psychotherapy costs should things not work out this way.
Hey, as that compassionate "conservative" George W. Bush once said, when someone is hurting, the government's gotta move!
More seriously, on the general theme of the post, I think that AL has far too much faith in Obama.
[Evening update]
For those who don't understand the reference of the post title, here it is, from three and a half years ago. I remember it well, because south Palm Beach County seemed to be one of the epicenters of the phenomenon.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:29 AM...with handguns:
Politicians are not violent by disposition. They live in some of the safest neighborhoods, with wrought iron fences, automatic garage doors, cameras on light poles and armed police bodyguards.
Meanwhile, the taxpayers, who live without bodyguards, are told that if they want to protect themselves with a handgun just like the politicians, they themselves will be criminalized.It is all about power in the end.
The founding fathers understood this, and crafted the Constitution accordingly. They understood Chicago before it was.
Hey, gun laws are for the little people.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:21 AMThat's what Rachel Lucas is doing. Well, someone has to do it, since society at large seems to have abdicated its role.
Like her, I was struck by the stupidity of this, reported apparently completely unironically, as though it made, you know, sense:
The Gloucester baby boom is forcing this city of 30,000 to grapple with the question of providing easier access to birth control...
Well, hey folks. It's hard to see what that would do for this particular little baby boomlet.
There may be some problems that are solved by easier access to birth control, but brainless young women going out of their way to get knocked up isn't one of them. I think, for that, there will have to be some other solution (unless by "easier access," they mean tubal ligation).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:34 AMNoemie Emory writes that Obama's problem is not race--it's arugula:
..let us imagine a different candidate, one who looks like Barack Obama, with the same mixed-race, international background, even the same middle name. But this time, he is Colonel Obama, a veteran of the war in Iraq, a kick-ass Marine with a "take no prisoners" attitude, who vows to follow Osama bin Laden to the outskirts of Hell. He comes from the culture of the military (the most color blind and merit-based in the country), and not the rarefied air of Hyde Park. He goes to a church with a mixed-race congregation and a rational preacher. He has never met Bill Ayers, and if he did he would flatten him. He thinks arugula is a town near Bogota and has Toby Keith on his favorites list. Would he strike no chords at all in Jacksonian country? Does anyone think he would lose 90 to 9 in Buchanan County? Or lose West Virginia by 41 points? For those Jacksonians who would be fine with a black man in the White House (not as tiny a group as Newsweek thinks), Colonel Obama is the one we are waiting for. When we will get him is anyone's guess.
Interestingly, the Republican candidate in my district in Boca Raton, Florida, seems to be "Colonel Obama." Except his name is Colonel West:
WEST, WHO DISMISSES Obama as "an empty suit," normally doesn't raise the race issue himself, preferring instead to emphasize what he calls "American issues" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Riding the strength of that message, West says he's not intimidated by the Democrat's money advantage. "We don't need to match Ron Klein dollar for dollar," he says. "There's a difference between being a fundraiser and being a leader."Reflecting on his own experience of being pushed out of the Army for doing what he felt necessary to protect his troops, West touches on the theme of character that is central to his campaign.
"In life, you're going to get knocked down," he says. "The measure of someone's character is what you do after you've been knocked down."
It should be an interesting race.
[Sunday morning update]
Wow.
In the course of investigating how Rush Limbaugh and I could be in the same congressional district (he's way up north near Jupiter (the island, not the planet), I think, while we're down south), I looked at the district boundaries. I'd never really paid that much attention. Now that's a gerrymander on steroids. Someone ought to challenge it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:53 PMEd Driscoll has some thoughts on haters of humanity, who are now making Hollywood films to convey their views.
Hey, how about if we save the earth by migrating into space?
Somehow, I don't think they'll like that, either.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:25 PMIf Israel attacks Iran, El Baradei will resign. Could we count on him to follow through, though?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:15 AMI think that this is a much more justifiable term than "Islamaphobia" or "homophobia."
But then, maybe it is just bigotry.
[Saturday update]
They're not theophobes. They're just theophobic about conservatives. So, that's all right then.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:13 PM...against the pessimism. I think that Stephen Gordon is right in comments. People are optimistic in their own lives, and think that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, because they watch and read too much news.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 AM...with Google:
Bowers chose the news articles by matching the topics to existing polling data that shows what issues likely will turn voters off to McCain. He also makes sure that the articles come from news organizations like CNN.com, which already are highly ranked in Google search results, he added.
"We're just using McCain's own words -- everything we are targeting are things McCain has done or said himself. There's no bias at all. There are no opinion pieces. They are all news pieces that quote McCain himself. Obviously it is manipulating, but search engines are not public forums and unless you act to use them for your own benefit your opponent's information is going to get out there. This is the sort of 'Do It Yourself' activism that is very much in line with the tone of this campaign," Bowers said.
Somehow, based on some of Google's actions in the past, I suspect they don't mind.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 AMByron York writes that Obama is running for president of the wrong country:
I have a friend in London, very Euro in outlook, who is terrifically frustrated and worried about the election.
His chief concern: the role of Americans. "It's a pity that Americans are the ones who elect the president," he says. "It would be much better if the people of the world voted on the American president."And guess who would be elected in such a scenario? Here's a hint: It's not John McCain.
Of course, as he points out, this is the only country in which he'd have a chance of running.
Anyway, I hope they're very disappointed in November.
[Evening update]
Here's some cold water thrown on the hopefuls for a world-president Obama:
...frothing phantasms over how Mr. Obama's "imagined persona" -- as a Muslim or a third world person -- are already crowding this view, fanning out of the airwaves of Al-Jazeera TV into effervescent Arab websites and public opinion polls, all murmuring about miraculous turnabouts and new alliances.An Obama administration shall deliver a free Palestine, a defanged Israel liberated enough of its Jewishness to welcome millions of returning Muslim Palestinians, instant friendship with Iran's mullahs, a handover of the Golan Heights, and prompt departure from Iraq.
Mr. Obama needs to burst these bubbles, as none of this is likely.
Yup.
Unfortunately, in his attempts to square these circles, he'd be likely to do a lot of damage, Jimmy-Carter style.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:37 AMThoughts from a Canadian artist:
Under Bill C-10, film producers will no longer be able to use tax credits as collateral when receiving their interim loans from banks (thus lessening their chances of securing these loans), nor will they be able to work them into their cash flow as a way of funding post-production needs. However, there is nothing stopping these producers from getting their money from another source. There is also absolutely nothing stopping them from making their films in this country, regardless of the content. All the bill says is that some films will not be made on the public dollar.
Compare that to what could happen if a human rights tribunal decides against Maclean's: It could order the private magazine to publish material and images against its editors' wishes. Let me repeat that: The state will order Maclean's to publish something it does not want to publish. Isn't that what China does? So why don't ear-to-the-ground, free speech-loving Canadian artists denounce it?
First they came for the right-wing **sholes. But I'm not a right-wing **shole, so I said nothing...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:13 PMIs John McCain ready for a flip on ANWR?
For years, McCain has opposed drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
But McCain said he'd be willing to reconsider that stance as well."I would be more than happy to examine it again," McCain said.
A perfect way for him to do it would be to actually go there (as he's rightfully demanded that Senator Obama go to Iraq), and then standing there, in the barren wasteland, cameras rolling, point out the area that would be affected, how far away the beautiful mountains are, how tiny a percentage of the area would be impacted, etc., and say "I have always been in favor of the environment, and have opposed drilling up here for that reason. But with gas at four dollars a gallon, much of the price being driven by speculation that Congress will continue to oppose opening up new supplies, and now that I've seen how minimal the impact will be on the refuge as a whole, I agree that it's perfectly reasonable and appropriate to tap this huge resource for the American people, and the world."
It would be a huge win for him politically, and it has the additional virtue of being good policy.
By the way, this wouldn't be a "flip flop," which is a term that applies to changing one's position multiple times depending on the political winds. This would be a single flip, based on dramatically changing economic circumstances, rather than politics. As Keynes once said, "when confronted with new facts, sir, I change my opinion. What do you do?"
One other point--this would also be a perfectly reasonable justification for Obama to change his position on Iraq, given the progress in the last year. But unlike a McCain flip on ANWR, it might kill him politically, by sending the nutroots to Ralph Nader.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:37 PMIt's not as though it needed another one. But check this out:
At a time when concerns about both identity theft and government spying are paramount, Congress wants to create a new honey pot of private data that includes Social Security numbers. This bill reduces privacy across America's payment processing systems and treats every American small business or eBay power seller like a criminal on parole by requiring an unprecedented level of reporting to the federal government. This outrageous idea is another reason to delay the housing bailout legislation so that Senators and the public at large have time to examine its full implications.
You know, the revolutionaries in Boston had it right. Time to revive tar and feathers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:49 PMAnn Althouse is trying to figure out Obama's position on Gitmo. His flowery rhetoric doesn't offer much of a clue, apparently.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:04 AMOff-shore drilling, or oil tankers? Of course, many "environmentalists" would like to ban both. And have us go back to chopping wood, and forty acres and a mule. As long as we aren't too cruel to the mule.
But it's pretty clear to me that off-shore drilling with modern technology is much lower risk, in terms of oil spills, than having foreign-flagged tankers operating in our waters. This kind of false sense of safety, and misplaced priority is common. For instance, some people avoid flying, because they fear it, and drive instead, vastly increasing their risk of being killed on the trip. I don't know whether people who oppose oil drilling are being similarly irrational, or if they simply recognize it as an easier target than ending oil imports, so they grab whatever low-hanging fruit they can to minimize our oil consumption (and drive up the price, which is perhaps part of the goal).
Also, as noted here, banning drilling off US shores doesn't eliminate the risk of spills from drilling. It just moves it to other (and perhaps even more environmentally sensitive) places.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:52 AMAn Obama administration would be a third Clinton term. Except without Bill and Hillary. Er...and presumably the sex scandals. Though there seems ample material for other kinds, given his campaign so far.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:15 AMI have a new piece up over at Pajamas Media on space transportation and the Interstate Highway System.
Hey, it was Mike Griffin who made the analogy, not me.
I should also note that while the title is mine, the subheadline is theirs.
[Late afternoon update]
Only Mark Whittington would have the native talent to so misread this piece as to think that I was "expressing astonishment." Of course, it's not the first time that he's fantasized about my views.
[Another update]
Now Mark is fantasizing that I actually want, or expect NASA to build the Interstate to space.
Well, it's totally in character for him.
I sure wish he'd learn to read for comprehension.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:02 AMOr it would be, if there weren't a significant possibility of this guy actually getting into power.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:40 AMThe smears against Muslims, that is:
Apparently, it is OK for Mr. Obama to be associated with terrorists like William Ayers or racists like Jeremiah Wright, but God forbid somebody would call him a Muslim! No, he won't stand for that kind of smear! We admit that most terrorists are Muslims, but most Muslims are not terrorists and the statement on Mr. Obama's website is insulting to hundreds of millions of people.
How could a man who discards his family heritage in favor of political expediency be even considered for presidency of the United States? Where are all the so-called "Islamic civil rights groups" like CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, MAS, etc. who are quick to defend every Islamic terrorist, but are silent when Muslims in general are being denigrated? Would Mr. Obama have the same reaction if someone claimed that he was raised as a Jew? We sincerely doubt that.Muslims Against Sharia demand immediate removal of "SMEAR: Barack Obama is a Muslim" statement from the official Barack Obama's website as well as an apology for giving the word "Muslim" a negative connotation.
They're right. This is delicious.
Maybe Obama should take the Seinfeld approach. "I am not a Muslim. Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:26 AMUnlike Jimmy Carter, Obama apparently will lie to us.
Of course, I'm not aware that Obama has ever made a Carter-like pledge.
By the way, I don't mean to imply that Carter doesn't speak falsehoods. I just think that he's delusional enough to believe them.
[Update in the early afternoon]
Here's more on Obama's campaign-finance hypocrisy.
...public financing and lobbyist money are yet additional examples of how Obama is on both sides of every issue -- Iraq, the Cuban embargo, a divided Jerusalem, NAFTA et al. Is the press at all interested in pointing this out?
That was a rhetorical question, right?
[Update a few minutes later]
Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing Obama for declining public financing per se. I think that public financing is an ugly chancre on the body politic, and I cheer when it's foregone. I wish that McCain would do the same thing. Unfortunately, he'd look even more hypocritical if he did so, due to his having become the point man for all of these idiotic and unconstitutional campaign finance laws. He could use this as an excuse to follow suit, saying that he had no choice, given Obama's going back on his word, but we all know that if he did, the howls from the media would be deafening.
Well, according to the BBC, he didn't lie. He just "reversed his promise."
Well, that's all right then.
It's only fair to note that technically, they're correct. If Obama said it while having no intention of doing it at the time, it would be a lie, but we can't get into his mind. Sometimes promises aren't kept, but that doesn't mean that they were a lie at the time they were made. I was always annoyed when people told me that George H. W. Bush lied when he said "read my lips, no new taxes." A broken promise is, in fact, not the same as a lie. But it's a reason to not consider voting for someone.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:30 AMMalicious and mendacious propaganda from Moveon.org? Say it ain't so!
This reminds me of that idiotic interview that O'Reilly did with Michael Moore a few years ago, when Moore kept asking O'Reilly if he would send his child to Iraq. If O'Reilly had been on his toes, he would have pointed out that a) no "children" are sent to Iraq and b) that the adults who do so have signed up for the service voluntarily, and don't need their parents permission, and are not "sent" by their parents, unless their parents happen to be their commanding officers. But this mindless trope of the left will never die.
[Afternoon update]
This is a pretty funny comment, over at Maguire's place:
Don't be misled by the name, lady: the 3rd Infantry Division is not made up of infants.
Hey, you can't expect them to know about this stuff.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:17 AMKeith Cowing thinks that the Coalition for Space Exploration is asking the wrong questions.
If the Coalition for Space Exploration really wants to further the notion of a robust taxpayer-funded program of space exploration - one based on a solid footing of public support - then they need to start paying attention to what their polls actually say and stop trying to skew the results to say something that the numbers do not support. If, however, they want to support space exploration - regardless of how it comes about - then they need to re-examine their motives - and ask different questions.
People might not want to pay more taxes for space exploration, but they might be interested in buying a ticket.
Indeed.
As usual (and perhaps inevitably), an organization ostensibly set up for the purpose of supporting space exploration in general ends up being a NASA cheerleader. That's partly because a lot of the funding for it comes from the space industrial complex. In any event, these polls should always be taken with a grain, if not a whole shaker of salt. They're based on public ignorance, and once again demonstrate that support for the current plans are a mile wide and an inch deep.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 AM"Messrs. Obama and McCain both reveal a disturbing animus toward free markets and success."
Indeed.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:22 AMAlan Boyle has an interesting story on flood prediction. Well it is to me, anyway.
Robert Criss, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, agreed that the forecasts have been "remarkably accurate" - within the limits of the system, that is. He noted that the flood wave is working its way down the Mississippi River at about walking speed, giving the forecasters time to analyze the water's course, and giviing emergency officials time to react.
"It's like a traffic jam. The cars move slowly through the jam, and this big stuff is coming our way slowly and inexorably," Criss said.
The damage will be in the billions. And of course, some will say that this is a sign of climate change. But the real reason that the cost of these disasters is increasing is not because the weather is any different than it has been in the past but rather because people foolishly build in flood plains, because they don't understand the nature of statistics. There is no such thing as a "hundred year flood," at least in the sense that you can expect that there will be one per century, and after you've had one, you're safe for another hundred years. All it means is that statistically, one would expect one to occur that often, on average. Having one does not inoculate you from having another the next year (or even the next month), any more than chances that the next coin flip will be heads is increased by a previous tail. It's fifty-fifty every flip, and it's one in a hundred every year (assuming that the estimate is correct). This is the same kind of thinking as the guy who always carried a bomb on the plane with him, on the logic that the chances that there would be an airplane with two bombs on it were minuscule.
A perfect example is the 2004 hurricane season, which I drove over from California in early September to enjoy. I arrived in Florida just in time to put up shutters and batten down the hatches in our new house, when Frances hit us.
It was the first time a major storm had hit the area in many years, and most of the people who had lived here, even long-time residents, had gotten complacent. In fact, I recall sitting next to someone on a plane to LA earlier that summer, shortly after we'd bought the house, but before the storms. He was a real estate agent in Palm Beach County, and I mentioned that one of the things I didn't like about moving to south Florida was the hurricanes. He waved it aside, saying, "we don't get hurricanes here." I just shook my head.
Anyway, three weeks later, just as we were getting power back on and cleaned up from Frances, we got hit by Jeanne, which made landfall in almost exactly the same place (up around Fort Pierce). So this was not only a "hundred year" (or perhaps a "thirty year") hurricane, but we had two of them within a month. And of course, the cost of hurricanes will continue to grow, not because hurricanes are getting worse, but because, as in the midwest, and partly out of statistical ignorance, we continue to provide them with ever more, and ever more expensive targets.
[Update a couple hours later]
Jeff Masters thinks that climate change is causing 500-year floods to become more frequent. I don't think we have enough data to know that for sure (particularly since things have actually been cooling down in the last few years), but as he points out, another anthropogenic effect is the draining of wetlands for farming and building of levees to protect them. Levees work fine (until they suddenly don't) but they intensify effects down stream.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:00 AMBoth are discussed today over at Lileks' place. Also, judicial overreach in the Great White North.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:39 AMBurt Prelutsky hopes that teenagers won't go to the polls:
Whenever I suggest that teenagers shouldn't be allowed to vote for anything but student body president or prom queen, I know that someone is bound to say, "If they're old enough to fight and die in Afghanistan and Iraq, they're old enough to vote."
To which I invariably respond, "You're absolutely right. If they're serving in the military, I agree they should be able to vote. But if they're still in school, still getting an allowance and using their mom or dad's credit card to buy gas, I say they have no more business electing the president than my dog Duke does."Let's face it, ladies and gentlemen, if we raised the voting age to, say, 25, the Democratic party would go the way of the dodo and the Whigs. Liberals want young kids voting for pretty much the same cynical reason they want to extend suffrage to illegal aliens, convicted felons and dead people.
It takes a certain mentality, a certain degree of gullibility, after all, to believe plutocrats like the Clintons, the Kerrys, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros.
I'd expand that to hope that teenagers of all ages stay away from the voting booth.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 AMWhat happened to the benchmarks?
In the wake of the September testimony, anti-war lawmakers and media outlets refused to let up on the benchmark mantra. For them, victory or defeat in Iraq hung on those 18 points. Party big shots like Harry Reid and Joe Biden publicly cited the failure to meet the benchmarks as evidence that Iraq was hopeless. House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn issued a statement saying: "Despite the clear evidence that the Iraqi government has failed to make the necessary political progress and deliver on 15 of 18 benchmarks outlined by the Bush administration, the president wants to establish a permanent presence or 'enduring relationship' in Iraq, continuing to sacrifice an unacceptable level of American blood and treasure."
Well, if the benchmarks were all-important to Democrats in the fall of 2007, they have become meaningless to them in 2008. When is the last time you've heard a benchmark reckoning from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? The reason for the deafening silence on this matter is simple. The military and political progress in Iraq has proved so monumental that the majority of the benchmarks have now been met.
I agree with the author that Congress should come up with some benchmarks for itself.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:14 AMRIchard Fernandez connects some dots that may account for Senator Obama's shifts in Iraq policy:
The shifts in Barack Obama's policy toward Iraq show a remarkable correlation with the rise and fall of Tony Rezko's business prospects in the Chamchamal Power Plant. As the story of the Rezko syndicate is exposed in his Chicago trial, the subject of its Iraqi commercial interests will come under a brighter light. Barack Obama has already said of his convicted ex-fundraiser, "this is not the Tony Rezko I used to know."
For some reason, the MSM doesn't seem interested in this kind of stuff.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:02 AMFrom Virginia Postrel:
This is not just rude. It's bad politics. If you want to get Californians to vote against a state-constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, you should keep the obnoxious leftist lawyers out of sight and highlight the happy families--preferably with kids, mothers-in-laws, grandmas, siblings, etc. joining the celebration.
I suspect that California's gay community is going to ultimately regret this judicial overreach. Particularly if it results in California going to McCain in November.
[9 AM update]
Eugene Volokh has some thoughts on the collision between gay rights and religion:
Instead of gay marriage causing a collision, both gay marriage and religious conflicts with antidiscrimination law are themselves the product of a much larger trend that is moving the tectonic plates of our culture. That trend is the increasingly common view that homosexuality is a natural and harmless variation of human sexuality, that gay people are entitled to be judged on their merits and not on the basis of outdated opprobrium, and that these beliefs should to a significant degree be reflected in law.
Many people in our society object strongly to this trend. I think the law should make room for them to a considerable extent. It should be possible, in particular, to recognize gay marriage and to continue to protect religious faith at least to the extent we have already done so when religious views about marriage diverge from the secular law of marriage. Of course no religion should be required to change its doctrine to recognize gay unions. Of course no religious official should be required to perform a same-sex marriage (or an interracial wedding, as some once did, or a second-marriage wedding, as some do now, or any other wedding he objects to). These things have never been required and nobody is asking that they should be.While marriage and religious belief are one creature in the minds of many people, they are separate things in the law. Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, for example, refuse to recognize secular divorce. But few argue that we should refuse to let people divorce for this reason. One can be divorced under the law but married in the eyes of the church. The statuses can be separated without a diminution of religious liberty. And nobody thinks that this de-linking of the two constitutes official oppression or the obliteration of religious freedom. Similarly, in principle, it should be possible to have a regime in which same-sex couples are married under the law but not married in the eyes of a given religion -- all without extinguishing religious faith.
A lot of this would go away if the state got out of the marriage business.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:18 AMSo writeth Michael Totten. I agree.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:38 PMBruce Webster has an idea for a campaign to get Congress' attention.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:20 AMAndy McCarthy says that Barack Obama is the September 10th candidate:
The fact is that we used the criminal justice system as our principal enforcement approach, the approach Obama intends to reinstate, for eight years -- from the bombing of the World Trade Center until the shocking destruction of that complex on 9/11. During that timeframe, while the enemy was growing stronger and attacking more audaciously, we managed to prosecute successfully less than three dozen terrorists (29 to be precise). And with a handful of exceptions, they were the lowest ranking of players.
When an elitist lawyer like Obama claims the criminal-justice system works against terrorists, he means it satisfies his top concern: due process. And on that score, he's quite right: We've shown we can conduct trials that are fair to the terrorists. After all, we give them lawyers paid for by the taxpayers whom they are trying to kill, mounds of our intelligence in discovery, and years upon years of pretrial proceedings, trials, appeals, and habeas corpus.As a national-security strategy, however, and as a means of carrying our government's first responsibility to protect the American people, heavy reliance on criminal justice is an abysmal failure.
Obama is going to be pounded on his appalling historical ignorance throughout the campaign. "Auschwitz" was just the beginning.
[Update at noon]
Apparently the McCain campaign thinks that this is a major vulnerability for Obama:
As the war of words between the two presidential campaigns is escalating, McCain advisers and surrogates unleashed some of their harshest language yet in describing Obama.
On a conference call with reporters, former CIA chief James Woolsey and others said Obama's policy regarding the handling of terrorism suspects would create an opening for more attacks like those on Sept. 11, 2001.Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy adviser, said Obama represents "the perfect manifestation of a Sept. 10 mindset."
"If a law enforcement approach were accurate, then you wouldn't have had Sept. 11," Kori Schake, a McCain policy adviser, said.
I think it's going to be 1972 all over again. The reason that the "superdelegate" concept was come up with was exactly to prevent this. It would seem that they're not doing their job.
Of course, it's still several weeks until the convention. If I were the McCain campaign, I wouldn't actually be pounding Obama this hard until he is safely the nominee. It probably helps Hillary! more at this stage than it does them, particularly since the public has a short attention span, and isn't necessarily going to remember this by November.
[Mid-afternoon update]
Another history lesson for Obama:
Yasin fled the United States after the bombing to Iraq, and lived as Saddam Hussein's guest in Baghdad until the invasion. He is still free, and wanted by the FBI.
Picky, picky, picky.
Anyway, it can't possibly be true. As everyone knows, Saddam had absolutely no connection to terrorism, or World Trade Center bombings.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:51 AMThere seems to be a clear link between brain structure and sexual orientation. This should put to rest any notion that it's a "choice" for anyone but bi-sexuals (and this might imply that there are quite a few, since there could be a continuous variation between symmetric and how asymmetric one's brain is). As I've long said, there are those who are clearly irretrievably heterosexual (like me) and homosexual, but the debate rages on among the bis, who assume that everyone is like them.
[Via Geek Press]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:45 AMSome thoughts from Thomas James:
...the amusing part is that it is theoretically a carbon-negative fuel source -- the microbes take more carbon out of the atmosphere than what they excrete as a useable oil (if that doesn't seem to make sense, recall that the microbes themselves require carbon for their own structure).
On the other hand, since this approach requires genetic engineering, the watermelons and luddites will no doubt put the kibosh on it regardless of its benefits -- the only thing more intolerable than the idea of environmental-guilt-free petroleum sustaining the Western lifestyle of individuality, independence, and material happiness is the knowledge that that guilt-free petroleum comes from "frankenbacteria."
They'll hate it even without the bioengineering. As noted, it doesn't require us to tighten our hair shirts, or depopulate the planet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:11 AMAnother huge oil discovery in Brazil.
What's amazing is not so much that Congress won't allow us to pump oil, which we badly need to do. They won't even allow us to look for it, especially if it's in a "pristine" (aka barren coastal plain, frozen in the winter and a mosquito-infested bog in the summer) region, at least according to Senator McCain.
What are they afraid we might find?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:13 PMJames Kirchick writes that the Democrats are trying to lie their party to victory, and the country to defeat in Iraq:
In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.
Yes. Bill Clinton's CIA, since George Bush foolishly left George Tenant in charge of it, even after 911, and never even seriously attempted to clean house, other than the failed attempt by Porter Goss. The president got bad intelligence. But the Democrats are being mendacious in their selective memory and rewriting of history.
I loved this:
A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.
I assume that the last phrase is simply a rhetorical flourish. There's no reason to wonder at all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 AMVery little in this essay is new to people who have been following the arguments in space policy circles for years, but it's useful to pull it all together into one place, and bring it up to date. I and many others have long advocated that we need to resurrect NACA (which was absorbed into NASA half a century ago) and start developing technology that can support private industry, as we did for aviation. With the new private space passenger vehicles now starting to be developed, the time is ripe for it, and Jeff Foust and Charles Miller have made a very powerful case. This should be must reading for both presidential campaigns.
[Update mid morning]
This piece I wrote a few years ago on the centennial of flight seems pertinent.
[Mid-afternoon update]
More commentary over at Jeff's site, Space Politics.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AMOK, now Obama seems to like guns. At least as long as he's the only one allowed to have one.
But you have to admit, it is the Chicago way.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:56 PM...but only as long as you vote the right way:
"We're told we can vote no, that the system requires unanimity. But when (a `no' vote) actually happens, every time, the EU tells us: You really only have a right to vote yes," said Dublin travel agent Paul Brady, who voted against the treaty. "You know, I love traveling through Europe, but I don't really want to live there all the time. I'd like to stay as close to America as Europe."
Perhaps the Irish have saved western civilization again. But only until the next attempt to undemocratically foist it on European citizens.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:30 PMSome interesting legal speculation on the upcoming Heller decision to rule on the constitutionality of DC's gun ban, and on the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:49 AMJeff Krukin writes that Europe is leaving NewSpace to the US, out of (among other things) foolish class envy:
the views expressed by European Commission Vice President Guenter Verheugen speak volumes about the attitudes of the European political establishment toward entrepreneurial space activity (NewSpace). Referring to public remarks by Guenter, Astrium Chief Executive Francois Auque said, "I was even told that this project was morally blameworthy because it targets an audience of the rich people."
Well, that's why many of our ancestors left Europe.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:13 AMThe only question, really, is whether or not it was intended...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:52 PMJennifer Rubin reports on a very interesting briefing on Iraq:
I asked O'Hanlon whether his previous criticism that Barack Obama was in denial about facts on the ground still stood. In a lengthy answer he and then Pollack avoided a partisan hit on Obama and I think revealed their true purpose: to inform the public and policy matters about the real situation in Iraq and allow Democrats to in essence climb back off the surge opposition policy limb they have crawled out on. (This is my description; they were quite tactful and even optimistic that this is a time when political leaders can reorient themselves to new facts.) Both indicated that it would be a mistake with critical provincial and national elections upcoming in 2008 and 2009 to begin an abrupt withdrawal in 2009. O'Hanlon offered that Democrats could take credit for having pressured Iraqis on a political front with the clear message that our presence would not be indefinite and that they should accept that "the good news is you may be able to leave earlier than proposed based on progress and not on defeat."Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:27 PM
Jeff Foust has a tale of two bills. As he notes, the language in the authorization bill is great:
It is further the sense of Congress that United States entrepreneurial space companies have the potential to develop and deliver innovative technology solutions at affordable costs. NASA is encouraged to use United States entrepreneurial space companies to conduct appropriate research and development activities. NASA is further encouraged to seek ways to ensure that firms that rely on fixed-price proposals are not disadvantaged when NASA seeks to procure technology development.
I wonder if the part about fixed-price contracts was in response to pressure from XCOR specifically, or perhaps from the Personal Spaceflight Federation?
Anyway, nice as it sounds, the only bill that really counts is the appropriations bill, which (again as he notes) cuts COTS funding.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:45 AMFrom Jonah Goldberg, who has been to both:
This isn't to say that the Grand Canyon isn't a beautiful place; it inspires awe among those who visit it. ANWR (pronounced "AN-wahr") inspires awe almost entirely in those who haven't been there. It is an environmental Brigadoon or Shangri-La, a fabled land almost no one will ever see. That is its appeal. People like the idea that there are still Edens "out there" even if they will never, ever see them.
Indeed, if Americans could visit the north coast of Alaska, as I have, as easily as they can visit the Grand Canyon, the oil would be flowing by now.
[Afternoon update]
McCain's attitude: Let them eat honor:
At a town-hall meeting in Philadelphia, McCain said he could no sooner drill in ANWR than in the Grand Canyon. This is like comparing a roadside flea market to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Five million people a year visit the Grand Canyon, whereas 1,000 visit ANWR. Why would anyone want to go? It's a frozen wasteland during the winter and a mosquito-infested bog during the summer.
McCain opposes drilling off the shores of Florida and California as well, saying that the states should be able to decide. But Alaska desperately wants to drill in ANWR. Its opinion apparently doesn't count. In an interview on the Today show, McCain ridiculously held out the prospect that advances in alternative energy might lower the price of gas by November. He's touting fanciful revolutionary breakthroughs within months without acknowledging the real technological advances that make it possible to drill with minimal environmental impact.
He's blowing a huge political opportunity.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:59 AMYou're probably shocked. I know I was:
I'm guessing the profit isn't 51 cents. But whatever it is, it's too much! I've heard some people yearn for a windfall profits tax that would reinvest the money in alternative energy, or rebate it back to the consumer. Fine. Apply that to your business. Here's the acceptable profit level. You don't get to make any more than that. If you do, the state will confiscate the property and divide it among your competitors, or give it back to your customers. Have a nice day. But oil is different. It's necessary! So is food. Farmers are doing well. Let us therefore set the acceptable level for corn farmers, take away the excess profits, invest it new forms of sweeteners or biofuels farmers cannot yet produce, and give people rebates for Splenda to compensate for the price of high fructose corn syrup.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 AM
It's not that we cannot produce any more oil; you suspect that some are motivated by the belief, perverse as it sounds, that we should not. We should not drill 50 miles off shore on the chance someone in Malibu takes a hot-air balloon up 1000 feet and uses a telephoto lens to scan the horizon for oil platforms. Also, there are ecological concerns. (The ocean is a wee place, easily disturbed.) There's something else that may well be my imagination, but I can't quite shake the feeling: high gas prices and shortages of oil make some people feel good. This is the way it has to be. Oil is bad. Cars are bad. Cars make suburbs possible. Suburbs are the antithesis of the way we should live, which is stacked upon one another in dense blocks tied together by happy whirring trains. So some guy who drives to work alone has to spend more money for the privilege of being alone in his car listening to hate radio?Good.
...male bashing ads.
I'm sure that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be weighing in any minute.
[crickets chirping]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 PMJohn McCain continues to justly call for Obama to visit Iraq, and talk to General Petraeus (without preconditions). Well, I think that if Senator McCain would visit ANWR, he might discover that it is nothing at all like the Grand Canyon. Of course, Obama is not in a position to call him on that, since he opposes drilling there (and everywhere else, as far as I can tell) as well.
[Update a minute or two later]
Here's a great suggestion:
Another way McCain can move toward an ANWR solution is to educate himself on small-footprint drilling practices. He should talk to some oil company guys, get the facts, and then announce STERNLY that he will only support the exploration in ANWR if it strictly adheres to "environmentally friendly low-impact micro-drilling standards" and DEMAND that no more than .5% of the land in that area be compromised in even the slightest way.
Bingo. The oil companies can all drill within those parameters now and McCain can appear as the reasonable tough guy he wants to be.
Unfortunately, I think he's too stubborn and fixed in his views to do such a thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:56 AMWith geoengineering. But the hair shirters don't like it:
Stabilization can only be achieved by cutting current carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent. This means implementing highly unpopular policies of carbon rationing and higher energy prices. So some climate change researchers and environmental activists worry that the public and policymakers will see geoengineering as way to avoid making hard decisions. "If humans perceive an easy technological fix to global warming that allows for 'business as usual,' gathering the national (particularly in the United States and China) and international will to change consumption patterns and energy infrastructure will be even more difficult," writes Rutgers University environmental scientist Alan Robock.
Well, boo frickin' hoo.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Commenter Chris Potter has a pithy translation: "If there's no good reason for people to do what I want them to do, they won't do it."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:42 AMI'm kind of scratching my head here. Can an Obama supporter explain to me how he can accept the resignation of someone who doesn't work for him? Maybe it's just more of that change you can believe in...
Actually, it would be pretty amusing if someone in the press asked him that question. Don't hold your breath, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:29 AMLGF has the story.
The man's good at giving speeches, but he doesn't seem to be able to identify or hire good staff. Do we really even want him picking cabinet members, let alone running the country?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:32 AMAnother jump in oil prices.
Think it has anything to do with the fact that both presidential candidates favor a hidden tax on energy and oppose expanding domestic oil production?
You know, in the past, when I've said that prices in this range are not sustainable, I always assumed that, at least at some point, sanity would reign in Washington. What a dumb assumption.
[Thursday morning update]
Wise words from Lileks:
...there's hope. An article in the paper last week said that the gyrations in the oil market may indicate that the laws of supply and demand no longer apply. Well, clever us, to live in an age where immutable laws are abolished with ease; no doubt faster-than-light travel is now possible as well. Whenever someone says that the old laws no longer apply, it's a sure sign that the laws are about to reassert themselves with brutal force.
Three-buck gas by October? Likely.
As Carl notes in comments, even when you know you're in a bubble, you don't know when it's going to pop.
[Update a few minutes later]
Anyone wondering why U.S. energy policy is so dysfunctional need only review Congress's recent antics. Members have debated ideas ranging from suing OPEC to the Senate's carbon tax-and-regulation monstrosity, to a windfall profits tax on oil companies, to new punishments for "price gouging" - everything except expanding domestic energy supplies.
Amid $135 oil, it ought to be an easy, bipartisan victory to lift the political restrictions on energy exploration and production. Record-high fuel costs are hitting consumers and business like a huge tax increase. Yet the U.S. remains one of the only countries in the world that chooses as a matter of policy to lock up its natural resources. The Chinese think we're insane and self-destructive, while the Saudis laugh all the way to the bank.
And unfortunately, both presidential candidates are economic ignorami:
Recent weeks have seen some GOP stirrings on Capitol Hill, but John McCain has so far refused to jettison his green posturings, such as his belief in carbon caps and his animus against offshore development. A good reason for a rethink would be $4 gas. At present, it is charitable to call Mr. McCain's energy ideas incoherent, and it may cost him the election.
Of course, Obama's even worse, but even if McCain wins, it will be a lot closer than it need be. And prices will continue to soar. Needlessly.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:08 PMVictor Davis Hanson has thoughts on the wrong reasons to support Obama:
Aside from the obvious point that we should not pick our presidents on the basis of whether those in mostly autocratic, non-democratic societies approve, there is something very tribal and racialist about all this chauvinism.
If a white male Christian of European ancestry were suddenly a likely successor to the Mubarak dictatorship, or were next in line to take over the Mugabe kleptocracy, or were stealing Venezuela from Hugo Chavez, or were going to be elected the next leader of South Africa, it would be of less than zero importance to me, and I would hope to other Americans of similar backgrounds. And I think most of us would shudder should an Englishman or Australian say "I just hope your next President is another white male Christian like McCain." I was in Greece in 1988 when the socialist liberal Greeks went ga-ga over Mike Dukakis solely on the basis on his shared ethnic background and it seemed pretty absurd, especially when many promised they would change their dark view of Reagan's America if a Greek-American were elected President.So, one, I don't see what is so great when a foreigner tells an American journalist that his view of America might change should we elect a person closer to his own perceived racial or religious self-image. Seems instead illiberal, tribal, and retrograde. And two, if Egyptians, Iranians, Congolese, or Bolivians want real changes in their own lives, then they should look to their own autocratic systems, not the United States that can do little to alleviate their mostly self-inflicted miseries other than to continue to shell out hundreds of billions in petrodollars and ever more humanitarian aid.
It's all about the identity politics. You know, that "new politics" we've been hearing so much about.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:52 AMWhy does the Obama campaign continue to lie about McCain's position on Iraq? It's not like they haven't been called on it before, multiple times. Do they think we're stupid?
That was a rhetorical question.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:16 AM...that which can be accounted for by stupidity and ignorance. I agree with this commenter:
If you were referring to almost any other sitting Senator, I would agree. Boxer, however, may very well believe everything that she said. She's 18 different ways of stupid.
He's being unkind. I can think of several other Senators about as bad. Because the bill doesn't explicitly specify a price, she probably really does believe that it won't result in a price change, because people like her really do believe that they can, through legislation, outlaw the laws of economics. No doubt she also believes that if Congress were to simply pass a law making gasoline two bucks a gallon, it would work just fine. And I suspect that Joe Lieberman, bless his neoconservative heart, believes it as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:56 AMAndrea Mitchell felt compelled to apologize for calling southwest Virginia "real redneck country."
Well, she's right, it is. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think that what she should be apologizing for (which perhaps she is, obliquely) is the insinuation that that's a bad thing. While I understand that a lot of southerners take umbrage at the word, it's really just a synonym for Scots-Irish, and it came over with them from England (and no, it has nothing to do with working in the hot sun). It was a phrase used to describe Presbyterians from northern England, who wore red collars. They were the people who settled Appalachia (and other regions). Eastern Virginia (and Maryland and Delaware) was settled by the so-called Cavaliers of southwest England, who had lost the Civil War to the Roundheads.
I think, though, that in the mind of east (and west) coast media elites like Andrea Mitchell, "redneck" is synonymous with "hillbilly," which is unquestionably an uncomplimentary term, and why the apology was necessary. It's also a mark of the cultural ignorance of those same media elite about flyover country.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 AMObama is always telling us he doesn't need experience, because he has good judgment. Well, one would never know it by the people he associates with. Or brings aboard to vet vice-presidential candidates.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:39 AMNo, even the premise was crazy:
While the premise of the 55mph speed limit was a perfectly valid one, the effectiveness of the rule was debatable. There is certainly no doubt that driving at a lower speed would consume less energy. The problem lies in the fact that the national 55mph speed limit was perhaps the most universally ignored law in history apart from prohibition.
Just what was it about the premise that was "valid"? That if everyone drove fifty five instead of seventy that it would save gas? Well, I guess. But so what? Why fifty five? Why not fifty? Why not forty five?
I have never seen any kind of quantitative analysis that provided a rationale for any particular speed limit (at least one designed to save gas and lives). What's magic about the double nickel? (In this regard, it is subject to the same reductio ad absurdum as the minimum wage). Hey, I have an idea that would save a lot of gasoline. Let's ban cars, motorcycles and trucks from the highways. Don't allow anything on them with an internal combustion engine. That would solve the problem. And it makes just as much sense as an arbitrary federal speed limit. The only difference is that the absurdity of the proposal is much more obvious.
Despite their lack of analysis, proponents also claimed that arbitrarily capping legal speeds at fifty five promoted "safety." The only rationale for this notion basically boiled down to "speed kills," which is a pithy phrase, marred only by the fact that it doesn't correspond to empirical reality. Even ignoring the very real fact that there was no significant increase in traffic fatalities after the idiotic law was repealed in the nineties (in fact, I think they went down), it doesn't take into account the fact that time is money. If truckers followed the law, it would add a day to a cross-country trip, which means a day's delay in the delivery of needed goods, and either more cost for the driver's time, if he's paid by the hour, or a cut in his profits if he's paid by the mile. If a long-distance commuter did so, it might add fifteen or twenty minutes each way. He might have to get up earlier, so the extra time spent behind the wheel might come out of sleep time, thus increasing the possibility of an accident due to drowsiness. Also, slower speed means longer trip times, which might mean driving later into the night to get to the same destination, again increasing the chance of drifting off.
At four dollars a gallon, if gas is really saved at fifty-five, there is plenty of incentive for individual people to slow down on their own, if it makes sense to do so overall. But they're in a position to make the trade off in a way that no legislator in Washington can ever be. We had a couple of decades in which to experiment with this foolish notion, and it was found wanting. Like Prohibition, let's leave it in the dustbin of history.
One other point. I remember when the Republicans won the Congress back in 1994. I had some hope that there would be at least some rollback from a lot of the statist nuttiness that had been accumulating since The New Deal and The Great Society. Those hopes were mostly forlorn, with the rare exception of welfare reform, and George Bush has put the final nails in the coffin of the Gingrich revolution. But one other rare exception was the repeal of the fifty-five speed limit. If that particular bit of idiocy is reinstated, I'll really feel that it was all for naught.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:16 AMWhat is happening to Canada?
So Ed Stelmach's "conservative" government now believes that if it can't convince a Christian pastor that he's wrong, it will just order him to condemn himself? Other than tribunals in Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, where is this Orwellian "order" considered to be justice?
This is like a Third World jail-house confession -- where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of guilt. But the thing about jail-house confessions is that they at least pretend to be real. The forcible nature of them is kept secret. Not here: Andreachuk just comes out and says it: you're going to say you're sorry, even if you aren't.That's a bizarre "remedy". It's meaningless, other than as a thought crime. We don't even "order" murderers to apologize to their victims' families. Because we know that a forced apology is meaningless. But not if your point is to degrade Christian pastors.
What will happen to the pastor if he refuses? Who will end this madness?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 AMHe's glamourous. Virginia Postrel, a glamour maven, explains:
Charisma is a personal quality that inspires followers to embrace the charismatic leader's agenda (an agenda that, in the original sense of the word charisma, is seen as divinely inspired.) Glamour, by contrast, encourages the audience to project its own yearnings onto the glamorous figure. So, in this case, Sebastian Mallaby imagines that Obama will find "a way of crawling back from his embarrassing talk of reopening NAFTA." Mallaby maintains his own views about what's good for economic growth; he doesn't defer to Obama's own vision.
When voters motivated by charisma disagree with the leader they've backed, they support him anyway and possibly even change their minds about the right policy course. When voters motivated by glamour disagree, they become disillusioned and angry.
Let's hope for a peak of that come around late October.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:13 AMSorry for the short notice, but I forgot to mention that I'll be on Fast-Forward Radio tonight, in less than an hour. Fortunately (assuming you care) it will be available for download later.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 PMScott Lowther has a blog. Geez, they'll let anyone have one of those things.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:36 PMYou know, it's almost like they don't want us to increase the supply. If the Republicans were smart, they could make this a potent campaign issue in the fall. Of course, if the Republicans were smart, I'd probably be a Republican.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:05 PM...not to vote for Obama. He seems to have no respect whatsoever for the Second Amendment. But that should be no surprise, given his positions on other subjects.
[Afternoon update]
Why are anti-gun activists so violent? I think that the commenter has it right. As is often the case with so-called liberals, it's projection. They figure that we're as violent as they are, so they don't want us to have guns.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:08 AMMichael Ledeen has a good opinion piece in today's Journal, that I think is a must-read. And no, he's not talking about the Obamanians.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:33 PMIowahawk remains in the race. I have to say, there are certainly some aspects of his platform that are not without appeal.
Drilling and exploration are important, but this only addresses the "supply" side of the equation. We must also tackle our insatiable "demand" for energy. Thanks to my Piranha Doctrine foreign policy, America's military will be freed up to go after America's worst energy demand scofflaws -- the celebrity asshole community. Under my administration the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be directed to treat as hostile all private jets flying into Los Angeles airspace, backed up with coordinated pinpoint bombing of mansions and Priuses within the Malibu triangle. Not only will this reduce prices at the pump, it will increase the supply of much needed scrap metal and lumber.
I like the Piranha Doctrine as well. Though Park Slope may not have enough open territory for the cougar reserve.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:10 AMAs current blog readers know, I've been pretty much of an agnostic as to which candidate would be best for space policy (at least in terms of actually advancing us toward becoming a spacefaring society). But I just saw a very interesting rumor over at Space Politics. The post is about whether McCain likes Mars, and was influenced by reading The Martian Chronicles
But the rumor is in comments, from two separate commenters:
My understanding is that Craig Steidle is formally advising the McCain campaign, and may be determining McCain's NASA policy...
...Admiral Steidle has also adopted an EELV-based approach for Shuttle replacement, albeit with the Orbital Space Plane (OSP). I think it would be very easy for him to embrace an approach using a downsized Orion/CEV on top of an EELV.The Admiral had a very forward focused program that didn't play favorites with any of the NASA centers, particularly Marshall. This ticked off several of the congressional delegations. But I have a feeling that the Alabama contingent may not hold as much sway over the upcoming years.
It's interesting that you brought up the Admiral here. I've heard rumors from several sources that he would be the likely NASA Administrator if McCain is elected. Unlike the current Soviet-style Design Bureau Culture at NASA, Steidle is a believer and practitioner of good old American free enterprise and competition.
Steidle was in charge of the VSE before Mike Griffin came in (O'Keefe was much more hands-off as an administrator, particularly because he wasn't a rocket scientist, and didn't pretend he was). Mike Griffin essentially tore up everything that Steidle was doing by the roots, and instituted his own plan. So while Steidle is hardly perfect, he'll be a big improvement, and get the program back on track as it was when he left, with the loss of three years or so. If this rumor is true, for this reason alone, McCain now looks like a far preferable candidate to Obama, in terms of space. Of course, for me, and many others, space remains a lower-priority issue. But it does provide a reason to vote for McCain (as opposed to against Obama), which I've been having trouble coming up with.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:29 PMThe headline of this story is that "Obama denies a rumor," but he doesn't really, at least from what I can tell from the reporting:
Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday batted down rumors circulating on the Internet and mentioned on some cable news shows of the existence of a video of his wife using a derogatory term for white people, and criticized a reporter for asking him about the rumor, which has not a shred of evidence to support it.
"We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it," Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. "That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it."Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question.
But as far as I can see, he hadn't, unless there were words spoken that were not reported.
Let us parse.
"We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it."
True enough. Who can deny that there is dirt and lies circulated in emails? But that doesn't necessarily imply that the particular topic under discussion is a lie (though it's arguably "dirt," regardless of its truth value).
"If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it."
Again, this is not a denial. It's simply a challenge to produce proof (or at least evidence). And in the follow up, he apparently refused, once again, to deny it. It was what is called in the business a "non-denial denial."
This is the game that Bill Clinton used to play a lot. When confronted about something, he would feign outrage, and attack the questioner, and say something like "I'm not going to even dignify that with a response." But he wouldn't actually deny it. The most classic case was the Juanita Broaddrick rape accusation. He never denied it. If anyone thinks that he did, provide a transcript. He sent out his lawyer to deny it, but his lawyer has no knowledge of whether it is true or not, other than hearsay from Bill. He wasn't in the room with them.
This looks like exactly the same behavior. Of course, part of the problem is that he's not sure what it is he should be denying, because the rumors are all over the place as to what she said or did. But it would have been better to say something like, "I've seen all these rumors running around on the Internet about some imminent bombshell concerning my wife, and I can tell you categorically that they are not true."
That would be a denial. But he didn't say that. I wonder why?
[Update a few minutes later]
I agree with the commenters that he shouldn't be put in a position of denying non-specific rumors (as I noted in the last paragraph above). My main point, actually, is simply that the Politico headline is wrong, and misleading, because he hasn't denied them (though he obviously hopes that we, like the reporter, thinks that he has).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:32 PMA lovely evocative essay, from Jim Manzi. Though it's not really the subject, it's an appropriate one somehow, for the anniversary of D-Day. This is what blogging is all about.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:44 AMSome thoughts on D-Day, from Jennifer Rubin.
One of the reasons that I do my WW II reporting parodies is to show that, over half a century after the achievements of the "greatest generation," modern Americans and modern journalists have no concept of the losses and sacrifice of a real war, as demonstrated by all the whining about Iraq.
[Update mid afternoon]
Roger Kimball has received an early report of the progress on the beaches:
June 6, 1944. -NORMANDY- Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children.Most of the French casualties were the result of the artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated and reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason," said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."
The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, threatening the species with extinction.
Of course, they bungled the occupation, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:48 AMA brief survey of potential global warming solutions. What is more interesting to me than the engineering is the politics and ethics of all this. Asteroid diversion falls in the same category. But at least some of these things could drive a need for low-cost space access in an unprecedented manner.
But this is one that doesn't really seem to be in this category, unless it were mandated. It's more of a "think globally, act locally" approach:
On the opposite end of the spectrum is the ultra-low-tech approach of painting rooftops white to reflect sunlight.
We've been thinking about doing that anyway, just to reduce our air conditioning bill. With a gray cement tile roof, that soaks up a lot of sun, it's hotter than Hades's kitchen in the attic this time of year, and that could really cool things down.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:30 AMObama has required a vocabulary of needed ostracism, as he insidiously sheds most of his prior life and environment of the last twenty years. Wright, Moss, Pfleger, Ayers, Rezo, etc. are all figures that have to be "disavowed" or, better, Trostkyized in some fashion. The method apparently is to suggest that they, not Obama, have suddenly changed (when, in truth, they, not Obama, have remained entirely consistent) and are now out to hurt or embarrass Obama (when, again, they are surprised that their longtime predictable behavior is suddenly producing different results).
Like many of his prior positions on the Middle East, Iran, guns, abortion, taxes, the war, etc. Obama must metamorphosize from a hard-core Chicago racial leftwing activist, into a liberal idealist who transcends politics.Will it work? Two things are in his favor. One, his message is messianic ("this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"), and the devoted not only don't want to know of their prophet's mortal lapses, but like all devotees will turn in anger on those who remind them of such mortality. Second, many of these bombs have been exploded in the primaries, months before the election. Even in Chicago, there are only so many Rezkos and Wrights.
Change you can believe in?
Not me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:22 AM...once most of the former big fuel subsidizers have removed much or all of their subsidies, world demand for oil is likely to level off, or possibly even plunge. And if the latter scenario prevails, then the petroleum futures speculators will be running for the hills, in the midst of a bursting oil bubble, much like real estate speculators fled upon the bursting of our recent housing bubble in the States. All bubbles are self-correcting, one way or another.
Yes. Few people appreciate how much demand has been artificially spurred by subsidized fuel in many large countries. When their governments can no longer afford to continue to do so (as they can't for long at current prices), watch crude plunge.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:27 AMMark Hemingway has an idiot's guide to the idiocy going on in Canada at the Human Wrongs Tribunal. He also has an interview with Andrew Coyne, the MacLeans reporter who has been live blogging the proceedings.
I hope that this will finally get the attention of the media in Canada, who so far seem clueless. As Mark points out, a lot of people have been abused under this system for years, but because they were politically incorrect as victims, the press paid it no mind. With apologies to Pastor Niemoller, this may be the motto of the CBC:
First they went after the racistsPosted by Rand Simberg at 09:15 AM
And we did not speak out, because we are not racist
Then they went after the pastors preaching against homosexuality
And we did not speak out, because we are not against homosexuality
Then they went after a Christian publisher who refused to print pedophilia
And we did not speak out because we are not Christian
Then they went after the Knights of Columbus
And we not speak out because we are not Knights of Columbus
Then they went after the Western Standard
And we did not speak out, because we are not a right-wing rag
Then they went after MacLeans
And we did not speak out because we hate Mark Steyn
We don't expect them to come after us, because we're afraid to say anything that might offend any Muslim, and we fear the consequences of doing that even more than we fear the HRC.
So Obama is shocked that his friend has been convicted?
If he's this naive and trusting (and clueless) about his close associates, that they can fool him for years as to their true nature, why should we trust him to deal with foreign enemies?
And was he paying Rezko off to keep him quiet? Sixty-four grand is a lot of money, particularly when Michelle is complaining about having to pay off college loans. If he's just a lousy businessman, who doesn't know the value of money, is that a good resume for the chief executive of the country?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:50 AMI recall waking up to my clock radio, which was announcing that Bobby Kennedy had been shot and killed the night before in LA, on June 5th, 1968. It was quite a shock to someone growing up in a family of Democrats, coming so soon after the King assassination, and a reminder of the assassination of his brother less than five years earlier.
Now, decades on, it's pretty clear to me that, like his brother, he was vastly overrated, but his death was a tragedy nonetheless. Not because we were deprived of a great leader, but because we imagined we were, and it was traumatic, particularly for the left. To the point that, like JFK, though he was killed by a leftist (in this case a vengeful Palestinian) they had to concoct bizarre theories to make it appear to be a "right wing" conspiracy. Both the Kennedy assassinations are wounds from which so-called liberals have never really recovered, or gotten over their anger.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:26 AMJohn Bolton doesn't think much of Obama's foreign policy plans, or historical knowledge. Neither do I.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:22 AMIt's not bad enough that they are so deficient in creativity that they have to make flicks out of old television shows and comic books. Now they're reduced to remaking stupid schlock that should never have been made the first time. Behold, what the world has been awaiting--a new version of Capricorn One
On a cheerier note, there's apparently a much better (to put it mildly--I shouldn't even be discussing them in the same post) SF movie on the way.
...what I have is a story where businessmen and engineers are the heroes, the protestors are the bad guys, people accept risk willingly and some of them die for it, where they do amazing things and go to astonishing places on their own dime, where nuclear power is good and essential and the motivation is not money or power but freedom and a love of humanity, and where America and all she stands for is a beacon in a darkening world.
It's a crazy bizarro world of science fiction!
Hollywood would never make anything like that.
Good luck, Bill--we'll be looking forward to seeing it, and ignoring the other.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:01 AMAt least in Virginia Postrel's parlance:
Obama's memoir is not a policy tome or a campaign biography but an emotional journey. It does not offer alternatives, only bleak observations and predictions. It is pessimistic, conservative, nostalgic. The theme running through Dreams from My Father is the search for order, for stability, for roots in an undisturbed pre-modern culture. How that yearning for stasis translates into presidential policy is not clear, but I worry.
Me, too. It's questionable whether most of his nostrums are really "change," but if they are, they're not change I can believe in.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:06 AMIn a piece on whether Obama will be Al Smith, or JFK (ummmmm...neither), John Judis (who should know better) writes:
Blacks began entering the Democratic party during the New Deal, but even as late as 1960, Richard Nixon won a third of the black vote. After Democratic support for and Republican opposition to the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the overwhelming majority of African Americans became Democrats.
Emphasis mine. I've discussed this before.
The ugly fact, of which ABC is either unaware, or worse, deliberately misleading their readers about, is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed without Republican support, due to the continued opposition by southern Democrats. Contra ABC's implication, it was not the minority Republicans who filibustered it, but the majority Democrats, and the cloture vote to end debate was achieved only with the votes of many Republicans. Former Klansman Robert "Sheets" Byrd (shamefully still representing the state of West Virginia, even in his dotage and senility) was the last debater on the floor before that cloture vote (it then required 67 votes, rather than the current 60) was passed. Other stars of the filibuster were Richard Russell (D-GA), Albert Gore, Sr. (the last Vice President's father) (D-TN), and William Fullbright (D-AR) (Bill Clinton's mentor).
But I guess when you're a modern liberal Democrat reporter, all that can just go down the memory hole, as long as it's in service to a greater cause--to preserving the myth of Republican racism and opposition to civil rights, and demonstrating the continuing horror of George Bush's and the Republican's "theocracy."
This is simply false history, but it's become a matter of faith to Democrats. The Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, but they couldn't muster the votes to pass the bill on their own. Everyone who filibustered the Civil Rights Act was a Democrat. In order to get cloture, and passage, they had to get significant Republican support. The notion that it was Republicans who were opposed to true civil rights (as opposed to the modern reverse discrimination) remains pernicious. But the story has to be told that way, otherwise the narrative of Republicans as "racists" falls apart.
[Update a few minutes later]
Historical inaccuracies aside, what is particularly annoying about Judis' thesis is that it takes as a given that if Obama loses, it will be because of his race, and have nothing to do with his extreme lack of experience, and the fact that he'll be the most left-wing candidate nominated since George McGovern.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:08 AMPut me in the latter camp.
Although the Climate Security Act does direct some spending towards low-carbon energy research, it is basically a wedgist scheme. If something like it is adopted by the next presidential administration, we will find out which side is right. If the wedgists are correct, cutting carbon dioxide emissions will produce a modest increase in energy prices resulting in the deployment of a wide variety of readily available low-carbon energy sources over the coming decades. If the breakthroughists are right, energy prices will soar provoking a political backlash. In which case, perhaps one need only peer across the Atlantic to the spreading protests against higher fuel prices in Europe to see the future.
Yup.
One of the most disturbing things about McCain is that he has bought completely into the hysterical climate-change claptrap, and is unamenable (so far at least) to reason.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 AMThe election will partly, perhaps largely hinge on how many people feel this way.
Along those lines, Bill Bennett (not someone to whom I usually pay much attention) had some useful words this morning:
Whatever it was the Republicans and so many independents did not like about the Clintons, we've learned the Democrats have had enough as well.
And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern's military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis's executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry's record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter's religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him.
I think he's all of them rolled into one, but admittedly, he has a lot more charisma than any of them, if not combined. But I don't think it will be enough. Generally, the more people learn about him, the less they support him. Now that the campaign has been unofficially joined, they're likely to learn a lot more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:38 PMAndrew Coyne continues to liveblog the witch hunt in Vancouver. I loved this bit:
We're going through an interview Awan gave on Mike Duffy Live. He tells Duffy that this isn't a case of free speech versus minority rights. Rather, he says, Maclean's can go on publishing what it likes, Steyn can write whatever he likes, just so long as "the Muslim community" gets a right of reply. (I'm paraphrasing. The video of the interview is here.) So really, what they're proposing (he explains in the interview) is an extension of free speech.
I think I see his point. Every time Maclean's wants to publish an article some group doesn't like, they just have to give them an equal amount of space in the magazine. Double the space, at twice the cost to Maclean's - but zero cost to the complainants. That is "free" speech.
That is also the "Fairness Doctrine" in a nutshell. It's why, if we have a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress, one of the first things they will attempt to do will be to resurrect that atrocity against free speech, in the hopes that it will shut down "right wing" radio.
Of course (and fortunately), the Fairness Doctrine only applies to over-the-air broadcast of television and radio (with the excuse that the spectrum is limited, and therefore ultimately owned by the public). What would probably happen if it were back in force is that Limbaugh and others would just get chased off the air waves to satellite (as has happened with over-air- television politics shows, to satellite and cable), and a lot more people would buy XM so they could continue to get a vigorous discussion of politics.
What is being proposed in Canada is to not just institute a fairness doctrine, but to extend it to print. Which, as Coyne points out, is utterly inimical to free speech, and would shut down any publication whatsoever that was "controversial." Which means any publication that goes against the politically correct consensus of the day.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:11 PMThis is appalling, but predictable:
I was astonished by their absolute lack of any background on the story they were sent to cover.
More astonished that a journalist would not know who Mark Steyn was, or that, depending on its outcome, the case they were covering could have very real ramifications on their ability to practice their trade in the future, and impact the right to free speech for all Canadians.They knew nothing about the AHRC case against Ezra.
They did know about the Western Standard but were unaware that it was no longer being published.
They knew nothing about the Richard Warman Vs Levant, Shaidle, McMillan, Kay and Free Dominion. In fact, they had never heard of Mr. Sec. 13 Richard Warman.
They were aware that a similar charge agianst Steyn had been thrown out by the OHRC, but nothing beyond that.
I tried to provide some background on each of these cases but could see that there was not a lot of interest.
I wonder what kind of reports will be filed by each of these journalists for CBC radio? I also wonder how many other journalists sent to cover this remarkably important case, are so poorly informed.
No wonder the government and the "Human Rights" Commissions get away with so much there.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:18 AMRonald Maxwell has some thoughts on the Democrat nominating process:
Hundreds of thousands of voters from Florida and Michigan had their votes canceled out, divided up, and reapportioned. Why should it matter what conflicting Democratic committees said at the time or what any of the candidates said at the time? The irrefutable fact of the matter is that neither election was canceled. Both elections were held and the citizens of both states went to the polls in an open, fair, and democratic election fully believing they were casting votes to decide who the Democratic nominee for president would be. These voters, and by extension the entire American electorate, were deceived, betrayed, and disenfranchised.
MSNBC may disagree, but this is no insignificant matter. It is not, as they would have us believe, a trivial matter of arcane rules and regulations. It is a direct assault on our liberty.We've seen and heard it all before -- the commissars in the Soviet Union interpreting election results. "Well," they say, "there was bad weather in the Ukraine and the miners couldn't get to the polls that day. Should we penalize the miners? Of course not. The miners, had they shown up, would have voted for Vladimir. Everyone knows that. To say otherwise is to be against the miners. It is to be against the true Will of the People, which only we can devine. So, we'll assign their votes to Vladimir."
How many times on Saturday did we hear the phrase that should make every free citizen shiver, "The true Will of the People." "We know what the voters of Michigan or Florida intended to do, because we have the exit polls, or we have the MSNBC poll, or we have the anecdotal evidence." Instead of simply counting votes, which is the only fair thing to do with votes in any election anywhere -- the members of the Democratic-party rules Committee deem it in their purview to decipher votes, interpret votes, translate votes -- anything but count them! Then, to add fantasy to falsehood they insisted on conjuring votes that were never even cast. After all, so goes their illogic, if voters didn't show up who otherwise would have, its up to the Committee members to discern how they would have voted if they did.
As he points out, there is no nominee until votes are cast at the convention, and Obama still doesn't have a majority of the pledged delegates. The Central Committee Memberssuperdelegates are flocking to him now (like lemmings?), but they aren't committed to vote for him, and can change their minds at any time up until August. As has been pointed out before, Ted Kennedy went into the 1980 convention with a much smaller proportion of delegates than Hillary! has, fighting all the way until his concession speech.
Of course, given the results then, it's understandable that the politburo wants to resolve this now. But that doesn't make it right. Or...democratic. But I hope they get their way--Obama is by far the weaker candidate, though both are unelectable.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:10 AMIowahawk has dug up an old Canadian radio program that is sure to be banned in the Great White North. Warman, of the Mounted:
From the Maritimes to the Yukon, the Great White North was once a lawless land where cruel and offensive opinions roamed free - until one man stood up and brought them to justice. One mighty masked man, clad in the scarlet breechcoat of the Royal Canadian Mounted Human Rights Police, astride a golden disabled lesbian steed, with his faithful transgender Indian scout at his side. Together they rode from Yellowknife to St. John's, keeping Canadians safe from the spectre of multicultural insensitivity.
The Canadian Broadcast Corporation invites you to return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear as we tell the tales of that legendary singing Human Rights Mountie. It's time for excitement - it's time for lawsuits - It's time for... Warman of the Mounted!
It's a particularly exciting episode. I expect we'll see him in the HRC docket presently.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:24 AMFor David Lazarus, from Virginia Postrel, who seems happy to be back in LA. I'm envious.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 AMSome useful thoughts from Jonah Goldberg on the "social gospel."
[Update a few minutes later]
His last point is an important one, I think (and why Obama may actually have a prayer of being elected, sadly):
Anyway, I guess the point is that the politicized Christian rhetoric, or Christianized political rhetoric isn't unique to this obscure black church in Chicago or even to the work of black theologians generally. Rather, it is much more central to the progressive tradition generally. As Joe Knippenberg and other's have argued Obama's Christianity is the Christianity of Jim Wallis and others who think God is a welfare state liberal. And while I can understand why many on the right would want to paint Obama as "out there," I'm not as convinced that that's the case. Indeed, I think the more lasting and serious threat comes from an impulse that's much closer to home, as it were.
Still, I think that his war views will sink him, if his social, soft fascist views don't.
[Update Monday evening]
Some observations about Obama's "sacrifice." But hey, isn't sacrifice what messiahs do?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:15 PM"Cassandra" has some very pungent commentary on Senator Obama and his church of twenty years:
What Barack Obama appears not to have noticed (at least judging by his public statements) is that if a preacher makes political statements in church about race that, had they been made by a white person about a black person, would be considered by any reasonably objective person to be racist, you have a veritable trifecta of newsworthiness. Where he repeatedly keeps missing the clue bus is here: American society has changed to the point where pretty much every white person I know would not feel comfortable staying in the room, were a white preacher to make comparable statements about blacks. People would deal with it in their own way.
There might be complaints. There might be calls for his resignation. Some might just leave the church quietly after the service. What I cannot under any circumstances imagine is a white audience hooting and hollering in open approval of such "destructive and divisive" rhetoric because it was rooted in the "white church" tradition. I cannot imagine the media giving a white politician a pass if he either defended or refused to denounce such words.I cannot imagine the media maintaining that it was acceptable to passively listen to such rhetoric without objecting because it "did not reflect his beliefs"
I think that this comment (early on, so you won't have to scroll far if the comments build) is important as well, and one that Americans of African descent should (or at least should have--it's probably too late now, at least in terms of the nomination) carefully consider:
Given Obama's damnfool fiscal policies, it is a good bet that he will take this country into the toilet, both domestically and on the foreign front, and go down in history as a worse president than Jimmy Carter.
How that will set back the cause of blacks as PotUs cannot be underestimated. If he does as crappy a job as I'm certain he will, then anytime anyone seriously suggests another black man -- no matter how talented or able -- for the PotUS, the response will be "look what happened with Obama!".And no matter how stupid and racist that idea is, it will have just enough appeal that it will be an albatross few blacks will be able to overcome. And so it will be literally several decades until another black man has a serious chance to become president.
So even if you strongly support the idea of a black as president -- even if you want one a lot -- you should have brains enough to realize that
a) Obama is not the right man for the job in the first place
b) it would be a bad thing for race relations to place so woefully ineffective a man into such a position.
Unfortunately, I think that's right (though I hope it's wrong). Which is another reason to not want Obama to be president.
On the other hand, regardless of what Hillary! says tomorrow night, I won't believe that Obama is the nominee until the end of the convention.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:32 PM...for telling Stormfront to pound sand. That will help, at least a little, to dewackify the Libertarian Party (or at least this candidate).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:05 PMAndrew Coyne is live blogging the "Human Rights" Commission star chamber for Mark Steyn and MacLeans. He's hoping that his magazine will lose:
Don't tell my employers, but I'm sort of hoping we lose this case. If we win--that is, if the tribunal finds we did not, by publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, or whatever the legalese is--then the whole clanking business rolls on, the stronger for having shown how "reasonable" it can be. Whereas if we lose, and fight on appeal, and challenge the whole legal basis for these inquisitions, then something important will be achieved.
I liked this:
Oh God: they're talking about who they'll be calling on Friday. Five days in a windowless room. If that's not a human rights violation...
And this comment on the Orwellian nature of the law:
Under Section 7.1, he continues, innocent intent is not a defence, nor is truth, nor is fair comment or the public interest, nor is good faith or responsible journalism.Or in other words, there is no defence.
It's a good read, so far.
[Update about half an hour later]
Some thoughts from Mark Steyn:
The Canadian Islamic Congress lawyer says that freedom of speech is a "red herring". If it were, it would be on the endangered species list.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:57 AM
But you can't take the leftism out of the man:
Obama shared Wright's rejection of black "assimilation." Obama also shared Wright's suspicion of the traditional American ethos of individual self-improvement and the pursuit of "middle-classness." In common with Wright, Obama had deep misgivings about America's criminal justice system. And with the exception of their direct attacks on whites, Obama largely approved of his preacher-friends' fiery rhetoric. Obama's goal was not to repudiate religious radicalism but to channel its fervor into an effective and permanent activist organization. How do we know all this? We know it because Obama himself has told us.
Stanley Kurtz has been doing the research on Obama's past, and his beliefs, that the mainstream media hasn't, and mostly doesn't want you to know.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:16 AMPolitico reports that the Clinton camp is "converging on New York and shredding stuff."
[whisper...]
What?
[whisper]
Oh, shedding staff. Yeah, guess I misread it.
Easy mistake, given the history.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:31 AMJeff Masters has a rundown on the prospects for early-season hurricanes. Summary: not so much. The water's too cool and the wind shear too high. Probably not much serious before August. I found this particularly interesting (I hadn't previously been aware of it):
It's not just the SSTs [Sea Surface Temperatures--rs] that are important for hurricanes, it's also the total amount of heat in the ocean to a depth of about 150 meters. Hurricanes stir up water from down deep due to their high winds, so a shallow layer of warm water isn't as beneficial to a hurricane as a deep one. The Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential (TCHP, Figure 3) is a measure of this total heat content. A high TCHP over 80 is very beneficial to rapid intensification. As we can see, the heat energy available in the tropical Atlantic has declined steadily since 2005, when the highest SSTs ever measured in the tropical Atlantic occurred. I expect that the TCHP will continue to remain well below 2005 levels this year, so we should not see any intense hurricanes in July, like we saw that year.
A lot of the Warm Mongers were saying (ignorantly) that 2005 was the beginning of a trend of more and more intense hurricanes, brought on by You Know What. Well, with the current cooling going on, so much for that.
[Update a few minutes later]
I should add that my understanding of the current thinking on the subject of warming and hurricanes is that there will actually be fewer hurricanes forming in a warmer world, because there will be more wind shear that prevents them from doing so. On the other hand, if they do manage to get it together, they will be more intense, due to warmer ocean waters.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:35 AMWith Al Qaeda on the ropes, in Iraq (a central front by their own definition) and elsewhere, is Sayyid Imam al-Sharif becoming the hirabist movement's equivalent of Trotsky?
A key point from the Journal editorial:
Zawahiri himself last month repeated his claim that the country "is now the most important arena in which our Muslim nation is waging the battle against the forces of the Crusader-Zionist campaign." So it's all the more significant that on this crucial battleground, al Qaeda has been decimated by the surge of U.S. forces into Baghdad. The surge, in turn, gave confidence to the Sunni tribes that this was a fight they could win. For Zawahiri, losing the battles you say you need to win is not a way to collect new recruits. ...
[I]t is the surge, and the destruction of al Qaeda in Iraq , that has helped to demoralize al Qaeda around the world. Nothing would more embolden Zawahiri now than a U.S. retreat from Iraq, which al Qaeda would see as the U.S. version of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.
That should be required reading for the Obama campaign. If we had followed his advice, we'd already have such an emboldened Al Qaeda. But they seem to be in denial:
...if Obama fails to "capitalize"-to take advantage of circumstances his opponent helped create and he opposed-is he guilty of only excessive pessimism? Or has he proven himself to be inflexible, unmoved by new facts, unwilling to admit error and divorced from reality? Hmmm, seems like someone said similar things about George W. Bush.
It does seem ironic.
[h/t to Cliff May for the Journal piece]
[Update a few minutes later]
It's not just Al Qaeda on the run in Iraq. The Mahdi Army and its Iranian allies aren't have a good time, either:
VSSA-logo.jpg Permalink | Printer-friendly version Iraqi Army interdicting Iranian operations in the South By Bill RoggioJune 1, 2008 10:48 PM
Click to view larger interactive map of southern Iraq.Iraqi and Coalition forces press operations against the Mahdi Army in Baghdad and Basrah despite the cease-fire signed with the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. The Iraqi Army has expanded its operations in Basrah province to the east just along the Iranian border, while 11 Mahdi Army fighters have been captured during operations in Baghdad over the past 24 hours.
Iraqi soldiers and police, backed by US and British advisers, have expanded Operation Knights' Assault to the eastern town of Abu Al Khasib, in a region east of Basrah on the Iranian border. A brigade from the 1st Iraqi Army Division, backed by a battalion from 14th Iraqi Army Division and two Iraqi National Police battalions conducted operations along the border over the past two days. One suspect was detained and 52 AK-47 assault rifles and one submachine gun were found during the sweep.
Abu Al Khasib is on Highway 6 at the border crossing with Iran at Shalamcheh. The Iranian city of Shalamcheh is the main forward operating base for the Ramazan Corps's southernmost command. The Ramazan Corps is the Qods Force command assigned to direct operations inside Iraq. Weapons, fighters, and cash smuggled across the border into Basrah would pass through Abu Al Khasib.
The Iraqi Army has been expanding its operations along the Iranian supply routes in the South during the month of May. After clearing the Mahdi Army and other Iranian-backed militias from Basrah, operations have expanded into Az Zubayr and Al Qurnah.
It's still five months to go until the election, with a lot more potential progress to come. I can imagine the anti-Obama ads, contrasting the (undeniable, at that point) progress in Iraq with video of the evacuations from the embassy roof in Saigon. It could be a repeat of either McGovern, or Carter in 1980.
[Update a little while later]
Victor Davis Hanson has some related observations:
How odd (or to be expected) that suddenly intelligence agencies, analysts, journalists, and terrorists themselves are attesting that al-Qaeda is in near ruins, that ideologically radical Islam is losing its appeal, and that terrorist incidents against Americans at home and abroad outside the war zones are at an all-time low--and yet few associate the radical change in fortune in Iraq as a contributory cause to our success.
Actually, given the pervasive bias in the media on this subject, it's to be expected, not odd at all.
[Early afternoon update]
The Taliban is on the ropes in Afghanistan, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 AMDon't miss today's Bleat, over at Lileks place. He has a proper fisking of his fellow Minnesotan scribe.
[Late morning update]
As Jay Manifold points out, the permalink is wrong--it's pointing to Friday's Bleat. For now, until it's fixed, just go to today's Bleat.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:42 AMApparently, Barack and Michelle Obama are going to quit their church, which has provided him so much spiritual nourishment over the years, and provided so much needed guidance to their young children in "black liberation theology." Apparently, they only just discovered that people have been saying...ummmmmmmm...controversial, yes, that's the word...controversial things from the pulpit there, to the cheers of the parishioners.
Must be that new politics we've heard so much about.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:21 PMJon Goff has some thoughts about outsourcing NASA employees to private industry.
It's an interesting concept, and not to discourage him from out-of-the-box thinking, but it has several flaws, more than one of which is almost certainly fatal.
Where would they work? Senator Shelby is not going to countenance a program that ships a Huntsville employee off to Mojave (and there are a lot of NASA employees who don't want to move to Mojave). It's not just the jobs that are important, but where they are. So it may necessitate moving the company to places like Huntsville to take advantage of it, even though it may be a terrible location from most other standpoints (e.g., flight test). In addition, a lot of the jobs that Congress wants to save aren't just NASA civil servants--more, probably many more of them are contractors. How does that work? Does Boeing send you an extern and get reimbursed by NASA? How do you work out proprietary issues (among others)? How do you ensure that they send you the best employees, and not the ones they were going to lay off?
Also, there will be a huge discontinuity with skill matches. The current Shuttle work force, for the most part, knows very little about vehicle development, and what they know about vehicle operations, from the standpoint of a low-cost launch provider, is mostly wrong. Also, while a lot of people work for NASA because they're excited about space, many there do so because they like the civil service protections and pensions. They don't necessarily want to work the long hours often demanded of a startup, and they come from an employment culture that may be quite incompatible with the fixed-price private sector. I won't say any more than that, but this is one of the reasons that the Aldridge Commission's recommendation to convert the NASA centers to FFRDCs went over like a lead blimp.
And how would one qualify to get these "government resources" and how many would you get? As many as you ask for? After all, if the product is free (and contra the paragraph above, desirable) surely demand will exceed supply. How will you allocate the supply. It won't happen on price, obviously, so some other solution will have to be developed. Would a company "bid" for an extern (and would they be able to bid on a specific person, or would they have to take pot luck?) by putting some kind of proposal to demonstrate how worthy their cause and their use of her will be? Who will be the equivalent of a source selection board for such a process? Can the current acquisition regulations even accommodate something like this? I know that this currently occurs for a few individuals, where it is mutually agreed, but I'm not sure that it would work for an entire work force.
Just a few thoughts, off the top of my head.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:13 PMThis post, linked by Glenn from the ISDC, reminds me of this post I wrote when this blog was only four months old. It's not that long, so I'll repeat. It was titled (as shown over in the left sidebar) "Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff":
As a follow up to today's rant over our "allies" in Europe, over at USS Clueless, Steven den Beste has an excellent disquisition on the fundamental differences between Europe and the U.S. They don't, and cannot, understand that the U.S. exists and thrives because it is the UnEurope, that it was built by people who left Europe (and other places) because they wanted freedom.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:22 AM
I say this not to offer simply a pale imitation of Steven's disquisition (which is the best I could do, at least tonight), but to explain why I spend so much time talking about space policy here. It's not (just) because I'm a space nut, or because I used to do it for a living, and so have some knowledge to disseminate. It's because it's important to me, and it should be important to everyone who is concerned about dynamism and liberty.And the reason that it's important is because there may be a time in the future, perhaps not even the distant future, when the U.S. will no longer be a haven for those who seek sanctuary from oppressive government. The trends over the past several decades are not always encouraging, and as at least a social insurance policy, we may need a new frontier into which freedom can expand.
Half a millenium ago, Europe discovered a New World. Unfortunately for its inhabitants (who had discovered it previously), the Europeans had superior technology and social structures that allowed them to conquer it.
Now, in the last couple hundred years, we have discovered how vast our universe is, and in the last couple decades, we have discovered how rich in resources it is, given will and technology. As did the eastern seaboard of the present U.S. in the late eighteenth century, it offers mankind a fertile petri dish for new societal arrangements and experiments, and ultimately, an isolated frontier from which we will be able to escape from possible future terrestrial disasters, whether of natural or human origin.
If, as many unfortunately in this country seem to wish, freedom is constricted in the U.S., the last earthly abode of true libertarian principles, it may offer an ultimate safety valve for those of us who wish to continue the dream of the founders of this nation, sans slavery or native Americans--we can found it without the flawed circumstances of 1787.
That is why space, and particularly free-enterprise space, is important.
Glenn Reynolds has filed his first report from the ISDC, on the status of the Chinese space program. Or to be more accurate, the status of our knowledge of the Chinese space program.
I'm long on record as being concerned about the Chinese in space, when it comes to the military, and sanguine when it comes to them going to the moon. I remain that way. As Glenn notes, when it comes to manned space, they're simply recapitulating what we did in the sixties, except much more slowly.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:50 PMThis sounds like an interesting session. I hope that Glenn is taking good notes. I'd expect Jeff Foust to post something on Space Politics as well (in addition to an article in The Space Review on Monday).
It may be the first time that representatives from all three campaigns have been on a single dais for this subject. We'll see it they can pin the Obama guy down on how expects to fund education with the space program without throwing a wrench in the works with a delay (and how he addresses the dreaded "Gap"). And why he wants to wait until after the election to have a national dialogue on space.
I know Lori, but I've never heard of the other two.
[Update on Saturday at noon]
Here is Jeff Foust's report, with more to come on Monday. As I would have guessed, the only people up on the issues were the moderator and Lori. I think that it says something about Obama and his campaign that he doesn't have an adviser for this subject (or perhaps science and technology at all).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:51 PMClark Lindsey doesn't usually editorialize, but he does in this report:
Cooke:- Powerpoint graphics showing Ares I/V, Orion, Altair
- Factors in selecting architecture include performance end-to-end, risk, development cost, life-cycle cost, schedule, lunar surface systems architecture.
- Implementation according to NASA institutional health and transition from Shuttle, competition in contracts, civil service contractor rules.
- Discusses the studies that justify the Constellation architecture that Griffin had decided on long before he came to NASA as director and long before the studies were done.
- Will get problems like thrust oscillation solved.
- NASA proposes to stay on course through a change in administrations. Surprise, surprise...
Emphasis mine. Are they actually openly admitting that Mike ignored all of the CE&R studies, and just did what he planned to do before he was administrator?
This was amusing:
The Coalition for Space Exploration shows a brand new NASA space exploration promotion video. Gawd. After the last panel I felt like killing myself. No problem. I can watch this video again and die of boredom...
He has some other pretty tart comments as well.
[Early afternoon update]
As Clark notes in comments, that reference to Griffin's plans were his words, not Steve Cooke's.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 AMThe Canadian Association of Journalists is finally waking up, and coming to Mark Steyn's (and others') defense against the Orwellian "Human Rights" Commission.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AMWell, that was certainly interesting, if not very enlightening or uplifting, when it comes to on-line discussion.
I see that some blogs are continuing to mischaracterize my post as saying that Buchenwald was "not as bad" as Auschwitz. First, I didn't say that. My point was never about whether one camp was "better" or "worse" than another. They obviously were all horrific, in different ways, and there's no sensible or universal way to make such an assessment. As some commenters have pointed out, it's perhaps better to be gassed immediately than worked to death (on the other hand, in Buchenwald, you had a much better chance of survival).
My point was, and remains, despite all the idiotic straw men (like the above) and insults, that Auschwitz was more notorious, to the point that it almost came to be an icon of the Holocaust. While Buchenwald was certainly one of the more well-known camps, I'd be willing to bet that many more people know the word Auschwitz and what it represents than they do Buchenwald. And among those people is, apparently, Barack Obama. Auschwitz is like Holocaust 101, which it would appear to be as far as Senator Obama ever got in his education on the subject.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:42 AMApparently, the phrase "War on Terror" offends Muslims. Words fail.
Well, OK, not completely. Somehow, this reminds me of the (feigned?) outrage that the Democrats exhibited when President Bush talked about appeasers in his speech to the Knesset, but didn't name names. You know what? If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. It doesn't really serve your cause when, in response to criticism of someone unnamed, you jump up and shout, "Hey, he's talkin' 'bout me!"
Similarly, how can Muslims be offended by a "war on terror"? Do they think that terror and Islam are inevitably and appropriately identified with each other, and inseparable? Well, if so, stupidity like this just fuels that perception.
[Update in the evening]
Robert Spencer has further thoughts on fantasy-based policy making.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:41 PMThe Democrats are almost certain to treat any campaign that threatens to deprive Obama of the presidency as negative and nasty.
Yes. Obama has already helpfully told us all of the topics that are off limits.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:59 AMA Pakistani bishop defends a shrinking Christianity in the UK. What I found ironic was this:
His outspokenness has put him in the vanguard of opposition to hardline Islamism and made him one of the highest-placed enemies of the gay rights movement.
And what loathsome thing has he done to become an enemy of the gay rights movement?
He has criticised civil partnerships and opposed the extension of IVF treatment to single women and lesbians.
I don't know the nature of the criticism, but is it really outrageous to think that the state should not be assisting women in the deliberate (and expensive) creation of fatherless children? I guess to the gay rights movement it is. But if I were gay, I'd be a lot more concerned about the continuing growth of a religion that would stone me for being gay, than about a bishop who criticizes my lifestyle and objects to a state subsidization of it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 AM...and now apparently Obama is Iron Man.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:46 PMOK, Occam's Razor would indicate that Barack Obama has a maternal great uncle (i.e., his mother's mother's brother), named Charles Payne (middle initial unclear) who served with the 355th Infantry that liberated one of the camps in the Buchenwald complex, despite previous concerns on that score.
It seems very unlikely that he would have a great uncle by that name, and that someone by that name would have had that service record, who also was an Obama political supporter, and he would put forth such a story, and that they are not the same person, despite the confusion about the middle initial. So, if we ignore the "Auschwitz" reference, and the fact that he calls his great uncle his uncle (understandable, given that he had no actual uncles, at least on his mother's side), the story is accurate.
But it's not that easy to ignore Auschwitz.
That's because "Auschwitz" has become one of the most emotionally charged words in the English (well, OK, it's not English--it's German) language. It's one of the most emotionally charged words in any language, for anyone who is aware of what happened there, and few educated people aren't, regardless of their native language.
The word is significant in the context of the Obama campaign for two reasons.
First, because it has such emotional connotations, particularly for Jews, with whom Obama has had trouble closing the deal, it looks like he's pandering to them. I'm not saying that he is, but it has that appearance.
Auschwitz was the site of the deliberate extermination of many of them (as well as Catholics, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others deemed "unworthy of life" by the National Socialists aka Nazis) and one might cynically think that an attempt to say that one of his family members was responsible for the liberation of the camp would give that constituency a warmer feeling for him, despite his many foreign policy advisors who clearly are not fans of the state of Israel (e.g., Zbig).
Buchenwald, on the other hand, while atrocious beyond normal human understanding, was merely a slave labor camp, and not historically abnormal in a time of war. The people who died there did so under the stress of work and disease, rather than as a deliberate attempt to wipe them off the planet. Which, of course, says much more about human nature and history than it does about the Nazis.
But beyond that, it is of concern because it reveals a profound ignorance of history and/or geography.
Anyone familiar with the history of World War II knows that Auschwitz (despite its Germanic name, which like Dansk to Danzig after the conquest in 1939, was a rename--the Polish name is Oswiecim), was in the occupied country of Poland, which before the war had hundreds of thousands of Jews, and after the war had...virtually none.
Furthermore, anyone familiar with that history knows that American troops never advanced past the River Elbe, in Germany, and that the Soviet forces advanced all the way across Poland and into eastern Germany, raping and pillaging as they went. Which is why there was an East Germany. Has Barack never heard of that "country," which was a colony of the Soviet Union, of which his mother was not obviously unfond (to understate the issue)?
No one, in other words, familiar with that history, would imagine that an American soldier, under Patton, had contributed to the "liberation" (scare quotes because the Soviets never liberated anyone--they only enslaved them) of Auschwitz.
Obama didn't know this. Nor, apparently, did anyone on his staff, since he had been spouting the same fable since 2002 and no one had bothered to correct him. Or if they had, they were ignored. I'm not sure which is worse.
Given his unfamiliarity with Jack Kennedy's less-than-successful negotiations with Khrushchev, it makes one wonder what else he doesn't know.
[Late evening update]
Some have taken issue of my characterization of Buchenwald as "merely a slave labor camp."
This has to be taken in context. I'm not sure what part of "atrocious beyond human understanding" with regard to that camp the commenters don't understand.
I wasn't excusing it in any way. I was simply pointing out that in the historical context of war, in which civilians were generally enslaved or killed, and disposed of when they could no longer work, it was hardly abnormal. Auschwitz (and Treblinka, and Sobibor, and Chelmo, and Betzec, and Majdenek) were in a separate class, previously unknown, which gave rise to the term "genocide," in which the intent was to wipe out an entire people. I'm sorry that some don't get the point.
[Thursday morning update]
Well, I certainly seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest among some. Let me pick up the remains of the straw men that were strewn around and kicked apart here overnight.
For the record, I did not say, or imply, that Buchenwald was a summer camp. I did not say, or imply, that the leftist Hitler's crimes were a "drop in the bucket" compared to the leftist Stalin's. I did not say, or imply, that working people to death is not murdering them. I did not say, or imply, that anyone's death (including Anne Frank's) was less tragic because it occurred at Bergen-Belsen than at Auschitz. I did not say, or imply, that I would "smile with satisfaction" if I were at Buchenwald instead of Auschwitz.
I'm not sure how to have a rational discussion with anyone nutty enough to have managed to infer any of the above from what I actually wrote.
Also, for the record, I am not now, and have never been a Republican, or (AFAIK) a "right winger," unless by that phrase one means a classical liberal. As for "sitting down with my Jewish friends and discussing this," I not only have Jewish friends, but Jewish relatives by blood, or perhaps I should say had, because they include many who doubtless died in both types of camps.
[Update a few minutes later]
One other straw man. I did not say, or imply, that because of this single incident Barack Obama was unfit to be president of the United States. But it is part, albeit a small one, of a much larger tapestry.
[One more update]
To the people in comments asking me what I meant by this, or why I wrote it, I don't know how to better explain my points than I already have. If after having actually read it carefully, for comprehension, you still don't get it, or willfully choose to misinterpret it, I can't help you.
[Update again]
OK, I'll make one attempt, for those who think that I am somehow "minimizing" what happened at Buchenwald. Perhaps they don't understand the true meaning of the word "atrocious," as in the phrase I used, "atrocious beyond human understanding."
I wasn't using it in perhaps a more popular (and trivial) sense as "that movie or meal was atrocious." I was using it in its most literal sense, as in a place where actual atrocities occurred. The two words are related, you know?
[Update about 9:30]
If I change the phrase "merely a slave labor camp," which is what seems to be generating such irrational fury and umbrage, to "not a site for the extermination of a people on an industrial scale," will that mollify people? Probably not, but I'll do it anyway.
[Afternoon update]
I'm wondering how much of the rampant insanity, straw mannery and outrage in comments would have been avoided had I merely omitted the word "merely".
[Friday morning update]
I have one final (I hope) follow up post on this subject.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:52 PMOK, when we last left our hero, his unclegreat-uncle had liberated AuschwitzBuchenwald while in the army. Or did he?
His only Great Uncle is Charles W. Payne. It at least appears that no one by that name from Kansas served in the Army during WWII.
Charles W. Payne of Kansas, with a similar birth era, served in the Navy during WWII.What Obama's campaign released via first link above states he served in the Infantry. I assume it's possible the records are wrong, or he changed branches. But I'm unaware of that as a standard practice. Perhaps it happened during WWII for manpower reasons? Otherwise, Obama's Great Uncle would seem to have done most of his marching and liberating while at sea.
Hey, maybe the story is fake, but accurate.
You know, if I were an Obama staffer, I'd start fact checking everything he says, to try to stay ahead of the blogosphere. If this turns out to be true, that press release that the campaign put out yesterday is going to be pretty embarrassing.
[Update a few minutes later]
There's no "Charles W. Payne" listed as having served in the 89th Infantry Division. The closest it comes is a Pfc "C. T. Payne," which even if it's a Charles, has the wrong middle initial.
I think that yesterday's press release has to be considered non-operative at this point.
[Update a few minutes later]
More at The Virginian, which notes that Buchenwald was a slave labor camp, not a Jewish extermination site, so it's less convenient than Auschwitz for political purposes:
what we appear to have is something that's commonly known as "resume inflation." And that's what you get when you have a man who has no real experience. When what you have is an empty suit who is trying to pretend that there is substance there.
But what was the point of the fable? The point was really to try to connect with the American people by telling them how callous the government is about the emotional problems of its soldiers. The "uncle" is supposed to have spent six months in the attic, having experienced the sights he encountered in the liberation of Ohrdruf, an experience that may have lasted less than three hours.The punch line is that Obama will make sure that America's fighting men and will get all the mental care they deserve.
That's it. That's the punch line. That's the reason for the fable. That's what American fighting men are good for: a story line for a health care pitch. And the combat vet is cast in the eternal role that the Liberals have created for him: the crazy uncle in the attic. Just wait until Barack discovers another uncle whose wartime experiences drove him to drink and living in the street when he isn't shooting up a beer hall on Saturday nights.
Yes, that's what bothers me about this story, even if it's true. As is usually the case with Democrats, they seem unable to talk about the military without slandering them or making them out to be victims.
[Early afternoon update]
It's possible that the genealogy site linked by Dan Riehl has the middle initial wrong. If you assume that the middle initial wasn't "W," there actually were five Charles Paynes in the army from Kansas: a Charles A, a Charles E, a Charles J, and two Charles Ls (the second one is a Charlie rather than Charles). So it's possible that it's one of them. The problem remains, though, that we don't have any record of a Charles Payne in the 89th, and the only potential candidate (C. T. Payne) doesn't have any of those middle initials.
[Update a few minutes later]
Heh. Here is a map that might explain it.
[Mid-afternoon update]
OK, the issue seems to be resolved, assuming we can take the word of the proprietors at the 89th Division web site:
Concerning the service of Mr. Charles Payne: C.T. Payne was a soldier in the 89th Infantry Division. He served in the 355th Infantry Regiment, Company K. The 355th Infantry Regiment was the unit to liberate Ohrdruf. Mr. Payne was there.
But we still don't know why his middle name is "T" there, and "W" at the genealogy site. Not that it matters.
[Update a few minutes later]
The statement is a little Clintonesque. It says that Charles Payne was there, but it doesn't say that it's the Charles Payne who is Obama's great uncle. The only reason that I'm suspicious is because of this. They seem to be Bush deranged.
[Late evening update]
I think that it's clear that Obama's great-uncle did have a role in liberating Buchenwald. I have a follow-up post here.
Obama doesn't get off clean.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 AMThanks to a link from one of my Obama-admiring commenters (thank you, Robert), we learn that Obama's tales of Americans liberating Auschwitz didn't start this weekend. He was telling similar stories about his grandfather back in 2002, in his now-famous Iraq speech, which I'd never previously read:
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka.
The first troops to enter those two camps (in Poland) were Soviet troops, so unless Patton was leading them, this can't be true.
As I noted in comments, you'd think that if he's going to be telling these kinds of stories, he'd at least attempt to make them plausible (e.g., Dachau and Buchenwald). My guess is that he's unfamiliar with the actual history of the war, and just invoked two of the most notorious camp names to make his point. Whether his grandfather (or "uncle") actually told him tales of concentration camps will probably never be known.
It's interesting that no one has ever noticed this historical discrepancy before, considering how such a big deal has been made of that speech. This should also knock the legs out from under arguments from the Obama camp that he didn't really say "Auschwitz," and that it was CBS and other news sources putting the word in his mouth.
My guess? He's just making this stuff up. Because it sounds good to the ignorant rubes, and he's a good speechifier. It's all part of that "new politics" we've heard so much about.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I'm hearing a report on Fox News, where they have video of his uncle story. Yes, he really said that he liberated Auschwitz, and then hid in the attic for six months.
[Another update]
OK, in Obama days, "the next day" means over half a year later in June of 1942. Just another "mistake," I'm sure.
[Update on Wednesday morning]
I have a follow-up post. It turns out that he may not even have been in the army at all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:23 PMIt wouldn't shock me if Obama's uncle was in the Red Army, given his mother's apparent political beliefs, but I suspect that he's either repeating a family myth, or gaffeing again. I don't think that this is his Tuzla, though. If he claimed to have liberated Auschwitz himself it might be Hillary-class, but not this.
[Update a while later]
Does Obama even have an uncle who could have served in the US Army?
It's one thing to get your concentration camps confused, but conjuring up family members puts this in a different class of fabulism. Does he really think that no one will call him on this? Well, considering the way the media has been swooning for him, maybe he does.
[Update a few minutes later]
Heh. From comments, I agree. Maybe he was thinking about his Uncle Joe...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:43 AMI'm listening to the young (or maybe not so young) fascists disrupting McCain's speech in Denver on nuclear proliferation, with chants of "Endless War! Endless War!" They are being drowned out by the Senator's supporters chanting "John McCain, John McCain."
OK, whether or not they're fascists is just a guess, but I think it's a pretty safe one. Though it's probably unfair to characterize them as Black Shirts--they were mostly ex-military.
[Update in the later afternoon]
Jim Geraghty agrees with me:
At this point, noisy protesters disrupting a McCain speech are basically advertising, "I am incapable of letting those I disagree with express their views in public; I am uncomfortable with free expression and at heart a fascist, as I do not believe opposing viewpoints should be heard."
He thinks that they were chanting "Stop this war," not "Endless War." That could be.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:14 AMWell, not really, but he did show how to beat an Obama. Unfortunately, McCain isn't the man to propound those views.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:40 AMI think that if you look in the dictionary under "sanctimonious twit," you'll see a picture of this guy. I found the link in comments at this post which describes the sad state to which the Harvard Law Review has fallen (at least, I'm assuming that it was once much better).
Boy, as a commenter said, I'm sure glad that people associated with it don't go into politics...
[Update a few minutes later]
Geez. He's continuing to defend the stupid essay on a blog dedicated to the subject.
As someone else at Volokh's place said, why does he have both kidneys? He's guilty of murder because he hasn't donated one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AMI have some thoughts on this weekend's successful arean invasion, over at PJ Media.
[Update at 7:40 AM EDT]
Some less lofty thoughts over at Althouse's place, particularly in comments.
[Mid-morning update]
Jeff Foust writes about a second chance for an underdog, over at The Space Review.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:16 AMI think that a bumper sticker that said "I'D RATHER HAVE BUSH'S THIRD TERM THAN JIMMY CARTER'S SECOND" would be a hot seller, assuming that Obama is the nominee. Note, contrary to convention wisdom, I still don't assume that. There's this little thing called a "convention" coming up that will determine that.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 PM...finally, on the British Empire.
Strange to witness one of the oldest and most successful of nations commit suicide without even being aware of what it's doing.
Strange indeed. And very sad.
[Update, a few minutes later]
You know, if the Saudis wanted to spend their money building Muslim hospitals in the UK (just as the Catholics have their own hospitals in the US), complete with restrictions as to how much hygiene is required on the part of the nursing staff, per sharia law, who could object to them orienting the beds in whatever direction they wished? The only people who would suffer would be the Muslims stupid enough to use their services.
But instead, because Britain, with its NHS (and other programs) has become a welfare state, it's a lot cheaper for them to spend the money bribing MPs to institute such nonsense in the public hospitals, so they can save their money for funding madrassas that encourage people to bomb the Tube.
This would seem to have parallels to the public school system, and the battles over what kind of "science" to teach in science classes. It is an intrinsic pitfall of state-supplied health and education. Not to mention other vital needs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:18 PMWe haven't seen one of these with the major parties in decades, though I think it's a good bet for Denver this year with the Dems.
But if you're interested in how floor fights actually work, here's some live blogging from Dave Weigel on the Libertarian convention (also in Denver). If this happens with the donkeys in August, there will be a lot of blood shed (literally, in the streets, I suspect).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:59 PMI had a post about this last week, but I forgot to remind people today, that I was on The Space Show this afternoon (I took a break from yardwork, where we're tearing out old hedges, and still finishing up guttering--on the radio, no one can hear you sweating). Here's a place to comment for anyone who happened to listen in.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:55 PMFrom Freeman Dyson. It's a long read but worthwhile (as always).
[Update late evening]
Dayo Olopade has an uncomplimentary review of Dyson's review.
FWIW, I don't think that GW skepticism is equivalent to Pascal's wager. But I don't have time right now to say why.
Hope I live to tell the tale.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:43 AMIt's round two of Ask Barry!, over at Iowahawk's place.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:48 AMI find it amusing that these folks were clueless as to the purpose of the Google Lunar Prize when they signed up:
In my first blog, I wrote why Harold Rosen formed the Southern California Selene Group. In short, he and I registered our team to compete for the Google Lunar X PRIZE to demonstrate that a low-cost space mission to the moon could be accomplished and could lead to lowering the cost of some future robotic missions to planetary moons. Plus, we intended to have fun! Harold and I both are strong supporters of space science and robotic space exploration. (For one, I'm an astronomy and cosmology enthusiast.) We love the kind of work that JPL is doing, for example. But we most definitely are not in favor of human space missions. That is not our goal, nor do we support such a goal.
The Team Summit turned out to be a real wakeup call. In the Guidelines workshop that I attended just last Tuesday, the cumulative effect of hearing all day from Peter Diamandis, Bob Weiss and Gregg Maryniak that the "real purpose" of the Google Lunar X PRIZE was to promote the so-called commercialization of space (which I took to mean highly impractical stuff like mining the moon and beaming power to the earth, as shown in one of GLXP kickoff videos), humanity's future in space, etc. etc., took its toll. I couldn't help but think "what am I doing here?" When I spoke to Harold about it on the phone later, he agreed - no way did he want to be involved in promoting a goal he does not believe in.
So, what does this mean? It sounds to me like it's not just a goal they "don't believe in" (which is fine--they could not believe in it and still want to win the prize for their own purposes), but rather, a goal to which they are actively opposed, and don't think that anyone should be pursuing. I'm very curious to hear them elaborate their views, but it sounds like they're extreme Saganites. For those unfamiliar with the schools of thought, you have the von Braun model, in which vast government resources are expended to send a few government employees into space (this is Mike Griffin's approach), the Sagan model ("such a beautiful universe...don't touch it!), and the O'Neillian vision of humanity filling up the cosmos.
So when they say they don't support such a goal, does that mean they oppose it, and would take action to prevent it from happening if they could? Sure sounds like it. And they take it as a given that lunar mining is "impractical," but is that their only reason for opposing it, or do they think that it somehow violates the sanctity of the place, and disturbs what should be accessible only for pure and noble science? I'll bet that they'd prefer a lot fewer humans on earth, too.
[Via Clark Lindsey]
[Update late morning]
Commenter "Robert" says that I'm being unfair to Carl Sagan. Perhaps he's right--I was just using the formulation originally (I think) developed by Rick Tumlinson, though Sagan was definitely much more into the science and wonder of space than were von Braun or O'Neill... If anyone has a suggestion for a better representative of the "how pretty, don't touch" attitude, I'm open to suggestions.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:27 AMNot like daughter. Alice Walker's daughter rejects gender feminism.
Sounds like she should be grateful she wasn't born a boy. Who knows how badly she'd have been treated?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:33 PMI've got to believe that this is going to be the stuff of ads this fall. Do we really want people in this party to control both the Congress and the White House?
Unfortunately, "profit" is a dirty word to John McCain as well. Let's hope some of his advisors can keep him under control.
[Update later afternoon]
Heh. Will Obama make Maxine Waters his Secretary of Energy?
[Update a few minutes later]
Geez. Maybe she'll be energy secretary no matter who wins. John McCain:
Um, I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere-and I'd be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax-that's not what bothers me-but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people, that or industries or corporations that are distorting the market.
And this guy calls himself a "Reagan conservative"?
I think that Mickey has it right. Republicans are suckers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:26 AMSome thoughts about the supposed "highly educated voters" who the media told us voted for John Kerry, and are voting (and will vote for) Barack Obama:
I invited the applicants for interviews. These PMI wannabes came off as slick and somewhat rude. I noted something among my subjects, a sense of entitlement, they all, to varying degrees, emitted a message along the lines of "Why are you bothering me with this silly interview? I am obviously brilliant. I have a degree from Columbia. I am not going to spend my whole life as you have in this stupid bureaucracy. I just need this to add to my resume. I am in a hurry."
I have two bachelors degrees and a masters. Am I highly educated? Well, I'm sufficiently educated not to let Obama pull the wool over my eyes.
Come to think of it, Obama seems to be in a hurry as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 AMA concise description of it, over at Ann Althouse' site (see second comment):
Obama would not be getting the super delegates at this stage if he were not african american.
Hillary has the popular vote. Moreover, if primaries were held again today, Hillary would greatly expand her lead. She would beat Obama by 3/4 of a million votes in Florida and she would crush him in Michigan. In addition, Obama's big lead from Illinois would shrink.Today compared to January, what we know about Hillary has not changed. This is not true for Obama. Everything we have learned about Obama in March-May has been negative. The truth is that Obama was unknown on Super Tuesday and people voted for him because they thought he was something other than what he is. Today Obama is more known and the trend of support for him in the battleground states is downward. The super delegates were put in place to pick up on these trends. Unfortuantely, the race issue has tied their hands.
Oh, well. Sux to be them.
It's a bed they made, though. Sleep tight.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 PMBut maybe this time. Peter Thiel has provided seed funding for a libertarian ocean colony.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:42 AMThe comments (125 and counting) in this post over at Space Politics a few days ago have gotten progressively weirder and weirder.
Did you know that New Space is a baby boomer thing? And that it's a failed paradigm, while the standard procedures of NASA giving out cost-plus government contracts has been a total success, and will get us to the stars any year now?
Me, neither. What is "Someone" smoking? No surprise that he or she posts anonymously.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:54 AMWhy is there no news about this? Sorry, but I think that it's more important than both the primaries and Ted Kennedy's brain tumor. I really don't understand it, particularly since it seems like a great opportunity to blame George Bush, and actually (much more rarely) be right.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:03 AMI'm sorry to hear about Senator Kennedy's bad news, and wish him and his family the best, but I and Dr. Hsieh have a question for him:
I wonder which country with morally superior "universal health care" he'll go to for his treatment? Will it be Canada, the UK, or Cuba?Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:38 PM
Both Barack and Michelle Obama have a collectivist mentality:
Jeff Dobbs, a little while back, saw Michelle Obama's statement that "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
...Barack Obama today: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.Would an Obama Administration really mean an end to "eating as much as we want?"
There is an implicit assumption here that, in order for one person (or country) to have more, another must thereby have less. This is the view of a person who views wealth not as something that is created, but something that simply exists, and the only important issue is how to divvy it up. But no one in Zimbabwe is starving because I took food away from them and ate it myself. They are starving in former Rhodesia, and in North Korea, and other places, because the governments there, in thrall to greed and the poisonous ideology of collectivism, have destroyed the agricultural sector.
What are the Obamas going to take away from us to give to someone else? And how will they decide from whom to take it, and to whom to give it? And what means will they choose to do so?
And which countries' approval are we seeking? Egypt, to whom we give billions a year in aid? France? Germany? The Europeans seemed to be well fed, last time I checked.
My mother, who used to tell me to clean my plate in the sixties because there were children starving in China, had her mother tell her to clean her plate during the depression because there were children starving in Europe. Who is it that Obama is asking (telling?) us to clean our plates (or better yet, put less on them) for? Will he set up rationing? Will Michelle be in charge of the rationing board and pie distribution?
Hungry stomachs want to know, before November.
The sad thing, of course, is that our agricultural policies, which actually increase the cost of our food (though we're wealthy enough to afford it, at least until the Obamas take over), are also complicit in destroying the agricultural sector of many third-world countries, by providing foreign aid in the form of subsidized grain and depressing the price of food there, making farming a non-viable economic activity. What will Barack do about that?
[Update a few minutes later]
This doesn't speak so much to their collectivism, but Charlotte Hays asks:
I loved Obama telling us how how "unacceptable" and "low class" it would be for us to to mention his wife's anti-American remarks. How's he gonna stop us? (I certainly hope he will have a tougher approach when negotiating with dictators!) And, come to think of it, this isn't the first time Obama has said that anti-American "snippets" by a close associate were taken out of context. We get to decide if we think this is relevant, not the candidate.
Do we really want to be bossed around by these arrogant people and their double standards for four years?
[Update in the afternoon]
Rachel Lucas and her commenters aren't very impressed by Obama's Calvin-ball campaign rules.
So I just want to know what happens if Republican's aren't "careful." Is he gonna give them karate? Write a strongly worded letter of disapproval?Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 AM
It looks like NASA's not going to abandon the ISS. That seems sensible to me.
I'd like to know where they get the 1/124 number for probability of having to evacuate. But it makes sense, given that they're already down at least one (and actually, more like two or three) level in the fault tree, that you can accept a lower reliability for the lifeboat. Lifeboats, after all, have traditionally been pretty iffy propositions. It's not reasonable to demand high reliability of them. That was one of the complaints that I used to have when working on CERV--that the requirements were overspecified for something that was only for use in an emergency.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:39 AMA travelogue by Lileks:
The plot was hugely ironical: Timon and Roomba or whatever the warthog is named were building a resort in the jungle, and damning a stream to create a water feature. Simba showed up to demonstrate the error of their ways. The hilarity of any manifestation of the Disneyverse criticizing an artificial lake to build a resort goes without saying. And it did go without saying, of course. Simba said that Timon and Roomba or whatever were acting like another creature that did not behave in tune with nature, and that creature was . . . man.
BOO HISS, I guess. Jaysus, I tire of this. Big evil stupid man had done many stupid evil bad things, like pile abandoned cars in the river, dump chemicals into blue streams, and build factories that vomited great dark clouds into the sky. Like the People's State Lead Paint and Licensed Mickey Merchandise Factory in Shanghai Province, perhaps? Simba gave us a lecture about materialism and how it hurt the earth - cue the shot of trees actually being chopped down, and I'm surprised the sap didn't spurt like blood in a Peckinpah movie - and other horrors, like forests on fire because . . . well, because it was National Toss Glowing Coals Out the Car Window Month, I guess. I swear the footage all came from the mid-70s; it was grainy and cracked and the cars were all late-60s models. Because I'm pretty sure we're not dumping cars into the rivers as a matter of course any more. You're welcome to try to leave your car on the riverbank and see how that turns out for you.At the end Timon and Phoomba decided to open a green resort, and everything's hakuna Montana.
Follow the link for the rest of the story.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:13 AM...that Obama is unlikely to win. Michael Weiss writes extensively about his Iraq minefield:
...there is every expectation that Obama will have his bluff called sooner or later. Adolph Reed, a prominent black leftist intellectual who teaches political science at the University of Pennsylvania, published a fascinating and undervalued essay in current issue of The Progressive magazine. It is titled "Obama No." Professor Reed has followed the resistible rise of this young Chicago politico for quite some time, and he never liked what he saw:
Obama's style of being all things to all people threatens to melt under the inescapable spotlight of a national campaign against a Republican. It's like what brings on the downfall of really successful con artists: They get themselves onto a stage that's so big that they can't hide their contradictions anymore, and everyone finds out about the different stories they've told different people.Again, for various reasons, this is not the kind of thing that Hillary! was able to use against Obama, but it will be devastating to him in the fall.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:46 PM
If I were George Bush, and Congress overrode my veto of the criminally outrageous agriculture bill, I'd take Tim Carney's suggestion, and have the Justice Department start investigating all those who vote to override for bribery. Republicans and Democrats alike.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:39 AM...as Barbie used to say. Well, actually, it's not that it's hard, but that women just aren't as into it as men are.
The tone of the article is amusing, because the author clearly knows that she is reporting politically incorrect (though obvious to most thinking, observant people) results, and seems uncomfortable with it. So kudos to her for doing it anyway. And of course the feminist establishment is extremely threatened by the notion that there is any cause of disparity between men and women that cannot be attributed to evil patriarchal social conditioning and rampant sexist discrimination. To the point at which they of course have to completely misstate the argument in order to knock down the illogical straw man:
Rosalind Chait Barnett, at the Women's Studies Research Center at Brandeis, says that boys and girls are not, at root, different enough for such clear sorting to be seen as a matter of "choice."
"The data is quite clear," she says. "On anything you point to, there is so much variation within each gender that you have to get rid of this idea that 'men are like this, women are like that.' "
Well, the data may be clear, but the logic is severely flawed (I'll refrain from noting that it may be because it's coming from a woman...).
Even if there is tremendous variation among individuals within genders (which there clearly is) it doesn't follow that there won't be average differences in traits between genders. For instance, when it comes to math, what Larry Summers noted (and lost his job over after some of the mature, rational, scientific women present got the vapors and had to hie to their fainting couches) was that in fact men have a much greater standard deviation than women. They have both more geniuses, and more morons, when it comes to higher mathematics, whereas women have more of a tendency to stay near the mean. And there are brilliant (individual) woman mathematicians and hard scientists. But that doesn't mean that we can therefore conclude that there are no statistical differences in these traits between men and women. And the fact that there are allows us to draw no conclusions about any particular man or woman (if I call Ms. Barnett illogical, it is because she conveys illogic, and has nothing to do with her genital configuration.) It remains perfectly reasonable, on a statistical basis, to make some broad statements about the genders ("men are like this and women are like that") without having to infer that every man is like this and every woman is like that.
This is the general problem with discussions of gender and race differences, and why books like The Bell Curve
But leftists, hating individualism, and being addicted to group and collective rights, can't conceive that such research wouldn't or shouldn't be translated into some attempt at social policy making. Similarly, if women's choices in career really are choices, and not a result of false consciousness, then they won't be able to get as much support for implementing their social engineering nostrums.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:18 AMOne of the reasons that Obama has done so well is that Hillary has never really brought out the big guns against him, something that the McCain campaigns and the 527s will have no compunction about doing in the fall. His campaign (at least up to the point of the Reverend Wright controversy) was a hothouse plant, and it's likely to wilt when put out in the wild after the convention.
And why didn't Hillary hit him where it really hurts (as opposed to idiotic things like kindergarten essays)? Because those big guns are likely to backfire on her. Here's an example:
In her campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Clinton has said little about her experiences in the tumultuous late 1960s and early 1970s, including her involvement with student protests and her brief internship at the law firm, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. She has said she worked on a child custody case, although former partners recall her likely involvement in conscientious objector cases and a legal challenge to a university loyalty oath.
But her decision to target Obama's radical connections has spurred criticism from some former protest movement leaders who say she has opened her own associations to scrutiny."The very things she's accusing Barack of could be said of her with much greater evidence," said Tom Hayden, a leading anti-Vietnam War activist, author and self-described friend of the Clintons.
Next thing you know, she'll be accusing him of shady real-estate deals.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:04 AMI'll be on The Space Show on Sunday afternoon at noon to 1:30 PM PDT, talking about space and politics, and whatever.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 AMMore thoughts on "peak oil," and what I'll call the "peak oil constant," which seems to be twenty or thirty years (i.e., it's always predicted to be that far in the future).
[Update mid afternoon]
Manzi has a follow up, in response to a Georgetown professor. Bottom line:
What if we had reacted to the predictions throughout the 1970s and 80s that we would reach peak oil in about 2000? Do you think that some of these proposed changes would have slowed economic growth and prevented the world from being in the current position of paying an ever-dwindling share of total output for oil? What other difficult-to-anticipate changes might some these interventions have had? Could the idea of purposely restructuring the transportation, housing, and agricultural sectors of the U.S. economy based on a prediction for an event that we have proven to be very bad at predicting - and for which the world's leading experts refuse to provide anything other than very broad guidance - induce a sense of humility? It does in me.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:34 AM
An FAQ. All of the campaigns should read it, though I suspect the very concept is anathema to both Senators Clinton and Obama.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:29 AMIowahawk has a trip through time for one Republican Congressman. Too bad it isn't only one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:18 PMThere's a lot of good discussion (and some not-so-good discussion) of the NASA Authorization bill over at Space Politics, here, here and here. I haven't read the whole thing, and frankly, it's hard for me to get motivated to invest much time or thought in it, because it's just an authorization bill. Most of the time, they never even get passed, and even when they do, they're pretty meaningless, because the only one that really counts is the appropriations bill, where the money gets handed out. Authorization, when it exists at all, simply serves as a sense of the Congress (and more generally, just as a sense of the relevant Congressional committee). But to that degree, it does provide a useful insight into where appropriations might lead, and potential future policy, particularly in the next administration.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:53 PMLet me start by saying I don't know the answer to the question in the post title, but it is one of the hallmarks of a nanny state. Interestingly, though, while it's an east-coast, west-coast thing, it's the reverse of the usual stereotype, in which the westerners are anarchist cowboys, and the easterners civilized obeyers of the rules. Let me explain.
Growing up in southeast Michigan, I remember understanding the term "jaywalking," but only because someone explained it to me after I heard the term, not because I personally had any experience with it. Or rather, not because I had any personal experience with it in terms of it being illegal, and the law being enforced. I walked across a street when it seemed safe to do so, regardless of distance from lights, or their chromatic condition. And no one ever said boo about it, let alone the law enforcement authorities. I always considered the "Walk" and "Don't Walk" signs advisories, rather than commands (and I should add that I like the new ones that have a countdown clock telling you how many seconds until it's going to change, so you can judge whether you have time to start across). This was true in both Flint, the city in which I was raised, and Ann Arbor, where I spent three and a half years at school.
Being brought up in such an environment, I was surprised when I moved to southern California, and was informed by the locals that the gendarmes took illegal pedestrian street crossing seriously (i.e., they actually gave out tickets for it if, for instance, you crossed the street within some specified distance of a traffic signal, but didn't use the crosswalk). I heard many tales from the locals of such ticketry, and accordingly, I restrained my chicken-like urges to cross the road where and when I pleased (traffic permitting, of course). But like red arrows for left turns, when there was no oncoming traffic, I bridled at it, thinking it idiotic, and being treated like a child.
It got to the point that one of the reasons that I looked forward to business trips back east (generally, in my case, DC) was that I would have the freedom to cross the street if it was safe, anywhere and anywhen I wanted, without first having to check for the gestapo.
Anyway, Tigerhawk had a (to him) disturbing visit to the left coast (Seattle) and was shocked at the level of conformity and groupthink in this supposedly hip and counter-cultural town:
I walked down the hill and up again all before about 7 am. The streets were essentially empty of cars, so being an Easterner I skipped merrily along with little regard for the status of the pedestrian Walk/Don't Walk signs.
Then I noticed that the few other peds were just standing there waiting for the "Walk" signal to come on even when there was not a car in sight. Not surprisingly, they all looked at me like I was a middle-aged feminist at an Obama rally, so I also stopped violating the crosswalk lights.When I landed I reported all of this to a friend of mine who claims to hate Seattle -- how can anybody actually hate Seattle? -- and she said "Of course, Seattle is basically just a suburb of Canada."
Like that explained it. Although it sort of does.
Anyway, other than in Washington, DC -- which back in the day raised money by assigning cops in unmarked clothes to write jay-walking tickets -- I've always thought of crosswalk signals as purely advisory. Not the command "Don't Walk," but more like "probably not a good idea to walk, because the cars have a green light." That is certainly the rule in any city in which I have lived or worked, including both New York and Chicago. In Seattle, though, pedestrians comply with crosswalk signals almost to the extent that motorists obey traffic lights. You know, they wait for the light to change even when there is neither a car nor a cop in sight. It is bizarre, and really quite un-American.
Well, the "suburb-of-Canada" thing doesn't explain the attitude in southern California. But it is un-American. A good friend of mine (who has been in LA for the past thirty years or so) lived in Germany for quite a few years back in the seventies, and acquired a wife and step-daughter there. He described the Germans (including his wife and step-daughter) as being hyperobediant to the law, including jaywalking laws, and they would never think of going without permission from the traffic signal, or outside of a cross-walk. At the time I attributed it to being German, but one of Tigerhawk's commenters notes that the Swiss are similar (though he didn't say whether it was the French, Italian or German Swiss).
Is such strict cultural regimentation in itself fascist? No. In fact, I think that in general, respect for the law is obviously a good thing. But sometimes, as Dickens put into the mouth of his character, "the law is a ass." Like the rules of bureaucracy, the laws are meant to protect people with poor judgment (and others who might be affected by dumb decisions) by constraining their behavior. Some foolish people might misjudge traffic, and unthinkingly cross the street against the light, or in the absence of a light, and get hit? Make it illegal. Problem solved. No judgment required. Just follow the rules.
In fact, in LA, I suspect that it has the unintended consequence of actually causing more accidents, exactly because it removes pressure for people to think before acting. Children are taught in school to always use a crosswalk, because in a crosswalk, you see, the pedestrian has the right of way, and cars aren't allowed to enter it while they're in it. And in fact, when you step into an unsignaled crosswalk in LA County, traffic will generally (note the word) stop for you. It's the law, and the culture.
Which can breed a dangerous complacency. That the crosswalk doesn't contain a force shield to actually prevent cars from crossing it while a pedestrian is in it, and that the law doesn't involve suspension of the very real physical law of momentum or decrease the stopping distance of trucks, isn't taught, apparently. I haven't seen the statistics, but I'll bet that a lot more people (particularly California natives) are injured and killed in crosswalks, where they have a false sense of safety, than in the "unsafe" areas where they actually have to look both ways and think before crossing the highway. Particularly because they not only have to look out for traffic, but police with nothing better to do than hand out jaywalking tickets.
Too much unthinking respect for the law isn't fascistic per se, but it provides a fertile breeding ground for someone with charisma who comes along with grand ideas for new laws which, of course, because they are laws, must be obeyed. Thus when it became the law for Germans to turn in the Jews, what choice did they have? It wasn't after all, their decision. It was the law.
But of course, while LA and Seattle are the west (about as far as you can go west in the lower forty eight and remain above water), they're not the wild west. They're in fact (with San Francisco) the bluest of the blue states, chock full of so-called "progressives." So it's not surprising at all, per Jonah's thesis, that they are much more culturally attuned to obeying laws, even senseless ones, and all in favor of more. For the children.
OK, now for the challenging part. How to fit the traffic anarchists of New York City (cue Dustin Hoffman, "I'm walking here!") into the thesis?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:44 PMMichael Totten reviews Michael Yon's book
Iraq is a tragic, unhappy, and often disturbing place, but it's less sinister and frightening up close than it is from a distance. That's because it's a country striving for normality, whose normal aspects rarely make their way into media reports that highlight violence, mayhem, and failure. On TV, Iraq looks like a nation of masked, gun-toting fanatics, but in person, one finds friendliness, solidarity, and reasonableness amid the chaos. "Just because Iraqis have 'Allahu Akbar' on their flag," Yon writes, "doesn't mean they're going to blow up the World Trade Center any more than 'In God We Trust' means we're going to attack Communist China." "Iraq does not hate America," he insists. "If they hated us, I'd be urging an immediate troop withdrawal, because there would be no hope of winning this war. If the Iraqis hated us, we would be fighting the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi Army. Instead, we're fighting alongside them."
Yon convincingly argues that the U.S. is winning in Iraq, at least for the moment. "The enemy learned that our people and the Iraqi forces would close in and kill them if they dared stand their ground. This is important: an enemy forced to choose between dying or hiding inevitably loses legitimacy. Legitimacy is essential. Men who must always either run or die are no longer an army and are not going to found a caliphate." The outcome, though, is still in doubt. If Petraeus's surge strategy fails or is prematurely short-circuited by Congress, the American and Iraqi forces will almost certainly lose. "Maybe creating a powerful democracy in the Middle East was a foolish reason to go to war," Yon concludes. "Maybe it was never the reason we went to war. But it is within our grasp now and nearly all the hardest work has been done." Which makes the present moment the moment of truth in Iraq.
Barack Obama might productively read it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:11 PM"We became our own customers."
I don't understand why he doesn't see that that's exactly the problem with ESAS.
[Update in the afternoon--sorry, I've been housepainting again, in a race against the approaching summer, when it will be too blasted hot in southern Florida for such things]
I recall that Max Hunter said something very similar, I would guess about twenty years ago at a small workshop on launch vehicle design issues that I attended. He said that the big difference between NACA and NASA was that the former saw industry as its customer, whereas NASA saw it as (at best) a supplier. This was a consequence of going from a pure R&D agency to one with an operational mission (put a man on the moon). It has never recovered.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:38 AM...of Obama. Cinque Henderson makes the case:
It's worth remembering that the majority of blacks still think O.J. Simpson is innocent. And, in times like these, when a black man is out front in the public eye, black people feel both proud and vulnerable and, as a result, scour the earth for evidence of racists plotting to bring him down, like an advance team ready to sound an alarm. Barack needed only a gesture, a quick sneer or nod in the direction of the Clintons' hidden racism to avail himself of the twisted love that rescued O.J. and others like him and to smooth his path to victory, and, therefore, to salvage his candidacy. After Donna Brazile and James Clyburn started to cry racism, Barack was repeatedly asked his thoughts. He declined to answer, allowing the charge to grow for days (in sharp contrast to how he leapt to Joe Biden's defense a month earlier). But, while he remained silent about the allegations of racism, he gave speeches across South Carolina that warned against being "hoodwinked" and "bamboozled" by the Clintons. His use of the phrase is resonant. It comes from a scene in Malcolm X, where Denzel Washington warns black people about the hidden evils of "the White Man" masquerading as a smiling politician: "Every election year, these politicians are sent up here to pacify us," he says. "You've been hoodwinked. Bamboozled."
By uttering this famous phrase, Obama told his black audience everything it needed to know. He was helping to convince blacks that the first two-term Democratic president in 50 years, a man referred to as the first black president, is in fact a secret racist. As soon as I heard that Obama had quoted from Malcolm X like this, I knew that Obama would win South Carolina by a massive margin.
Read all.
[Update a few minutes later]
Ruben Navarette, Jr. helpfully explains to us white folks that if we don't vote for the Messiah, it can only be because we are racist:
Some want to know why it isn't racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.
The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?Many are responding quite well. Obama won the votes of many, to borrow a phrase, "hardworking white Americans," in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming. But, elsewhere, as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it.
I guess some of us just aren't responding as "well." But we can't have legitimate reasons to not vote for him, because obviously, there are none. We just can't stand the thought of a darkie in the White House.
Despite the fact that many who won't vote for Obama would have no problem doing so for Colin Powell, or Condi Rice, or Michael Steele, or J. C. Watts. But then, maybe they're not authentic black folk.
This reminds me of the nineties, when I was told by the left that I didn't like Hillary because she was a "strong woman," and I was threatened by that. By a "strong woman," did they mean like Maggie Thatcher? Or Jeanne Kirkpatrick? Or any other number of women who I'd have been happy to vote for, because they weren't power-hungry harridans who wanted to run my life for me? No, it could only be sexism.
As I've said in the past, when John McCain wins the election, it will be because the nation is either racist, or sexist, or (if by some miracle they're both on the ticket), both.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:37 AMGregg Easterbrook thinks that NASA should be saving the planet from errant asteroids, instead of building a moon base. He can't avoid the usual straw man, of course, which makes much of the rest of his whining about moon bases suspect:
As anyone with an aerospace engineering background well knows, stopping at the moon, as Bush was suggesting, actually would be an impediment to Mars travel, because huge amounts of fuel would be wasted landing on the moon and then blasting off again.
Bush only "suggested" that to people who miss the point of the program. No one is proposing that every, or even any, mission to Mars touch base on the moon before going on to the Red Planet. The point was that the moon might be a useful resource for making Mars missions more cost effective, particularly if we can find water there, and deliver it as propellant to some staging point, such as L-1, which isn't particularly out of the way en route to Mars. In addition, learning how to build a base on the moon, only three days away, is valuable experience to wring the bugs out of a Martian base, which is months away, despite the different environments.
But ignoring that, the real problem is that he doesn't seem to understand NASA's role:
After the presentation, NASA's administrator, Michael Griffin, came into the room. I asked him why there had been no discussion of space rocks. He said, "We don't make up our goals. Congress has not instructed us to provide Earth defense. I administer the policy set by Congress and the White House, and that policy calls for a focus on return to the moon. Congress and the White House do not ask me what I think." I asked what NASA's priorities would be if he did set the goals. "The same. Our priorities are correct now," he answered. "We are on the right path. We need to go back to the moon. We don't need a near-Earth-objects program." In a public address about a month later, Griffin said that the moon-base plan was "the finest policy framework for United States civil space activities that I have seen in 40 years."
Actually, Congress has asked NASA to pay more attention to space rocks. In 2005, Congress instructed the agency to mount a sophisticated search of the proximate heavens for asteroids and comets, specifically requesting that NASA locate all near-Earth objects 140 meters or larger that are less than 1.3 astronomical units from the sun--roughly out to the orbit of Mars. Last year, NASA gave Congress its reply: an advanced search of the sort Congress was requesting would cost about $1 billion, and the agency had no intention of diverting funds from existing projects, especially the moon-base initiative.
Now, I disagree with Mike that we don't need an NEO program--I think we do. But unlike Gregg, I wouldn't put NASA in charge of it. And if Congress wants to fund NASA to look for space rocks, it's going to have to tell NASA not to do the other things that it wants to do, or fund it. Also, this was a little verbal gymnastics on Gregg's part. Mike said that Congress had not instructed NASA to defend the earth, which is true, and the fact that they asked NASA to look for hazardous objects doesn't change that fact in any way, despite his sleight-of-hand at the keyboard. Looking for objects is one thing--actually physically manipulating them is a different thing entirely. It's like the difference between the CIA and the military. The former provides intelligence, the latter acts on it.
The Space Act (almost fifty years old now) does not grant NASA the responsibility to protect the planet, even with subsequent amendments. It is simply not its job. Moreover, no federal agency has that job, and as Gregg points out, if the US military were to take it on, there would be widespread suspicion on the part of the rest of the planet, and it would open us up to tremendous liability if something went wrong (not that there would necessarily be any lawyers around to care).
And is it really the job of the military? Again, as Gregg points out, this is a natural problem, not an enemy. If ET, or Marvin the Martian presented a threat, it would make sense to get the Air Force (or if we had one, Space Force) involved, because that is a willful enemy to be engaged, which is what we have a military for.
But as I've written before (six years ago--geez, where does the time go?), the only historical analogue (at least in the US) we have for planetary defense is the management of flooding by the Army Corps of Engineers. This is a predictable (though not as predictable as an asteroid or comet strike) natural disaster, at least statistically, and one that can be managed by building dams, which is largely what they do.
Now, I'm not proposing that the ACE be put in charge of defending the planet, but that thought isn't much more frightening than putting NASA in charge of it. Yes, Gregg, we could lobby to get Congress to amend the Space Act to put it in the agency's portfolio, but do you really think that would be a good idea? NASA is fifty years old this year, and bureaucratically, it acts much older than that. You don't want to take an existing agency, with too much on its plate, and too little resources with which to do it (and yes, much of what it's doing it shouldn't be doing, but that's a different discussion) and give it such an important, even existential task. It worked fine in the sixties, because it was a young, new agency with a focus on a single goal (though it managed to accomplish a lot of other things along the way in terms of planetary exploration--Tom Paine once told me that there was so much going on during Apollo that NASA did a lot of great things that it didn't even know it was doing).
No.
I've often said that if the president really thought that the VSE was important, he would have taken a policy lead from the Strategic Missile Defense program in the eighties, in which an entirely new entity was established to carry it out (SDIO, now BMDO), because it would otherwise get bogged down in blue-suit politics in the Air Force.
I agree that we should be doing much more about this threat than we are, but just because NASA is ostensibly a space agency doesn't mean that they should be in charge of it. I would establish a planetary defense agency, which had that as its sole charter. It might ask for (and occasionally get) cooperation from NASA, but it would do the same with the Air Force, and it would put out contracts to the private sector, and it would coordinate with COPUOS and encourage other nations to establish such entities to enter into cooperative agreements. If you ask NASA to do it, it will just become one more boondoggle, or it will get buried in the agency's other priorities. Either way, if it's important, you don't want a sclerotic agency, long past its sell-by date, to be in charge.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:17 PMSome advice for John McCain, from Bjorn Lomborg.
I expect the ad hominem attacks on Mr. Lomborg to commence shortly.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:11 PMSo sayeth Hillary:
Frankly, there's just no way around the stark mathematics of the situation: Inconvenience(Me) = 1.0 * Accident(You). It is an inescapable statistical fact, as proven over and over again by my loyal team of Karma accountants -- including Sid Blumenthal, Howard Wolfson, and Harold Ickes. Contrary to what some people say, my boys did not learn untraceable poisoning techniques from the Russians. In fact, it was the other way around. And let's face it: even if Senator Obama receives prompt medical attention for his eventual post-nomination accident, voters in the general election will be repulsed by his grotesque and permanent Dioxin scarring. Once again, Hillary Time.
So today Senator Obama faces a clear choice: (a) stay in the campaign through the convention, wasting millions of dollars on primary advertising and expensive food tasters, or (b) withdraw immediately and graciously transfer his war chest to the only remaining Democratic candidate capable of appealing to hard-working white voters, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Same outcome either way, with the possible exception of body count.
I don't know how Burge finds these scoops.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:49 AMDoes Obama think that Afghans are Arabs? Or that they speak Arabic?
Was he speaking off the cuff, or was this a prepared speech that others reviewed? If the latter, it makes one wonder about the quality of his foreign policy advisors.
I guess you just can't get good help these days.
Ed Morrisey points out another problem:
The Afghans need to establish the proper infrastructure first before massively committing to acceptable crops, and they need to start with reliable roads. However, they cannot even do that until the security situation improves, as the constant attacks by the Taliban and al-Qaeda make it impossible to build the necessary roads, electrical distribution, and refrigeration systems the Afghans require. What would agricultural experts do in Afghanistan while those issues remain unresolved?
Obama's rhetoric calls into question whether he has any real knowledge of the issues in either Iraq or Afghanistan in any depth beyond that of the latest MoveOn talking points.
Not much question in my mind.
For Hillary Clinton: Go away you horrible human being!
I actually liked Hillary up until a few months ago. Other bloggers used to tell me that Joe and I were too nice to Hillary. People just assumed that we were endorsing her. Now I actually loathe her. She makes me yell at the TV like she's George Bush, and no one other than George Bush makes me yell at the TV - until now. I actually can't stand her or her husband any more. I defended her. I defended her husband. And now I'm actually wondering if the Republicans weren't right about them. That's how bad she has damaged her reputation. People who actually liked you, who actually helped you, who actually defended you, LOATHE you now. Call me a Clinton-hater all you like, but people like me were the ones who had your back. And we never will again.
Emphasis mine (and Jim Geraghty's).
Yes, the scales continue to fall from their eyes, and they're finally seeing the Clintons that some of us, more objective, have seen all along.
Hear that sound? It's a nanoviolin, scraping out a plaintive dirge.
I'm overcome with emotion. I think that it's called schadenfreude.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 AMNow he he wears a flag pin? As Byron York asks, what has changed?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:17 AMMay '08 has been a pretty rough month for the planet and its inhabitants, what with the volcanoes and tornadoes and cyclones and earthquakes, <VOICE="Professor Frink>and the drowning and the crushing and the evacuating and the staaaaarving, glavin</VOICE>.
Jeff Masters has a roundup and some history, and some inside info on why the death toll in the country formerly known as Burma was so high.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:01 AMA blog devoted to things younger than John McCain.
[Via Geek Press]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:34 AMFrom P. J. O'Rourke:
Don't moan. I'm not going to "pass the wisdom of one generation down to the next." I'm a member of the 1960s generation. We didn't have any wisdom.
We were the moron generation. We were the generation that believed we could stop the Vietnam War by growing our hair long and dressing like circus clowns. We believed drugs would change everything -- which they did, for John Belushi. We believed in free love. Yes, the love was free, but we paid a high price for the sex.My generation spoiled everything for you. It has always been the special prerogative of young people to look and act weird and shock grown-ups. But my generation exhausted the Earth's resources of the weird. Weird clothes -- we wore them. Weird beards -- we grew them. Weird words and phrases -- we said them. So, when it came your turn to be original and look and act weird, all you had left was to tattoo your faces and pierce your tongues. Ouch. That must have hurt. I apologize.
So now, it's my job to give you advice. But I'm thinking: You're finishing 16 years of education, and you've heard all the conventional good advice you can stand. So, let me offer some relief.
Read on. Some of it actually is good advice.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:24 AMFrom George Will:
You say that even if global warming turns out to be no crisis (the World Meteorological Organization says global temperatures have not risen in a decade), even unnecessary measures taken to combat it will be beneficial because "then all we've done is give our kids a cleaner world." But what of the trillions of dollars those measures will cost in direct expenditures and diminished economic growth--hence diminished medical research, cultural investment, etc.? Given that Earth is always warming or cooling, what is its proper temperature, and how do you know?
You propose a "cap and trade" system to limit the carbon dioxide that many companies can emit. Is not your idea an energy- rationing proposal akin to Bill Clinton's BTU tax?
He has more, not related to climate change.
Also, a long paper on the futility of trading hot air.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:41 PMNot much, apparently.
It really does make it hard to justify their tuition. They should be giving out, and paying for a lot more scholarships.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:37 PM...somewhere else.
I guess you just can't get good help these days.
It's a little frightening to think what his cabinet would look like.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:30 PMBoy, if I held the cartoon views of conservatives and libertarians held by some of the folks commenting at this post, I'd be unable to call myself a libertarian, and I would look with new eyes at my (apparently) evil conservative friends whose first thought in getting out of bed in the morning (if not upon awakening) is "how do I screw the poor today?"
But fortunately, I get out occasionally.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:06 PMGlenn Reynolds has a review of Ron Paul's book
While this Orlando Sentinel columnist makes some valid points in his criticism of the space agency, he also takes some cheap, and unfair shots.
You know we are headed for a boondoggle when the agency's marketing division starts up a Web page called, "Why the Moon?"
And the first sentence is, "If you asked 100 people why we should return to the moon, you'd probably get 100 answers -- or more!"Translation: We can't come up with one good one.
I'd call that a mistranslation. It's like saying that we shouldn't have removed Saddam because we didn't find WMD. It really is possible for there to be more than one reason to do something (and in fact, most decisions are made on that basis--any one reason might not, per se, be sufficient, but a combination of them often are).
It may in fact be true that none of the reasons listed are good (I haven't bothered to check out the site to see), but one certainly can't logically infer that from the fact that there are more than one, or even a hundred. But this part is actually a misrepresentation of history:
NASA once took on the mission of providing cheap, routine access to space with the shuttle. Then it took on the mission of building and servicing a space station.Then came two shuttle disasters. And before the station was even half-built, agency officials began complaining they had no mission and needed to fly off into the solar system.
We still don't have safe and routine access to space. And now, we won't have our grandiose research platform up there either.
Which "agency officials" were making such complaints? Can he name names? In reality, much of NASA would have been content to continue to fly the Shuttle, complete the station, and finally hope to get some value out of it, even after Columbia. There are no doubt "agency officials" who, if asked over a beer, would say that would be the best course even now, given the problems with Ares 1 and Orion, and the fact that we have been getting a lot better at launching Shuttles. That was certainly the prevailing agency attitude in 1989, when President Bush's father announced the Space Exploration Initiative, and NASA sabotaged it both indirectly, by coming up with a ridiculously overpriced program, and directly by actively lobbying against it on the Hill (one of the reasons that Dick Truly was fired).
In general, it's unfair to blame NASA for what is really a failure of the entire federal space policy establishment. NASA doesn't establish goals, or make policy (though it will often play bureaucratic games to attempt to influence it).
The space station was the "next logical step" in proposed plans for space, going all the way back to the fifties, based on von Braun's vision. The problem was that the "logical step" before it was to establish affordable and routine access to orbit. The Shuttle was an attempt to do, but a failed one. Unfortunately, the policy establishment failed to realize this until long after space station plans had jelled into one dependent on the Shuttle (and later, the Russians, which is why it is at such a high inclination, increasing the cost of access).
Yes, NASA "took on the mission," but it failed at it. And with subsequent failures, such as X-34 and X-33, the nation has learned the wrong lesson--that if NASA can't reduce cost to orbit, it can't be done, and we should simply give up on the project, and go back to the way we did it in the sixties. But the failure wasn't due to the fact that it can't be done, but rather than it can't be done the way NASA does things: developing and operating its own systems, for its own uses. Government agencies, by their nature, are not well suited to either developing or running cost-effective transportation systems.
It is understandable and natural to want to maximize the value of something in which we have invested many tens of billions of dollars over the years, and it does seem like a waste to abandon the ISS just a few years after its completion, which took decades to accomplish. But there's a concept called "throwing good money after bad" in which too many people engage. The fact that we spent a hundred billion dollars on ISS doesn't make it worth a hundred billion dollars. It may, in fact have negative value, like the proverbial white elephant that costs too much to feed and care for.
The mistake of the Vision for Space Exploration was not in establishing a national goal of moving the nation (and humanity) beyond earth orbit. Such a bold and broad policy statement of our ultimate goals in space was in fact long overdue.
The mistake was in specifying in too much detail the means and schedule to do so, and in the failure to recognize that we never completed the job that was supposed to be performed by the Shuttle--developing affordable access to space. This is a capability without which attempts to open up the frontier will remain as unsustainable as they were during Apollo, and to repeat Apollo (albeit in slow motion), which is essentially NASA's current plan, is to repeat that mistake.
Yes, the Shuttle was a mistake, as was a space station based on the assumption that it had met its goals, but that doesn't make the goal of the Shuttle a mistake. Achieving that goal remains key to supremacy in space, for both civil and military purposes, and it has to be done before we can seriously contemplate human exploration and development of the solar system. But to blame NASA for these mistakes is wrong, not just because there's plenty of blame to go around, but because if we believe that NASA is the problem, we won't address the other very real sources of the problem, and we'll continue to make such policy mistakes.
[Monday morning update]
More commentary over at Clark's place.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:29 AMIt's been a rough week (and year) for them. I expect Obama to want no-conditions negotiations with them any minute.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:06 PMJack Kelly has more thoughts on Obama's frightening ignorance of American history (hey, it would be nice if he could just figure out how many states there are):
Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.
Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit."There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"
...It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.
If we elect someone as callow as Obama, maybe Khrushchev will be proven right.
[Update a little later]
Heh. Suitably Flip has a new lapel pin for Barack:
[Late afternoon update]
Now he can't even make up his mind. I guess he was for the unconditional meeting before he was against it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 AMSciAm has an article on the six things that Ben Stein doesn't want you to know about the movie. Just the first one is sufficient to me to think the whole thing a contemptible fraud.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:49 AMTom Maguire says that Obama and his supporters don't know much about history:
Obama's supporters are too young to know any of this, but Roosevelt led the United States in the war against Hitler; the Allied policy was unconditional surrender, so there was very little for Roosevelt and Hitler to discuss, and in fact, the two did not meet at all (but they did exchange correspondence before the war).
So my guess is that Obama is thinking of the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin as talking to "our enemies", although of course we were still allied with the Soviet Union against Germany and Japan at that point. Beyond that, is the Yalta Conference something Obama and his advisers view as a success worthy of emulation? Puzzling.
Actually, one leader did have a talk with Hitler. His name was Neville Chamberlain. And we know how that worked out.
Or at least some of us do. But perhaps Obama and his supporters are unaware of that as well. Jim Geraghty has further thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:39 AMSam Harris has a long piece at (of all places) the Huffington Post on the unwillingness of western civilization to stand up for its own values against radical Islam. And as others have noted (and he notes himself), this is particularly ironic:
In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam. Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders' film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a "kill fee." I declined.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:34 AM
You know, if there were some planetary version of Child Protective Services (not that I'm proposing such a thing--I'm sure that its primary focus would be Katrina "victims"), the Burmese people would be taken away from their rulers:
...with the clock ticking four days after the storm hit, Myanmar's reclusive military rulers insisted foreign aid experts would still have to negotiate with the government to be allowed into the isolated nation.
Also, the army, which had plenty of manpower to come in and beat protesting Buddhist monks a few months ago, is nowhere to be found.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 AMOver at Lileks' place:
Their logo looks like a deformed octopus. We get the picture, though. It's the Klan. This was still a touchy thing in '36; this must have irritated the people who thought the film ignored all the good things the Klan did, like community outreach and neighborhood suppers and the occasional potluck where a fella could get together with like-minded Americans and talk freely about the Catholics.
Gee, to what or whom could he possibly be referring?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:03 AMChristopher Hitchens is willing to ask the question that so many others are not, and the one to which the answer seems pretty obvious, at least to me:
What can it be that has kept Obama in Wright's pews, and at Wright's mercy, for so long and at such a heavy cost to his aspirations? Even if he pulls off a mathematical nomination victory, he has completely lost the first, fine, careless rapture of a post-racial and post-resentment political movement and mired us again in all the old rubbish that predates Dr. King. What a sad thing to behold. And how come? I think we can exclude any covert sympathy on Obama's part for Wright's views or style--he has proved time and again that he is not like that, and even his own little nods to "Minister" Farrakhan can probably be excused as a silly form of Chicago South Side political etiquette. All right, then, how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?
This obvious question is now becoming inescapable, and there is an inexcusable unwillingness among reporters to be the one to ask it. (One can picture Obama looking pained and sensitive and saying, "Keep my wife out of it," or words to that effect, as Clinton tried to do in 1992 when Jerry Brown and Ralph Nader quite correctly inquired about his spouse's influence.) If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company--and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable--then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner.
It's looking more and more like 1992 all over again. Except this time, there's no Ross Perot (at least so far) to save the Democrats from themselves.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:17 PM...why I am a libertarian, but not a Libertarian:
In a column in today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Billy Cox notes that Hoagland's presence stands in contrast to efforts by Libertarians to tone down UFO talk within their ranks. Joe Buchman, running for Congress in Utah as a Libertarian, told Cox that state LP officials are "fuming" over Buchman's push to declassify records that he believes would prove evidence of... well, something to do with alien life. "At least I won't be the biggest nut case at the convention now," Buchman said upon learning of Hoagland's talk.
The party does tend to attract a lot of nutballs. I can't take seriously a party that takes Richard Hoagland seriously enough to feature him at its convention.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:57 AMJeff Foust and Charles Miller talk about the real issue with space--the fact that we still can't afford to get there on any useful scale.
On a related note (though it's not obvious that they're related, other than the fact that both pieces appear in today's issue of The Space Review), Greg Zsidisin wonders whether we are going to repeat the Apollo debacle.
Well, that depends on what you think "the Apollo debacle" is.
If I read him correctly, Greg seems to think that it was abandoning the Apollo hardware and its capabilities and replacing it with the flawed concept of the Shuttle:
It's déjà vu all over again, of course. Shortly after Apollo 11, NASA triumphantly presented its funding list of "next logical steps". These included human Mars exploration, Moon bases, and a large space station in Earth orbit serviced by a reusable "space shuttle". At the time, the US was engaged in the costly, divisive Vietnam War, while the economy was beginning a big slide that would result in double-digit inflation in the early '70s.
With the race against the Russians having been won, and a decidedly anti-technology attitude settling in, Congress and President Nixon readily pulled the plug on everything but the shuttle, which nevertheless struggled for funding and support. The vehicle that emerged was a highly compromised version of what had been envisioned, and sure enough did not bring the vastly cheaper and more routine space access promised.The Apollo infrastructure, meanwhile, was almost entirely discarded. We lost the Saturn launch vehicles, their engines, most of their directly associated manufacturing and launch capability. This, despite the huge cost and effort it took to create them.
The problem is that "the next logical steps" weren't necessarily all that logical, but they did fulfill the von Braunian vision (which is what it was based on). In a sense, the Shuttle was the "next logical step," but only in the sense that it was an attempt to make space affordable--something that Saturn never would have done, had we continued it, as so many now nostalgic for that era would prefer. In fact, such misplaced nostalgia for large expendable rockets is at the heart of the cargo-cultish approach of ESAS--it is an attempt to return to the glory days, when we went to the moon, and the whole world watched.
The mistake of Shuttle was not in seeking CRATS (Cheap Reliable Access To Space, which is essential, as Foust and Miller point out). It was in the approach taken to do it. And in that, I don't mean a reusable system. It was in thinking that it was a task for a major government, Manhattan-Project-style initiative on the scale (or even on a smaller scale) of Apollo, in which the government would develop, build and operate a fleet of vehicles (of a single design) to handle all of the nation's (and hopefully, much of the world's) space transportation needs.
No, it was no mistake to set as a goal the dramatic reduction of costs, and increase in routine access to space, which was in fact the original goal of the Shuttle program, and why, despite its many successful flights with useful accomplishments, it was an utter failure programmatically. It should still be the goal, but we have to take a different approach, and not just technically, (again) as Foust and Miller point out:
Any new initiative to achieve CRATS must address the repeated national failures (Shuttle, NASP, X-33, X-34) to achieve CRATS. Instead of trying the same old thing over again, and expecting different results, a new initiative would address the core reasons for the failure, and provide some ideas on a new approach.
Unfortunately, the core reasons for the failure lie at heart in our overall approach to, and thinking about spaceflight. I've often noted that we got off on the wrong track half a century ago, when space technology (at least for human spaceflight) became an expression of technical ability in a race between two Cold Warriors, rather than a utilitarian development for commerce and national security. In so doing, it created a mindset on the subject from which it is difficult for most policy analysts, let alone the general public, to escape. It also created a politically potent iron triangle between NASA, the contractor community, and the Congress that makes it difficult to implement new or innovative policy solutions, because the success of those rent seekers is not contingent on actual progress in space. As long as the contracts continue, and the jobs remain in place, and the lobbyists make their political donations, it doesn't really matter that much whether or not the human space program is expanding humanity into space, or making us a spacefaring nation, because those goals are not nationally important.
The good news is that there is pressure from outside that system to force change. One, as is noted in the Foust/Miller piece, is the growing awareness in the military of the vulnerability of our space assets, and that the only real solution to this is responsive space, not just in terms of access, but also in terms of replacement systems. One of the several ways in which NASA has completely flouted the recommendations of the Aldridge Commission is to propose an architecture that contributes almost nothing to national security. Another way, equally if not more important, is that it contributes almost nothing to nurturing private space enterprise.
Even ignoring all of the technical problems with it, these two factors are probably what will doom it. When the budget crunch comes, unlike the Shuttle, NASA will be unable to call on the Pentagon to come to bat for it. And while private space companies will continue to support the Vision for Space Exploration in the abstract, none of them have any motivation to support ESAS itself. Particularly when there are much more lucrative, and less fickle markets, as they start to satisfy private desires to go, and ignore NASA's continued emphasis on a voyeuristic program that allows us to watch a few civil servants go to the moon while we foot the bill.
I have long said that NASA's approach is essentially socialist, but I realize now that I've been wrong in that assessment. Since reading Jonah Goldberg's book
Chair Force Engineer recently came to the same conclusion:
In order to justify the enormous expense of the space shuttle borne by the American taxpayers, and to get the flight rate up to levels which would make the vehicle economical, the shuttle was used to launch commercial payloads during its early years. The thought of a government-funded, government-operated vehicle launching commercial payloads should be anathema to freedom-loving Americans. But the shuttle served its need as "the moral equivalent of war." After all, the Russian efforts to duplicate the shuttle capabilities with Energia-Buran helped to bankrupt the Soviet Union. And the shuttle & space station continue to serve as symbols of national pride, promoting the religion of the state.
Exactly. We are supposed to contribute to the glorious State's Space Program, and be content to watch the chosen Representatives of the State, our Celestial Gladiators, go out into the cosmos for us. That is the von Braunian vision (hey, anyone remember where he got his start?), and Mike Griffin (who I'm pretty sure sees himself as von Braun's successor) is eager to continue it. And it doesn't help that neither he, nor any of his other OSC compadres--Tony Elias, Bill Claybaugh, Doug Stanley, et al--even believe that CRATS is achievable. It's a convenient belief, of course, if one wants to build big rockets at taxpayer expense. But we shouldn't fool ourselves that it has anything to do with classically liberal American values. Or becoming a truly spacefaring nation.
Fortunately, we are reaching a point at which we will no longer be able to afford such grand visions of "One NASA" (Ein NASA, Ein Volk, Ein Administrator), and will instead be focused on actual mission needs by the military, and commercial desires of people who actually want to do stuff in space, with their own money. At that point, perhaps, the Cold War will finally be over for the one agency that, like a few Japanese soldiers on remote islands, who hadn't gotten the word, even into the sixties, continued to fight on well past its end.
[Update about noon eastern]
OK, maybe Mike Griffin isn't von Braun's heir:
Werner Von Braun's body was found in China this week after making the trip from D.C. No, he wasn't exhumed, he just churned in his grave until he augured all the way through after an unidentified visitor paying respects whispered to him graveside about the latest hare-brained scheme to make ARES 1 lift off and fly right.
OK, so it's not simple or soon. But as noted at the link, if it never flies, at least it will be safe.
[Late Monday evening update]
Based on his comments, Mark Whittington apparently hasn't read Jonah's book, despite the fact that he attempted to review it.
From the first edition, pages 210-211 (my annotations are in square brackets, and red), "Even Kennedy's nondefense policies were sold as the moral analogue of war...His intimidation of the steel industry was a rip-off of Truman's similar effort during the Korean War, itself a maneuver from the playbooks of FDR and Wilson. Likewise, the Peace Corps and its various domestic equivalents were throwbacks to FDR's martial CCC. Even Kennedy's most ambitious idea, putting a man on the moon, was sold to the public as a response to the fact that the Soviet Union was overtaking America in science..."
"What made [Kennedy's administration] so popular? What made it so effective? What has given it its lasting appeal? On almost every front, the answers are those elements that fit the fascist playbook: the creation of crises [We're losing the race to the Soviets! We can't go to sleep by a Russian moon!], national appeals to unity [They are our astronauts! Our nation shall beat the Soviets to the moon!], the celebration of martial values [The astronauts were all military, the best of the best], the blurring of lines between public and private sectors [SETA contracts, anyone? Cost plus? Our version of Soviet design bureaus?], the utilization of the mass media to glamorize the state and its programs [No Life Magazine deal for chronicling a bowdlerized version of the astronauts' lives? Really?], invocation of a "post-partisan" spirit that places the important decisions in the hands of experts and intellectual supermen, and a cult of personality for the national leader [von Braun? "Rocket scientists"? Not just Kennedy Space Center, but (briefly) Cape Kennedy?]."
Bold type mine (in addition to red annotations).
Nope, no fascism here. Nothing to see here, folks.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:26 AMAs Halperin writes, you can't make this kind of thing up:
Hillary Clinton enthusiastically picked a filly named Eight Belles to win the Kentucky Derby and compared herself to the horse. Eight Belles finished second. The winner was the favorite, Big Brown.
Eight Belles collapsed immediately after crossing the finish line, and was euthanized shortly thereafter.
Like Mark, I too have no other comment.
Oh, and while we're on the subject, does Hillary! live in a permanent state of denial and fantasy? Mickey makes a good case.
[Mid-morning update]
Speaking of denial, Jim Geraghty explains (once again, for those who continue to miss the point, or obfuscate it with straw men) that the issue with Wright is not the concern that Obama secretly shares his views (though that is certainly a possibility). It's the judgment, stupid:
In Wright, Obama saw what he wanted to see. He wanted a wise, shrewd, kind, funny, educated man who could show him the ways of the world (and Chicago politics), one who perhaps went a little too far every now and then, but who was overall a good person.
Instead, we see that Wright is a toxic figure, arguing that blacks and whites have different brain structures, that the American government created the AIDS virus for genocidal purposes, that U.S. policy can accurately be called terrorism, that the U.S. Marines can be compared to the Roman soldiers who tortured Jesus, who calls Italians "garlic-noses," who calls the Secretary of State "Condoskeezia" and "Con-damn-nesia", etc.Here's where the example of Wright is truly disturbing when contemplating an Obama presidency. If Barack Obama looked at Jeremiah Wright and saw only what he wanted to see... how sure can we be that he wouldn't look at say, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and see only what he wanted to see?
Also, as a bonus, some psychoanalysis based on Obama's book. So now both Hillary! and Obama are put on the couch in this post.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:49 AMHas the dollar hit the bottom?
Given that the Fed is signaling no more rate cuts, I think that it's a pretty good bet. Which means that it's also a peak for oil prices (at least if they remain denominated in dollars). And (more) bad news for the Dems in the fall.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:11 PMI think that Victor Davis Hanson has diagnosed the situation spot on, and it's good news for Republicans, because it means that a) Obama is almost a lock on the nomination and b) there's no way he can win the general election. Particularly since Hillary! will do everything she can to prevent it, as long as her fingerprints aren't on it.
...privately they acknowledge:
--that their candidate made a devil's bargain with a racist to create an authentic black persona in order to jump start a political career in Chicago;--that their candidate was so inured to de rigueur anti-American speech from his church days, black-liberationist friends, assorted reverends, and former radicals like Ayers, that he never really thought things that Wright said were all that big a deal -- hence his deer-in-the-headlights approach to the initial scandal and serial hedging. After all, in Obama's adopted world, his church really isn't "particularly controversial;"
--that their Obama messiah is hardly a new politician, but instead a very gifted and charismatic actor, who, in skillful fashion, can talk about utopian politics but then backstep, hedge, and get away with more than anyone since Bill Clinton in his prime in 1992 (one of the reasons that those two dislike each other so is that they are so much alike) -- and that is not such a bad thing after all.
Yes, I can easily imagine letting such talk pass, while not necessarily agreeing with it, accepting it as well within reasonable discourse. I remember doing it a lot in college.
But I grew up.
But few showed up. Workers of the world apparently didn't unite all that much today, at least in Portland, according to a photoessay by Patrick Lasswell.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:05 PMJim Manzi reviews Expelled. He's not impressed.
And John Derbyshire is appropriately dismayed by Jews like David Klinghoffer and Ben Stein latching on to this anti-science schtick:
One of the best reasons to be a philosemite in our time is sheer gratitude at the disproportionate contribution Jews have made to the advance of Western civilization, and to our understanding of the world, this past two hundred years. The U.S.A. dominated the 20th century in culture and technology, to the great benefit of all mankind, in part because of the work done in math and science by the great tranche of pre-WW2 immigrant Jews from Europe.Now you have joined up with people who want to trash the scientific enterprise and heap insults on one of the greatest names in intellectual history. For reasons unfathomable to me, you and Ben Stein want to sneer and scoff at our understandings, hard-won over centuries of arduous intellectual effort. Don't the two of you know, don't Jews of all people know, where this anti-intellectual agitation, this pandering to a superstitious mob, will lead at last? If you truly don't, I refer you to the fate of Hypatia, which you can read about in my last book (Chapter 3), or in Gibbon (Chapter XLVII). Your new pals at the Discovery Institute no doubt think Hypatia got what she deserved.
Civilization is a thin veneer, David. Reason and science are bulwarks against the dark.
The mistake that these people make is to equate science with atheism. It is true that, as science advances, and more scientific explanations are put forth, much of the need for God, at least insofar as an explanation for natural phenomena, is removed. But then, that's the nature of natural phenomena--if they require the supernatural, they are by definition not natural.
But it doesn't follow that a belief in science in general, or evolution in particular, requires atheism. Many (including Manzi in the link above) have pointed out numerous examples, going back to Aquinas, of the compatibility of rationality and reason, and theism. Stein and Klinghoffer would return us to the dark ages, even if they don't realize it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:20 AMThere's a long piece on the the current state of space law over at the ABA Journal. I only have a couple issues with it. First, I don't know what they mean by this:
Even though the United States eventually outpaced the Soviet Union by putting men on the moon in 1969, the space race continued until the early 1990s.
No, the space race was essentially over by 1968 or so, once the Russians realized that they weren't going to beat us to the moon, and instead rewrote history to pretend that they'd never even been trying. There was no urgency or racing after that--had there been, NASA budgets would have been higher, and schedules faster. So I don't know what this sentence means, unless it just a vague reference to the fact that progress, such as it was, continue on both the US and Soviet side, until the fall of the Soviet Union.
On ITAR, I strongly disagree with Pam Meridith:
"I think the hysteria over ITARs is out of proportion," says Pamela L. Meredith, who co-chairs the space law practice group at Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger in Washington, D.C. "They've been around for a long time now, so people have had time to adjust."
No matter how much "time people have to adjust," it still adds time and cost to projects, and prevents many from happening altogether. And it has a disproportionate effect--like most regulations, big space businesses (who despite leftist mythology, are no fans of capitalism or free enterprise) don't necessarily dislike ITAR, because they can afford to meet the requirements, and they represent a barrier to entry to smaller businesses and newcomers, who generally can't. (Though there's also no question that it's cost Boeing a lot of satellite business.) And as a perfect case in point, consider Mike Gold at Bigelow (in a long, but quite interesting interview):
Res Communis: Can you comment on a company's cost of implementing ITAR?
Gold: Yes, absolutely. Paying so much for export control is a bit like being asked not just to dig your own grave, but to jump in it as well. Our best estimates are that we pay roughly $130.00 per hour, per person, for every hour that a government official monitors us or reviews our documentation during the day, plus overtime, which can add up on overseas trips. What amazes me is that when we travel to Russia for meetings, we sometimes travel with not one, but two government officials, monitoring every word we say. Then, across the table from us are the Russians, all great folks, who came out of a Communist system, and they have no explicit monitors. If we were to have brought someone down from Mars to attend our meetings, and asked them which of these two nations represented the free country, the Martian would point to the Russians. The U.S. holds itself out as the bastion of freedom. But when I am sitting there at those meetings I have to wonder: which is the free country? Now again, this is a problem of policy not personnel. The monitors we get are often good, smart people, who can even be quite helpful at times. However, what I want is for these monitors to be able to spend their limited time and resources focusing on military sensitive technologies that really matter rather than wasting their efforts on us. The Russians basically do this. They have the unique policy of protecting information that is actually sensitive. They don't care about metal coffee tables. It makes a lot more sense. And, in regard to the financial costs, you know, the KGB may have spied on you back in the Soviet days, but at least they had the courtesy to do it for free. It is unfathomable to me what we have to pay for export control review and monitoring.Res Communis: You do cover their travel expenses also?
Gold: Absolutely, including airfare and hotel. Specifically, in 2006, the year of the Genesis I campaign, we paid over $160,000 in monitoring fees alone. In 2007, when the Genesis II launch campaign took place, we paid the government nearly $150,000 for monitoring and reviews. Thanks to Mr. Bigelow's generosity and commitment, we're able to afford such fees, but there are a lot of small companies that can't. This is why the ITAR has stifled innovation and stunted development in the American aerospace sector. The ITAR should be re-named "The Full Employment for European and Foreign Aerospace Workers Act."
Res Communis: As between a new space company like Bigelow and the big aerospace corporations, is the ITAR burden disproportionate for the new companies?
Gold: Everyone has problems with it, but a large, well established company is better able to absorb the expenses and can pass the cost on to their customers relatively easily. Anecdotally, I have spoken to a number of friends and colleagues at small aerospace businesses and start-ups. They tell me that they don't even look at international collaboration because they know they can't afford to work through the export control problems without a hoard of attorneys. Frankly, it took a lot of work and diligence and a little bit of luck on our own part to have been able to survive the ITAR gauntlet with just myself, my deputy, and some limited support from outside counsel.
And because Bigelow is wealthy, and willing to foot the bill, he can afford it. Most startups aren't in this position. This is just one of the many ways that federal policy has been disastrous, and continues to help bind us to the planet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:36 AMI had never heard that the Tuskegee experiment involved deliberately infecting people with syphilis. I always thought that the sin was leaving it untreated in men who already had it, so that the progression of the disease could be studied (a sin that was mitigated by the fact that at least at the beginning of the study, there was no known effective treatment, anyway).
But apparently, in the wake of Jeremiah Wright's lunacy, several news people have bought into the nonsense that the researchers infected healthy men. I guess that there's no libel that is too difficult for some people to believe, and even embrace, as long as it is directed against the US.
Anyway, Jonah has more (including the fact that it was a "progressive" project).
Someone should publicly, and loudly, confront Wright on this latest lie. There is a huge leap from studying men already infected, and deliberately inventing a disease and then infecting a race of people for the purpose of genocide, which is what he accuses the country of doing, with Tuskegee as a supposed existence proof.
But don't hold your breath.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jonah has more at The Corner.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:59 AMSome thoughts from Gerard Van der Leun, who really should be on my blog roll.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:42 PMWell, apparently David Petraeus didn't influence anyone at Time Magazine. I suspect that he influenced a lot of people in Iraq. I bet that he'll influence voters who elect John McCain this fall, too. In fact, to think that he's without influence requires a willing suspension of disbelief.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:32 PMDecember 15th, 1941
WASHINGTON (Routers) In an effort to drive a wedge between moderate Germans and those more extreme, the State Department issued new rules today, stipulating that the word "Nazi" was not to be used by department employees to describe the enemy. Germany recently declared war on our country, as part of its alliance with Imperial Japan, which itself attacked us at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii a little over a week ago, and with which we are now at war.
"Nazism has a great many admirable features," said a department spokesman at Foggy Bottom, "and we want to make clear that despite the fact that the Nazi Party rules Germany, we have no quarrel with the vast majority of Nazis with peaceful intent."
She went on to describe the National Socialist universal health care plan, its youth programs that inculcate loyalty to the government, its strict and necessary control over unbridled private industry, its wage and price controls, its strict separation of church and state, its progressive views on food purity and safety, and other beneficial features of the fascist system.
"Many of the Nazi programs have their counterparts here in President Roosevelt's own New Deal, such as the NRA, the CCC, our price monitoring boards, and so on. In fact, many of the ideas of National Socialism were first developed in our own progressive country, and we in turn might want to consider examining their policies for more ways to improve our own."
She went on, "...if we call Hitler and his staff, who lack moral legitimacy, 'Nazis,' we may unintentionally legitimize their rule, and end up offending many of the peaceful National Socialist Germans with whom we can develop a productive relationship after the defeat of the extremist Hitler regime. We don't want to tar all Nazis with the racism and war mongering of the more fanatical members of the party."
"We are concerned that use of the term "Nazi" to refer to the murderous extremists may glamorize their racism, give them undeserved moral authority with the German people, and undermine our ultimate war strategy of winning their hearts and minds. We want them to understand that we recognize Nazism as an ideology of peace, and welfare for the common good and betterment of all Germans. Not to mention their understandable desire for lebensraum."
When asked what term employees were to use to refer to the enemy, she replied, "We haven't quite worked that out yet. We're considering 'the Hitler gang' for now."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:26 PMThere's certainly no reason to think that much has changed based on this latest call for it:
PV technology has improved considerably since this idea was developed adding to the argument that this source of energy should be revisited. In addition, the economics of the cost of energy have changed. According to Dr. Neville Marzwell and his colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Lab, an SSP system could generate energy at a cost including cost of construction of 60 to 80 cents per kilowatt-hour at the outset. He believes that "in 15 to 25 years we can lower that cost to 7 to 10 cents per kWh." The average cost of residential electricity was 9.86 cents per kWh in the U.S. in 2006.
The problem (as always) is that this doesn't account for the costs of competing energy sources dropping even more. And of course, the notion of building SPS with the existing space transportation infrastructure remains ludicrous. Get the costs of access down (a good idea for a lot of other reasons), and then see if it makes sense. Unfortunately, current space policy (or at least the vast amount of expenditures on space transportation) seems aimed at increasing the cost of access to space.
[Via Ken Silber]
[Early evening update]
Rand's approach is just clearly wrong. There are no market incentives to decrease the cost of space travel, outside the COTS competition.
Nope, none at all. How will we ever do it without the government?
Oh, wait! How about the millions of people who want to take a trip, and can afford to do so if the price comes down? Mark ignores that one, though, because it doesn't require NASA getting billions of dollars, or giving them out for a few flights via COTS, that will do very little to significantly reduce the cost of access.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:43 PMApparently, global warming is being delayed:
Commenting on the new study, Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre said the model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect around the North Atlantic.
"Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."That emphasises once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades."
Gee, what a concept.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:08 AMThere's an interesting post over at New Scientist on the new eugenicists. What's even more interesting, though, are the numerous comments, which repeat many of the myths about population growth and control, and feasibility of mitigating it through space technology, including space (to use the politically incorrect word) colonization.
I don't really have time to critique in any detail, other than to note that anyone who makes feasibility arguments on the latter subject by referring to Shuttle costs is completely clueless. Sadly though, years ago, Carl Sagan did exactly that.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:35 AMThese people seem to think (nuttily enough) that there's some kind of anti-government bias in the media, and thus a need for their web site. It's basically your one-stop fascism shop.
[Via you know who]
Hmmmm...
Well governmentisbad.com is already taken, though it doesn't seem to be a counterpart.
[Afternoon update]
"Government is good," eh? Yeah, government is great:
The problems first emerged in May 2007, when 1,400 handhelds were deployed for a "dress rehearsal." In the field, they proved to be slow and unreliable. The Bush Administration's official explanation is that the Census Bureau didn't get its requirements straight with the contractor, Florida-based Harris Corp. No doubt that's true - the Government Accountability Office warned all the way back in 2005 that Census did not have a good grasp of its technology needs or effective procurement. Even so, we doubt that "slow and unreliable" were part of the original specs in March 2006.
The Census Bureau decided as long ago as 2000 that handheld computers were the future, and spent four years trying to develop one in-house, with little to show for it. That earlier failure led to the contract with Harris in 2006. As usual in government, no one in particular seems to be taking responsibility for the serial failures - which of course is part of the problem. There is little incentive for getting it right, because no one below the level of a political appointee ever loses a job for getting it wrong. You can even lose your job for getting it right if it means more efficiency.In the case of the botched handhelds, the result is that the Census will now have to deploy some 600,000 temporary workers to go door to door and get the forms filled out by hand. The handhelds will still be used for "address canvassing," although even at that they can't handle more than 700 addresses at a time. For this great leap backward, taxpayers will pay $3 billion more for the census than originally estimated.
This must be one of those awful articles "biased" against the government.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:20 AMAlan Boyle has a long review of the movie Expelled. While I largely agree with it (and it has reduced my estimation of Ben Stein, who seems to have gone completely off the deep end, tremendously), it is marred, severely in my opinion, by the use of the politically loaded word, "swiftboating," not just in the text, but in the title itself.
He seems, from context, to be using the word in its popular, but grossly mistaken and (Democrat) partisan sense, as in "spreading malicious lies about something or someone." But for those of us actually paying attention at the time, and using more enlightened sources than Lawrence O'Donnell screaming "Liar! Liar! Liar!" at John O'Neill, the word means "revealing inconvenient truths about a political candidate who is a Democrat." Most of the charges of the Swift Boaters were in fact validated--on the subject of Christmas in Cambodia, despite it being "seared, seared into his memory," John Kerry was either lying or fantasizing, and his campaign essentially was forced to admit that. And the video of his Senate testimony in which he slandered his fellow sailors, airmen, marines and soldiers, calling them war criminals, was indisputable.
So it would be far better to simply avoid the word, given the fact that it has almost exactly the opposite meaning to two different sets of readerships, and is bound to raise hackles, regardless of the context. I expect it from political polemicists, but I expect (and almost always get) much better from Alan.
I'll have more thoughts on the movie itself (which I haven't seen, and have no plans to), but will save them for another post.
[Thursday morning update]
Alan responds, but seems to miss the point that I was making. Apparently, to him, the term "swiftboat" as a verb simply means "negative campaigning," something that he doesn't like. But I don't think that's what it means to most people, on either side of the partisan divide. As I describe above, Democrat partisans have come to use it to mean not just negative campaigning, but lying about their candidate, whereas those of us who were opposed to John Kerry (for reasons that the Swift Boat Vets stated, and many others) view it as telling inconvenient truths that didn't reflect well on him. Both of those fall under the rubric of "negative campaigning," if by that one means saying things about a candidate (or a concept) with the intent of making people think less of them.
Now, in light of what I think is my understanding of Alan's point, I disagree. I actually have no problem at all with negative campaigning per se, if the campaign is truthful. I think that in order to make a judgment about a candidate or an issue, the more information the better, both pro and con. If a candidate happens to be an ax murderer, would there be something reprehensible about pointing this out? I think that it would be information that the voting public would have a right to know, despite the fact that it's (sigh) "negative."
Likewise, I have no problem with movies that oppose evolution, per se, as long as they're honest, and I would not characterize such movies as "Swift Boating" (particularly since I think that the Swift Boat Vets, in pointing out facts about John Kerry of which the voting public was largely unaware, performed a public service). From what I've heard about Expelled, however, it's scurrilous, and to associate the tactics used there with John O'Neill and his cohorts is slanderous, if not libelous, to them. There's been a lot of discussion about the movie in the last couple days, and the war on science in general (a war that, by the way, contra Chris Mooney's flawed, or at least limited, thesis, is thoroughly bi-partisan). I hope to provide a link roundup and some thoughts of my own shortly, if I can find the time.
In any event, I continue to find Alan's usage of the new (and ambiguous) verb "swiftboating" problematic, for reasons stated above. As I already noted, I expect to hear that word from "political consultants" on partisan talkfests on the cable news channels, but not in a reasoned discussion about science and society.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:18 PMSomething tells me that we haven't seen or heard the last of Reverend Wright:
"After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn't know about Jeremiah's views during those years, that he wasn't familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn't hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal," said the source, who has deep roots in Wright's Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.
Up until now, the defense has been that these remarks of Wrights were atypical and taken out of context, and sufficiently rare that Obama never happened to have heard them, despite having been a church member for two decades and sitting regularly in the pews. Not that I've ever bought it, but that was the story.
Now Wright himself is saying (and made pretty clear on Monday) that these are not just sporadic and infrequent flights of fancy, but things that he fervently believes and is happy to tell anyone on any occasion, including Sunday sermons. And furthermore, he knows that his protege was well aware of his views (and may even have thought that he agreed with them, though that's less clear).
I have a pretty low opinion of the pastor, for a lot of reasons, but I haven't yet seen any evidence that he's a liar. But either he is prevaricating, or Obama is. I know where I'd put my money at this point. This will be a ticking time bomb going into the fall. I hope that the Democrats continue to let it tick.
[Update at 2:45 PM EDT]
Ramesh Ponnuru defends Wright (err...sort of):
One theme I've seen in the commentary about Wright, especially the liberal commentary, is how terrible it is, how selfish, for Wright to get in the way of Obama's presidential campaign. There are a lot of grounds for criticizing Wright--that he is an anti-American and racist buffoon, example--but I don't see why he should keep quiet just to keep from inconveniencing a political candidate. He takes these. . . ideas of his very seriously, and he has the opportunity of a lifetime to disseminate them. Why wouldn't he take it?
Beyond that, there seems to be this implicit assumption among the liberal media and Obama supporters (but I repeat myself) that Wright does (and should) want to see his congregant become president. Hence the anguished cries of "betrayal!, and "selfishness!"
But if Obama is elected president, doesn't that knock the legs out from under his race- and class-war theories? Doesn't it show that perhaps AmeKKKa isn't the racist monster of his sermons?
On the other hand, if Obama loses, doesn't it validate his (and Michelle's) hatred of this racist country, as bad as (or worse than!) Al Qaeda? And then doesn't he get to continue hawking his paranoia and lunacy to the chumps, and continue to get their adulation? And moolah from the DVD sales? Gotta keep up the payments on the mansion, you know.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:04 AMAn interesting comment from someone who claims to work on the program, over at Space Politics (it's the sixteenth one), in response to the usual idiocy that everything is fine with ESAS, and that we all have to get behind it, and there are no other choices:
Your interpretation of published Ares I status is overly optimistic to an extreme. For instance, the J-2X ignition tests to which you refer has been done at the igniter level, a far cry from an actual engine test. The J-2X exists only on paper, and still very much at the powerpoint level.
The Ares I-X is also merely a stunt and represents no true progress to an actual flight configuration. It's what we in the business refer to as an "Admiral's Test," looks impressive to the uninformed, but adds no value to the final product.You'll find that many of us Ares I naysayers actually work on or have involvement with the project. Ask the troops at MSFC and you'll get a completely different story than what you're getting through the NASA propaganda machine.
A lot of us are concerned with what kind of reputation we'll be left with when Griffin leaves and this whole Ares I/ESAS debacle is exposed.
That certainly rings true to me, based on other emails I get from program insiders.
Meanwhile, over at NASA Space Flight, there's a description of proposed solutions to the Ares vibration issue. The first one is the most interesting kludgesolution:
The anti-Thrust Oscillation RCS would be a totally new system, located on the aft skirt of the Ares I booster. Known as Active Pulse Thrusters (APT), documentation shows this system to hold the potential of reducing Thrust Oscillation by around 10 times that which is currently expected.
'Active Pulse Thrusters (RCS TO Damper): First Stage carries most of the design changes (Orion Service Module tanks change required),' noted associated documentation on this concept. 'Could provide 10X reduction in TO. Relatively mature thruster design. Self contained. Relatively mature control system.'However, it would - as with most of the mitigation options - hold a mass impact on the vehicle, something Ares I has been struggling with since its early design cycles.
'Performance and aft skirt design challenge: (around) 500 lbm (pounds mass) payload impact. Trade required for separation and booster deceleration. Add failure modes. Must survive aft skirt environments.'
The system consists of four pods, located around the aft skirt on the Ares I First Stage. Early graphics of a system - that are bound to mature if accepted as the way forward - show each pod will have a fuel tank, an oxidizer tank, a pressurant tank, and seven thrusters.
The downside of this concept - which is a completely separate system than the roll control system on the interstage - is the addition of failure modes, which would hit Ares I's LOC/M (Loss of Crew/Mission) numbers.
Also on the downside, the concept is a retro thrusting system (negative thrusting) - which would impact on Ares I's performance figures.
OK, if I understand this correctly, this is what I would call the "Bose headphone" approach. Apparently, the plan is to actually fire thrusters in a direction opposite to the main thrust, at a frequency and phase to actually cancel out the vibration of the SRM. The description of the downside of this solution is a little dry, to me. They are introducing a new, complicated, expensive-to-develop-and-test system into the vehicle, which will add weight and (probably weird) potential failure modes, and reduce the net thrust of the vehicle, thus reducing its payload performance, which already has essentially no margin.
Great.
Next? Isolation mounts:
'May reduce payload by 1000 lbm. Reduces lateral stiffness unless mitigated in the design. Adds failure modes. Changes system modes for loads and control.'
"...unless mitigated in the design." There is an implicit assumption in that statement that such a mitigation is possible, but it may not be. I suspect that it doesn't just reduce lateral stiffness, but may also reduce stiffness in bending, which means more potential problems as the upper stage wiggles back and forth on top of the SRB, adding to the joy of the ride for the crew, and further complicating the control system's job, in all three axes.
They're right--this one is unlikely to survive the trade study.
Even the third, favored option is a kludge, which "consists of rails and springs under the top plate of the parachute platform on the First Stage. The active system would require a control system and associated battery power supply - all located under the aeroshell that houses the drogue parachute."
"The passive system has a rail attachment on the forward skirt extension of the First Stage providing lateral support. Damping would be provided by springs attached through the ancillary ring."
Rube Goldberg, call your office.
I've probably used this Einstein quote already recently, but it continues to apply: a clever man solves a problem--a wise man avoids it. This is all the result of the strange decision to use a Shuttle SRB as a first stage. That was not a necessary choice, and a good trade study (as opposed to the sixty-day exercise) would have identified these problems up front, and considered them in the trade. Anyone want to bet that it did?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:03 AMThere were some shots fired at Florida Atlantic University (two or three miles from my house) at a party last night. In what's obviously a ridiculous and gross overreaction to the Virginia Tech massacre, classes have been cancelled, the entire campus has been locked down, and twenty-five hundred students are now essentially prisoners in their dorms.
How long will this go on? Who knows? It could be days before they find the perp (no one was killed, and one person was wounded, and it's not even clear that the wound was from the gun), and they may never do so.
Florida is a shall-issue state, but I suspect that the school (like most) foolishly bans guns on campus (which obviously worked so well last night). Unfortunately, despite the fact that all the students are adults, and there's no reason to think that the shooter has any intention to shoot people on campus, they are being treated like children, deprived of the means to defend themselves, and locked away in their rooms. It's a continuation of the infantilization of society, and the growth of the nanny state. Obviously, the authorities are worried about being accused of not being sufficiently solicitous of the safety of the students, but apparently they don't believe that their liberty has any value. They need to understand that they have to have some balance. If I were one of those students, I'd bring suit for false imprisonment.
[Update an hour or so later]
I just heard that the police are "searching Boca Raton" for the gunman. So they're not restricting their search to campus? I'm only three miles or so from campus. Why haven't they come down my street and locked us in our houses? He could be anywhere. Why restrict it to campus?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:43 AMRob Bailey has an interview with Peter Thiel. I agree with him that "transhumanist" is a misleading word, and it's not useful to use it until there's agreement on what is human. Unlike people like Asimov (and Kass) I don't believe that we lose our humanity when we live indefinitely long.
I would have been interested to hear his thoughts on space.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:35 AMAdvice for the lovelorn, from Senator Barack Obama. Well, who would know better than him?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:27 AMRush is considering shifting his support from Hillary! to him. I predicted this weeks ago, but it makes the point that, contrary to the speculation by some, "Operation Chaos" is not about making Hillary! the nominee per se--it's about keeping the fight going as long as possible, and weakening the ultimate Dem nominee as much as possible. The best historical analogy (for those historically ignorant morons who think that Saddam was our "ally" in the eighties) was the Iran/Iraq war, in which the goal was to help whichever side was perceived to be weaker, in hopes that they would both ultimately lose.
And with regard to the Democrats, that is an objective with which I heartily concur, as unenthusiastic as I am about the Republican nominee.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:16 PMAs I said previously, either he was aware of this kind of thing for the past two decades and had no real problem with it, or he was unaware of it, demonstrating an utter cluelessness. And I don't buy the latter. I don't believe that Wright suddenly changed, and I don't believe that Obama believes that he did. Somehow, I have a feeling that the only thing that really outrages and saddens Barack Obama is the fact that his former pastor has switched from being a political asset in Chicago to being a political liability nationally.
In any event, either way, he's not fit to to get my vote for president. I suspect that a lot (too many for him to win) of other people will have the same opinion.
As someone once said, sincerity is the key to success in life. If you can fake that, you have it made. I think that Obama's mask is starting to slip.
[Update a few minutes later]
I agree with Roger Simon that this is a tragedy for race relations in this country (and that Obama has been to them what Bill and Hillary were for gender feminism).
The situation is close to tragic and this election year shows a real chance of running off the rails in a way few of us would have predicted. It has a potential for pushing race relations seriously backwards in a society that was already relatively open handed. People do not like being accused of racism when it is not there. The original attraction of the Obama campaign is that it was post-racial and now it is anything but.
This is not the fault of America or of the American people. It has been caused by the race baiters and the spinelessness and opportunism of Barack Obama. He made his compact with the race-baiting devil twenty years ago and now, in the immortal words of Reverend Wright, "it has come home to roost."
Obama still has a chance to salvage his "post-racial candidacy," if not his campaign, which (I suspect) is now a completely lost cause. What we need from him is a real speech on race in America, where he calls out the true haters and bigots, and poverty pimps and shakedown artists in his own party--the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons who keep their own people on the "liberal" plantation. That would be a service to the nation, and a speech worth praising. But I don't think he has either the political acumen or courage to do that. Not to mention that it would estrange his own wife. I guess that, with this implosion of his candidacy, Michelle (whose pastor Wright no doubt really was) won't have any more reason to be proud of America.
[Another update]
Obama has been telling us that his lack of experience doesn't matter, because what is important is not experience, but "judgment." But just what does this episode say about his vaunted judgment?
Back on March 18, Obama declared that we were being unfair in concluding Jeremiah Wright was "a crank or a demagogue" because we didn't know him the way Obama did. We were reaching that conclusion based on "snippets" and "soundbites," whereas he could take the full assessment based on a close relationship of 20 years or so.
He was, he assured us, in a better position to make a better judgment.Today, Obama tells us, he doesn't really know Jeremiah Wright at all.
And now, it seems, we're in better position to make a judgment about Barack Obama.
UPDATE: Paraphrasing a reader's suggestion, foreseeing an Oval Office address near the end of Obama's first term: "The Prime Minister Ahmadinejad who ordered the nuclear strike on Tel Aviv yesterday... is not the same man I met in Tehran at our summit back in 2009."
Heh.
Of course, this argument would carry a little more weight if George Bush hadn't declared that he could see Putin's soul in his eyes. On the other hand, as much as he'd no doubt like to be, Obama isn't running against George Bush.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:32 PMThe New York Times maintains its perfect record.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:49 AMAlan Boyle has a roundup of links on the latest Soyuz entry mishap. I think that this is going to have an effect on policy, but it's unclear what it will be, so far.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 AMA couple years ago, I speculated on whether or not Bill Clinton could have been elected if there had been a blogosphere in 1992. I called him an MSM president.
Now Chuck Todd says that he has been done in by new media (specifically, Youtube):
Although Clinton caught a glimpse of the digital future when he was president and a little-known Internet gadfly named Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story, he was never subjected to the kind of unblinking scrutiny of today's media environment.
When Clinton was running for president, Todd said, he and his fellow candidates could misspeak -- and even willfully obfuscate -- with relative impunity."It was like a Jedi mind trick with him," he added. "It would take a few days for the media to catch up [and] by then he had moved on."
Well, it was a Jedi mind trick that never worked with me. Or in fact, not even a majority, since he could never win a majority. But he always had the press on his side, at least until their new love from Chicago came along.
[Via Virginia Postrel, who is, happily, currently cancer free]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:49 AM[Note: I've bumped this post from yesterday to the top, because it has some new content today, and is getting a lot of commentary]
Could Obama do for race relations? It is a situation, with a history, steeped in irony.
Younger people might not be aware, but there was a time, back in the early nineties, when feminist principles like opposition to sexual harassment in the workplace (including consensual sexual relations between people of widely disparate power relations) were viewed with widespread societal approval, and even made subject to civil law suits. It was considered intolerable by many to have any physical contact in the work place whatsoever. Beyond that, women who accused men of sexual impropriety were to be protected and provided with credibility, not derided and slandered in an attempt to reduce their credibility. Whether one agrees with it or not, this was the cultural norm, and became established law.
Then came Bill and Hillary Clinton, ostensible supporters of all of this. Until...until...it became inconvenient for them. Oh, they continue to pay it lip service, but when Gennifer Flowers accused Bill of having a twelve-year affair with him, and had audio tape to prove it, she was attacked as a liar and a slut, by the Clintons' henchmen (and henchwomen), masterminded by Hillary. When Paula Jones, a lowly state employee, came forth with a story of being escorted by a state policeman to Governor Clinton's hotel suite, whereupon he demanded that she fellate him, she was called "trailer trash," and her lawsuit (perfectly legitimate) was fought on the basis that she had no right to bring a kingpresident to trial. When Kathleen Willey complained that she had been groped in the Oval Office when she came to ask the president for a job after her husband had committed suicide, she was essentially called a liar by the president's lawyer. Her tires were slashed, her children were threatened, and her family cat was found dead. When Monica Lewinski's activities were exposed, there was a back-channel whispering campaign by people like Sid Blumenthal that she was a "stalker," and mentally unstable, and not to be believed. This campaign would no doubt have continued ad infinitum had she not taken Linda Tripp's sage advice and hung on to the blue-stained dress, which ultimately revealed who was really the liar in the affair.
In each and every case, in order to quell (in the campaign and White House's own words) a "bimbo eruption," the "bimbos" were considered fair game.
This is hypocritical and appalling enough in its own right, but what is much worse, at least for the people who originally developed and defended those feminist ideals that were trampled by the Clintons, was the degree to which, like Hillary, they were cynically willing to completely abandon them in order to defend not only the first "black president," but the first "feminist" one. Gloria Steinem, yes the Gloria Steinem, wrote a famous piece in the New York Times in which she in essence said that the president was entitled to one free grope. Because it was the Clintons, the "sluts and nuts" defense became acceptable to the formerly easily oh-so-outraged gender warriors.
This sordid tale of hypocrisy, and destruction of feminist idealism by this cynical devotion to the Clintons was described extensively by libertarian feminist Cathy Young almost ten years ago.
Well, the Clintons have aged, and grown tiresome, and the media and the movement have "moved on" (so to speak), tossed the Clintons out like yesterday's news, and found a new paramour--a young, fresh face, in the form of an attractive (to many) articulate person of color, even if the hue is less than full due to the taint of his white ancestry. They don't need a faux black president, as Bill was--they can get a real one this time. Almost, anyway.
The parallels with the Clintons are in fact quite striking, in terms of the media love affair, the willingness to run interference for potential scandals, and now, in their willingness to toss overboard more supposed "liberal" shibboleths, in the interest of keeping his candidacy alive, just as they were willing to destroy feminism in order to save it, to keep a pro-abortion president in office (even though he would have been replaced with another pro-abortion president in the person of Al Gore had he been removed).
This time, it's race, as Victor Davis Hanson explains:
...Wright's speech on black-right brainers, white-left brainers -- replete with bogus stereotypes and crude voice imitations -- was about as racist as they come and at one time antithetical to what the NAACP was once all about. Again, the Obama campaign and its appendages have set back racial relations a generation. Just ten years ago, any candidate, black or white, would have rejected Wright making a speech about genetic differences in respective black and white brains. Now it's given to civil rights organizations by the possible next President's pastor and spiritual advisor -- and done to wild applause for an organization founded on the idea that we are innately the same, while being gushed over by ignorant "commentators."
As I said before, between Wright's racism and hatred, and Obama's contextualization of what he has said, we have so lowered the bar that the next racist (and he won't necessarily be black) who evokes hatred of other races and then offers a mish-mash pop theory of genetic differences will have plenty of "context" to ward off public fury.
And the amazing thing (or it would be if it hadn't become so depressingly familiar) is that the press doesn't merely acquiesce to such destruction of heretofore liberal ideals--it actively cheers it, through empty-headed mouthpieces like Soledad O'Brien. Because their hero, Barack Obama, will not separate himself from his former pastor, they choose not the solution of abandoning their hero. No, instead, they are compelled to make a new hero of, and treat like a rock star, a bigoted, paranoid scientific ignoramus. And in so doing, to turn their backs on, and leave in shreds, what they once thought were racially enlightened ideals.
But I would reassure Professor Hanson on one point. If the next ignoramus to come down the chute turns out to be a white man, opposing racism will become fashionable once again, with all the continuing attendant hypocrisy.
[Update in the evening]
In response to some questions in comments, here's an interesting quote from Reverend Wright, sure to put some soothing salve on the wounds of the nation's racial divide:
"Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."
Let's leave aside for the moment the ludicrous hyperbole that Reverend Wright was ever put in chains, and ever put in slavery. Of course, no one living today put Reverend Wright, or any member of his flock, in chains or slavery. The closest slave to Reverend Wright would probably be his grandfather, if not his great-grandfather. And that person was at least two generations, and probably more, from being put into chains and being sold into that state.
But here's the most ironic part. Louis is a Muslim, or so he claims. Anyone familiar with the history of the slave trade knows the religion of the people who sold blacks into slavery to be sent to the New World. Hint: it was not Christian. For the most part, the slaves were sold in Africa to the British slavers by (Islamic) Arabs, who remain one of the most racist peoples on earth to this day.
Yet Reverend Wright defends the hateful (and racist--and he did call Judaism a "gutter religion," regardless of false denials that it was "only" about "Zionism") Farrakhan by attacking white people living today, who have put no one in chains, and sold no one into slavery. I wonder what he has to say about the real slavery, that continues today, in Sudan and other places (predominantly Islamic and Arabic)?
Be sure to read the Wright/Obama-defending insanity in the comments at Milbanks' post as well.
[Tuesday morning update]
Joe Katzman, on the mendacity and fascist nature of the Obama campaign and cult.
Errrr...but Joe? Just for the record, "belief" actually is a noun, not a verb.
One other thought. If Jeremiah Wright really does represent "the black church" and his beliefs mirror those of the black community, America is in trouble, and black America is in very deep trouble.
Fortunately, I think (and certainly fervently hope) that there are many black Americans who are as repulsed by Wright's racist beliefs and words as the rest of us are, and recognize what a disaster they have been for their community. But we (and even more, they) need a lot more Bill Cosbys, and many fewer Reverend Wrights.
[Update a couple minutes later]
From a comment at Joe's post, a good point. Obama has a much bigger problem than his pastor. He could have the mother of all Sister Souljah moments with Jeremiah Wright, and perhaps turn this around. But he can't disown his wife.
[8:30 AM update]
I didn't listen to Wright's whole speech, but Lileks did, so we don't have to:
Turns out that was just the warm-up act. I heard the entire Rev. Wright speech today, so I'm not talking anything out of context - unless there was some peculiar non-verbal aspect, like an aura or a thick cloud overhead that formed instructive and helpful shapes, the endorsement of Farrakhan, the attacks on "Zionism" in the context of UN resolutions, and the explanations of the effect on racially-distinctive brain structure on marching-band styles was pretty hard to misconstrue.
The most amusing response, aside from the sort of obdurate denial you might find in someone who just created a fantastic beach sculpture and sees a tsunami on the horizon, is the Conspiracy Theory. Who? Jews! Of course! On the radio today I heard someone who managed to combine the far trailing tips of leftist and right-wing nuttery, and tie them into a neat bow. The JEWS were doing this to shake Obama loose from Rev. Wright; the JEWS were the ones who had devised this non-issue and pushed it to the front through their tentacular media control. Apparently a team of crack Jewish Ninja Hypnotists got Rev. Wright to make these recent appearances, too.
Sorry, but there is no "context" that can change my opinion of the nuttiness, paranoia, and mindless anger of the excerpts that I've read and heard. I'm long on record of thinking that Obama can't win in November, and this only reinforces that view. Even if he Sister Souljahed Wright now, it's too late. It raises too many questions. How could he have associated with this man for twenty years, knowing what he believes, and preaches? Alternately, how could he have done so, and not known? He is either sympathetic to these views, or he's clueless. Either way, he'll be too thoroughly unacceptable to too many Americans at this point to be in any way electable.
I just hope that the Dems don't figure it out. Fortunately, based on a lot of the commentary from Obama defenders, both here and other places, they may remain in denial, right up until the convention and beyond. And if they do figure it out, they'll lose the black and youth vote. They are royally screwed, and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of identity-politics mongers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:23 AMAs Oscar Wilde once said of the death of Little Nell, it would take a heart of stone to read this and not laugh out loud:
Convening its national convention in Kansas City today, the Constitution Party picked radio talk-show host Chuck Baldwin over former Ambassador Alan Keyes as its 2008 presidential candidate.
Maybe Dr. Keyes can start working the late-night circuit.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:09 PMWell, if not his oyster, at least his dippy dot:
"It seems the legends of 21st-century man's crude ice cream-eating habits are all true," Wolcott said. "I see the way you consume these dripping concoctions with protruding tongues, the way the dark cream dribbles down your chins, the way your workers must dig tirelessly with spherical metal 'scooping' devices to even obtain this product."
"Barbarians!" Wolcott added. "Dippin' Dots can be poured effortlessly into cups. They do not melt or make a mess, and plus they are very fun to eat."
Now, it would seem to me that this is a man after Leon Kass' heart. Not to mention, ironically, that it gives this enemy of longevity a reason to live, and see such a marvelous future, in which he will no longer have to suffer the indignity of seeing people licking cones in the street, like so many cats at bath.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:56 PMReihan Salam explains:
Not only did Obama not expand beyond his core constituencies--as always, he was crushed among Catholics, an atypically big slice of Pennsylvania's Democratic electorate, and white working-class voters--he lost ground with affluent professionals, the group that has powered his historic fundraising success, with weekly churchgoers, and with the moderates who have until recently seen him as one of their own. He lost Greater Pittsburgh and the Philadelphia suburbs by wide margins, and he also lost the northeastern part of the state by a whopping 66 to 34 percent. In a new Brookings study of Pennsylvania's political demographics, William Frey and Ruy Teixeira identify this region, centered on Allentown, as key to the state's political future. If Pennsylvania's Northeast keeps trending Democratic, the state will become solidly blue. But if a Republican candidate can hold the line or make some modest gains with the region's white working class voters, the picture looks very different. And as it turns out, the GOP may have a candidate who can do just that in John McCain. As Hillary Clinton's campaign slow-marches to its unhappy end, she is offering lessons not only for how McCain can defeat Obama--she is pointing towards a possible bright future for the Republican brand. She's probably not thrilled about that. But before we get ahead of ourselves, it's worth considering the scale of the obstacles Republicans face.
Note that Salam doesn't agree that McCain is by any means a lock, but I think that this paragraph explains Obama's big problem in winning in November. Hillary! has a different set.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:05 AMWe're Democrats.
[Update a few minutes later]
This seems related.
Not only can Democrats not handle the truth, but when truth is told about them, the truth tellers are called liars. Even by Saint Barack:
When called out on something -- say, misquoting McCain on the 100 years statement -- Obama's reflexive move is to insist the person doubting his credibility is lying. When Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous asked him tough questions, his followers screamed bloody murder.
The strategy is clear: when you say something negative about Obama, you will be accused of lying.
Well, at least they're not threatening to chop off our heads.
Yet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:48 AMWhich is stranger, that the editor of the Boston Herald has a picture of Che in his office ("for inspiration") or that Howie Kurtz offers that fact without comment?
Is it because Kevin Convey considers the newspaper a "guerilla" operation against the Globe? Does he know who Che was, and what he did? What does he plan to do with his own vanquished enemies, assuming his success?
Since reading Jonah's book
Bruce Bawer, on the cultural surrender of the west, aided and abetted by our own media, and the multi-culturalists in both academia and government.
Not exactly a new theme, but it doesn't hurt to repeat or remind, for those who haven't seen things like this, or have gone back to sleep.
It's a long piece, but this is really the nut of it:
What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, KhoÂmeini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies' basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.
The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success.
Sadly, he makes a good case.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:39 AMPamela Bone, who broke with the Left over the common cause that so much of it found with radical Islam, has died of cancer.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 PMOn the peacefulness of an armed society:
Brits arriving in New York, hoping to avoid being slaughtered on day one of their shopping mission to Manhattan are, by day two, beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about. By day three they have had had the scales lifted from their eyes.
I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place, the lack of the violent undercurrent so ubiquitous in British cities, even British market towns."It seems so nice here," they quaver.
Well, it is!
How about that. This kind of ignorance is what happens when you rely on the BBC (in general) for your news about the colonies. Which makes it all the more surprising and out of character for it to print a piece like this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:12 AM"If your mentor of 20 years has ever declared the United States to be 'the same as al-Qaeda, under a different color flag, calling on the name a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem!' you are ineligible for the Presidency."
More wit and wisdom from Jeremiah Wright, who doesn't seem to want his protege to be president.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:17 PMI hope you're sitting down.
People are driving less because of higher gas prices.
Gee, somebody should write a book
...this will be the reason:
My support for McCain has been just as tentative as McCain's support for market liberty, the Constitution, limited government, low taxes and not buying in to the leftist takeover on climate change.
I've had it with him with this latest insult. I didn't like him showing up that Cincinnatti guy supporting him either. If he doesn't like their tone, tell them in private. I want an apology to the North Carolina GOP or no more money.Treat other Republicans with respect, period.
This anti-Republican schtick endears him with the press, but he can't count on enough independents to win, if the base stays home.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:17 AMDavid Freddoso is still angry about our insane and, in my opinion, criminal ethanol and sugar policies:
The problem is that our sugar industry has even better lobbyists than big ethanol. They enjoy price supports, which we pay for both through the Treasury and in the supermarket. The price of our sugar is usually twice that of the world market. The sugar growers love it -- even if they cannot sell all of their sugar, they have a guaranteed government buyer at an inflated price. The corn growers love it too, because high U.S. sugar prices push our food industries to use high-fructose corn syrup (ever seen that on a product label?) as an alternative sweetener -- yet another artificial support for the world price of corn.
Not to mention wreaking havoc on the Everglades. Price-supported sugar cane is using up a lot of the water that both south Floridian humans and animals need, and they do this with the same political clout that they use to get the subsidies and tariffs, for an industry that is not all that big in terms of the economy.
Even if we want ethanol, we can't solve the problem by importing sugar, because there are tariffs in place. We can't import the ethanol itself because there's a high tariff against that, too. Wherever you turn, there's no way out -- Americans don't enjoy economic freedom, we live in a managed economy.
It makes me especially proud of my country when I see Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) call foreign delegates' concerns over a potential doubling of world hunger "a joke..."
Let's call these people out for what they are--Republicans and Democrats alike--fascists. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
[Update a few minutes later]
[Update early evening]
Oh, wonderful:
Key House and Senate farm bill negotiators reached agreement today on the main elements of the farm bill...[T]he five-year bill would raise the target prices and loan rates for northern crops beginning in 2010, raise the sugar loan rate three-quarters of a cent and include a sugar-to-ethanol program.
Oh, that's just great. We have a program that makes us overpay for sugar, and now we're going to start a new program to subsidize the ethanol we create from it -- because without the subsidy, the inflated sugar price we've created will make the ethanol unprofitable.
Just when you think it can't get any worse, they always find a way.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 AMAre we at war with Jihadism?
Of course it is true that Islamic reformers are trying to redefine the very troubling concept of jihad as a positive: viz., an internal struggle for personal betterment. Much as I'd love them to succeed, it is a well-intentioned folly -- largely because of modern culture, which puts such a premium on authenticity. If you want to encourage the reformers, then encourage them to drop the concept of jihad altogether. As a matter of history, jihad is a military obligation. As long as it is accorded a central place in Islam, the militants are always going to be deemed more authentic, more true to the faith of Mohammed, than the reformers.
If correct, this makes the latest State Department policy all the more idiotic.
I still prefer the term Hirabis myself.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 AMFor Zimbabwe:
Everything in Mr. Mugabe's history suggests he will use whatever force is necessary to maintain his grip on power. As a rebel leader participating in the 1980 election, he promised to continue the country's civil war if he lost. Not long after taking power, he murdered some 30,000 members of the minority Ndebele tribe in what is known as the Matabeleland Massacre. In 2005, as punishment for voting against his ZANU-PF party, he destroyed the homes of 700,000 poor Zimbabweans. He has killed untold numbers of political opponents in the past and driven even more into exile.
Since so many of the country's security officials are prime beneficiaries of Mr. Mugabe's kleptocracy (and might be implicated for human-rights abuses were the regime to fall), it's doubtful that the military would ever allow a peaceful "velvet revolution" to transpire - as many speculated in the days after the election.In short, Mr. Mugabe's opponents need weapons soon. This is not to effect regime change, but for simple self-defense.
Hopefully, though, it would result in regime change as well. Jefferson famously said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Well, there's been plenty of patriot blood shed there, but apparently there's an element lacking in the fertilizer. Monsters like Mugabe were exactly the kind of tyrants he had in mind.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:05 AMDeroy Murdock writes on the ethanol scam, and its global effects on food and fuel prices.
[Update a few minutes later]
If this pans out, ethanol will make a lot more sense, won't be competing with food, and won't require any subsidies:
Along with cellulose, the cyanobacteria developed by Professor R. Malcolm Brown Jr. and Dr. David Nobles Jr. secrete glucose and sucrose. These simple sugars are the major sources used to produce ethanol.
"The cyanobacterium is potentially a very inexpensive source for sugars to use for ethanol and designer fuels," says Nobles, a research associate in the Section of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics.Brown and Nobles say their cyanobacteria can be grown in production facilities on non-agricultural lands using salty water unsuitable for human consumption or crops.
Bring it on.
[Evening update]
David Freddoso has an appropriately outraged follow-up to the Murdock piece:
Our government's negligence and perhaps even malicious misdirection of societal resources toward a worthless, unwanted product -- ethanol -- will cause millions of people to go hungry tonight.
The way things are going, this could become the worst chapter yet in the sad, ruinous history of our bipartisan agricultural welfare programs. For those who write in and protest that free-market capitalism is an uncompassionate, un-Christian economic system, I submit that you are currently witnessing the alternative.
Indeed. End the tariffs, end the subsidies. Let the market work.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:15 PMWhat would we do without federal regulators?
Federal alcohol regulators thought differently. They have ordered Dillmann to stop selling beer bottles with caps that say "Try Legal Weed."
While reviewing the proposed label for Dillmann's latest beer, Lemurian Lager, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau said the message on the caps he has been using for his five current beers amounts to a drug reference.In a letter explaining its decision, the agency, which regulates the brewing industry, said the wording could "mislead consumers about the characteristics of the alcoholic beverage."
Because, you know, a bottle of beer is so similar to a joint. I wonder how many bottles you'd have to drink before you really couldn't tell the difference?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:52 AMWell, maybe.
If Barack Obama had to be compared to a shoe product right now, it would have to be Crocs. These are the foam and vinyl casual shoes with the great big crocodile-like holes in them that everybody seemed to want six months ago. Today, it's hard to find very many people still willing to wear them. They are so last year.
Certainly what he's selling is a crock.
I do think that he's past his sell-by date. But I wish that people hadn't caught on to him until after the convention. There's enough potential buyers' remorse out there that Hillary! may yet pull it out.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AMAnd it's not very civil. Here's a report from the front lines:
One of the things that makes this division in the Democratic ranks so intense is that each side of this demographic divide would prefer to win with as minimal help from the other side as possible. Read the pro-Obama blogs; their comments drip with contempt for the demographics in Hillary's coalition - the elderly, unions, Catholics, the white working class, etc. They see these folks as more socially conservative, resistant to radical change, and holding back the party from embracing its true progressive ideals.
(One other wrinkle - your average liberal blogger thinks our Middle East policy is way too deferential to Israel's interests, and bristles at what they see as pandering to Jewish voters, such as promising to "obliterate" those who would attack the Jewish state.)Meanwhile, the white working class, the elderly and Catholic tend to look at the Obama coalition - the young activists, African-Americans, and the latte-sipping university professors - with a certain amount of suspicion and distrust. All this talk of ethereal "change" and not enough how you'll help put more food on the table.
Also, heard from a smart conservative strategist a day or so ago... this is what happens when your party is made up of groups that want government to do things for them (and spend time and resources) vs. when your party is made up of groups that want government to get off their backs and go away.
I just keep munching popcorn.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:54 AMIs it time to give up on finding a vaccine for AIDS?
If the animal model is useless, that's going to make it very hard to test new ones. The only ethical way to do it would be to work with people who engage in risky behavior, and that's going to be very problematic in terms of getting credible results.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:50 AMTom Hayden agrees with me that Hillary! is deliberately sabotaging Obama's campaign.
I may have to rethink my position now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:45 AMAre all of Hillary's negatives really already "all out there", as Lanny Davis spins? Rich Lowry thinks not:
The problem with this (and I'm more sympathetic to Hillary than Obama at this point) is that Hillary's negatives aren't "all out there." She's perfectly capable of creating new, damaging ones, as she did with the Bosnia story. Plus, Bill is always a wild card, in terms of what he's going to say, what is going to be revealed about his business dealings, etc.
It actually goes beyond that. We don't have to speculate on new revelations for Hillary to have big problems if she somehow snatches the nomination from Obama.
Throughout the nineties, the classic Clinton tactical response to discussion about their corruption or criminality was to say "that's old news." And it often, even usually, worked, given the degree to which the press was in the tank for them. And that will surely be their response if anyone brings up Cattlegate, the White House travel office, the missing billing records, the FBI files, "who hired Craig Livingstone," Whitewater in general, etc. And we can be assured that these things (and particularly their abuse of women) will come up, because the Slick Grope Vets for Truth have pledged to make them come up if she gets the nomination. I assume that they've been keeping their powder dry during the nomination process, both because they want any revelations they have to have maximum impact in the fall, when people are paying attention, and because they wouldn't have much effect on Democrat voters.
But if she does get the nomination, and Gennifer, Kathleen et al do make an issue of their treatment at the hands of both Bill and Hill, as I've written before, I don't think the "it's old news" gambit will fly, partly because it's become too old:
One of the tactics that the Clintons used to use to deflect bad news was to leak something on a Friday afternoon, and hope that it would die down after the weekend. Then if anyone brought it up, they'd dismiss it as "that's old news."
Given how ignorant much of the public remains of all the Clinton scandals that they successfully buried in the nineties, I wonder if this "old news" tactic will continue to work if things like Travelgate are brought up as issues in a 2008 campaign. I've already noted that Hillary will have her own "Slick Grope Vets" problem if she runs....It occurs to me that the "that's old news" defense may not work, particularly with the "Slick Grope Vets For Truth," at least based on the Kerry experience. After all, what could be older news than his congressional testimony after Vietnam? Yet it did become a potent campaign issue.
Many of today's young voters have no memory of the Clinton scandals. An eighteen-year old was only eight years old during the Lewinsky saga, and a toddler during the early scandals and Whitewater. Even today's twenty-somethings weren't paying that much attention at the time, and even if they were, they always got the Clinton spin in the MSM, not the vast amount of information available via the Internet and talk radio (and to a lesser degree, Fox News). So for them, it won't be old news, or at least, it will be a revelation of history, of which they were previously unaware.
And this time, with the blogosphere, the MSM won't be able to help her spin her way out as it did in the nineties. No, I don't think that Hillary's negatives are "all out there." We can expect a massive replay, and reminder, if she gets the nomination, and to a lot of people, the "old news" will become new news, or more simply, news.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 AMI really don't want to know about Eliot Spitzer's s3xual proclivities.
I'm just glad that he's no longer any threat to become president. And the fact that New York elected him governor (and Hillary! and Chuck Schumer Senators) is one of the many reasons that I'd never want to move to that state.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AMFrank J. says that too much is expected of us. I liked this comment:
Hell yea! Why do we always have to be the "reasonable" ones; for once I just want to forget about the real issues, the constitution, and logic, and just vote for someone who looks like me, or has the same plumbing.
Hey, you can do it. Just become a Democrat.
This one, too, from a "Peg C.":
Let's see: Blacks vote 95% - 5% for Obama, women must be voting something like 60 - 40 for Hillary (not sure but every idiot female I work with is for Hillary), white Dem men (yes, I know - oxymoron) are voting 45 - 55 for Obama...and white men are the racists and sexists?? Only in Nora Ephron's fantasy world...
Unfortunately, a lot of people reside in Nora Ephron's fantasy world.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:05 AMDo the superdelegates mind if Obama loses? If not, then it makes Hillary!'s uphill battle even steeper.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:19 AMHere's more on Barack Obama's crazy uncle and aunt, whom he couldn't choose.
Right? I mean, you can't choose your relatives.
What? They're not relatives? He chose them?
Well, so what?
Stop asking questions, and let me eat my waffle.
[Update after 10 PM EDT]
Here is a link roundup about Obama's terrorist friends.
Which is quite ironic, given that Obama's entry in the race will now almost certainly presage a repeat of the 1968 Chicago convention, except that it will instead be in the mile-high city.
[Thursday morning update]
Is Obama's "official campaign blogger" a Marxist?
I certainly wouldn't be shocked. It's all of a pattern. It's that new politics, doncha know?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 PMThe day after her decisive win in Pennsylvania, Hillary! has picked up a previously uncommitted superdelegate.
We'll see if this is just a single event, or the start of a tipping point. As Victor Davis Hanson notes (and I've been pointing out for months), the Dems are in horrid position for November (one in which they put themselves, largely because of dumb primary rules, an idiotic decision by Howard Dean to not seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, and their decades-long indulgence and encouragement of identity politics).
The Democrats are tottering at the edge of the abyss. They are about to nominate someone who cannot win, despite vastly out-spending his opponent, any of the key large states -- CA, NJ, NY, OH, PENN, TX, etc. -- that will determine the fall election. And yet not to nominate him will cause the sort of implosion they saw in 1968 or the sort of mess we saw in November 2000.
Hillary won't quit, since she knows that Obama, when pressure mounts, is starting to show a weird sort of petulance, and drops the "new politics" for snideness. And at any given second, a Rev. Wright outburst, an Ayers reappearance, another Michelle 'never been proud' moment, or another condescending Obamism can cause him to nose dive and become even more snappy.They won't be able to force Hillary out since she still has strong arguments -- the popular vote may end up dead even, or even in her favor; while he won caucuses and out-of-play states, she won the critical fall battlegrounds -- and by plebiscites; she is the more experienced and more likely to run a steady national campaign; she wins the Reagan Democrats that will determine the fall election; and by other, more logical nomination rules (like the Republicans' fewer caucuses, winner-take-all elections) she would have already wrapped it up. There seems something unfair, after all, for someone to win these mega-states and end up only with a few extra delegates for the effort. The more this drags out, the more Obama and Hillary get nastier and more estranged from each other -- at precisely the time one must take the VP nomination to unite the party.
If Obama is perceived to have been denied the nomination by the party elders because he is "unelectable" (which his followers will interpret to mean, too black, too "progressive," etc.) there will be days of rage in Denver, and lot of potential Democrat votes sitting at home in the fall. The best hope that they have at this point is for Obama to continue to lose the rest of the primaries, in which case Hillary can at least claim that he has "lost momentum" and that she has gained it, and will be the stronger candidate. If the perception is that Obama was thrown under the bus because of Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers, and the fact that not everyone agrees with the left about Obama's theories of false consciousness of the embittered, batten down the hatches. It will be an(other) ugly year for Democrats, and this time there will be no Nixon to save them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:02 PMAre you ready for a new glacial advance?
It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.
Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.
That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.
It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.
It might be a PITA to dike Florida and Bangladesh, but it would be a lot easier than staving off half a mile of encroaching ice in the upper midwest and Europe. Crank up your SUV and build some new coal plants before it's too late!
[Update later afternoon]
Well, it's good news in the near term at least, for those living out west, which has had a drought for the past few years. This year was the biggest snow pack in this millennium.
[Thursday morning update]
The criticism begins.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:39 AMOr should it be "wither VSE and ESAS"?
My analysis on what the presidential election could mean for NASA's current plans for human spaceflight, over at Popular Mechanics.
Bottom line: don't expect "steady as you go..."
[Update late evening]
Mark Whittington has his usual (i.e., idiotic) response:
The problem here is that without a lot of those billions being spent not only on technology development, but operational experience, it will be a long time before private business gets us to the Moon, if at all. And we they do get there, they may have to have visas signed by the Chinese who will have beaten everyone there.
Yes, [rolling eyes] having to have visas signed by the Chinese to land on the moon should be our biggest concern. Not the fact that NASA has chosen an architecture that is fundamentally incapable of establishing a fully-fledged lunar presence and is unlikely to survive politically (and ignoring the fact that the Chinese are on a track to get a human on the moon sometime in the next century, at their current rate...).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:21 AMStanley Kurtz says that it has driven the Democrat primary to an unprecedented degree. I agree that neither Obama or Hillary! would be front runners were he not black, and she not a woman. Of course, in her case, even being a woman wasn't enough. She had to be a woman who married, and stuck by (including violating most of the premises of feminism) Bill Clinton.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:58 AMRich Lowry wonders:
She's preparing the demographic ground for McCain, by getting white working-class Democrats used to (if you will) not voting for Obama. And she's softening Obama up for McCain, prodding at and exposing her fellow Democrats' weaknesses.
The following is predicated on the assumptions (for which I think that there's a ton of evidence) that: a) Hillary! is all about power for Hillary! and b) the fortunes of the Democrat Party come a distant second to that.
If Obama wins the election, even if his presidency is disastrous, it makes it very tough for her to run again in four years. Ted Kennedy tried it against Jimmy Carter, and it badly damaged the party in the 1980 election. And Hillary has nowhere near the reserve of goodwill among party regulars that Ted Kennedy does, so if she is perceived to be damaging the prospects for a reelection of a Democrat, it could be the end for her.
But when Obama loses (and particularly if he loses McGovern style, which is not at all unlikely), she'll be able to say "I told you so," and she'll be positioned for another run at the nomination in 2012 (she'll only be sixty four).
Thus, based on the above logic, Hillary!'s preferences are, in this order: a) to win the nomination, b) for McCain to win the election and c) for Obama to win the election.
So what she has to do (on the assumption that Obama is going to be the nominee) is to help McCain win without it being obvious that she's doing so. Fortunately for her, the same things that she has to do to continue to fight for the nomination, all the way to the convention, are the things that will continue to strengthen McCain, and weaken Obama in the general. So she can maintain plausible deniability. And after the convention, most of the damage will have been done, so she can go through the motions of supporting Obama.
And if by some miracle, the stalking horse learns to sing, and she gets the nomination? Like what happens if she loses Super Tuesday, she'll worry about that when it happens.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:32 AMI haven't had time to read it yet, but Dennis Wingo has a long essay on NASA's forty-year failure to close the deal with the American people. More thoughts when I have a chance to read, but some of the other folks here may be interested.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:01 AMObama brings a whole new meaning to the term:
Democratic White House contender Barack Obama could not hide his irritation Monday when asked by a reporter what he thought about former president Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas last week.
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" the Illinois senator said as he ate breakfast in Scranton, Pennsylvania, according to MSNBC television pictures.
Pressed again for an answer, he replied: "Just let me eat my waffle."
Hey, nobody held a gun and made you run for president, Barack. At least, as far as I know...
I hope that Jimmy Carter has as prominent a box at the convention as he did in 2004. And he invites Michael Moore again.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:57 AMYou know, it may be hard to find a candidate who doesn't belong to a church whose leader delivers eyebrow-singing speeches on the evils of America and also built a house Jim Bakker would approve, and it may be hard to find a candidate who doesn't move with ease in the same social circles as some people who bombed the Pentagon, but it can't be that hard to find one who doesn't do both.
Apparently, if you're a Democrat, it is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:02 AMLee Cary is concerned. I'm not, mostly because I don't think that Obama has a chance in hell of winning, but also because I don't believe that Ares/Orion is "the way forward," so it's hard for me to be very upset about either a delay, or cancellation.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AMThe Great White North, where boys will be boys, and the sheep are nervous.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:33 AM[Update a few minutes later]
Alan Boyle has a link roundup of commentary on the movie.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:31 AMNorm Geras says that he didn't leave the left--the left left him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:27 AMMickey Kaus says that Obama, like himself, is a vulgar Marxist.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:18 AMVirginia Postrel writes about the economic ignorance of the global warm-mongers, a group that unfortunately includes all three presidential candidates. I just hope that Phil Gramm or someone can get McCain to come to his senses on the issue once he's actually in office.
The connection between higher prices for energy and reduced carbon dioxide emissions may not have hit the national consciousness yet, but the LAT's Margo Roosevelt reports that California utilities--and eventually their customers--are beginning to realize this isn't just a symbolic issue.
...The DWP, to whom I pay my electric bills, wants out of the carbon dioxide caps. It apparently thinks the law shouldn't apply to socialist enterprises.
Isn't that always the way? The laws are for "the little people."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:05 AMIn the comments section of a post public support for the space program over at Space Politics, a twenty something asks a damed good question:
Those who support the current lunar program often forget the opportunity costs. There are better ways to spend the same money on developing space. I'm 24 - with the current Constellation program plan, I'll be in my mid 30s by the time we get back to the moon. If we operate the system for a decade or two after that, as is likely, all I can expect in my career is to see 4 people land on the moon twice a year. That is not exciting - nor is it worth the money. Maybe by the time I retire we'll be looking at another "next generation system".
What's the point of any of this for someone my age?
Well, it's been more than a couple decades since I was twenty something, but it seems like there's even less point for someone my age. Why in the world does Mike Griffin think that anyone, other than those getting a paycheck from it, are going to be inspired by such a trivial goals?
Of course, as usual, we heard the typical chorus of "space is hard, and it will take a long time, and you're doing it for your grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, or great-great-great...grandchildren."
But it doesn't have to be this way. There was nothing inevitable about ESAS, and it isn't written in granite that government space programs must do the least possible with the greatest amount of money, and the money invested provide such a poor return in either output or future capability on which to build. It is likely that this will be the case, but it's not inevitable. As I've said many times, we won't have a sensible government space program until space (that is, actual progress in space, not jobs in certain districts) becomes politically important. The last time that occurred was in the 1960s, and even then, it wasn't politically important to have sustainable progress--only a specific space achievement (and that only because it had almost arbitrarily become a technological gladiatorial arena).
Anyway, Jon Goff followed up with a good comment, and then a blog post on the subject:
If our current approach to space development was actually putting in place the technology and infrastructure needed to make our civilization a spacefaring one, I'd be a lot more willing to support it. Wise investments in the future are a good thing, but NASA's current approach is not a wise investment in the future. It's aging hipsters trying to relive the glory days of their youth at my generation's expense.
Patience is only a virtue when you're headed in the right direction and doing the right thing. If Constellation was truly (as Marburger put it) making future operations cheaper, safer, and more capable, then I'd be all for patiently seeing it out.While Constellation might possibly put some people on the moon, it won't actually put us any closer to routine, affordable, and sustainable exploration and development. I have no problem with a long hard road, just so long as its the right one.
Unfortunately, it comes back to the fact that we never have had that serious national debate about space, and why we have a space program, that we so badly need (and despite his wishy-washy words now, I doubt that it will happen in an Obama administration, either). As the Chesire Cat said, if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:09 AMMark Steyn has some trenchant thoughts on guns, God and American exceptionalism:
Sen. Obama's remarks about poor dumb, bitter rural losers "clinging to" guns and God certainly testify to the instinctive snobbery of a big segment of the political class. But we shouldn't let it go by merely deploring coastal condescension toward the knuckledraggers. No, what Michelle Malkin calls Crackerquiddick (quite rightly - it's more than just another dreary "-gate") is not just snobbish nor even merely wrongheaded. It's an attack on two of the critical advantages the United States holds over most of the rest of the Western world. In the other G7 developed nations, nobody clings to God 'n' guns. The guns got taken away, and the Europeans gave up on churchgoing once they embraced Big Government as the new religion.
How's that working out? Compared with America, France and Germany have been more or less economically stagnant for the past quarter-century, living permanently with unemployment rates significantly higher than in the United States.Has it made them any less "bitter," as Obama characterizes those Pennsylvanian crackers? No. In my book "America Alone," just out in paperback and available in all good bookstores - you'll find it in Borders propping up the wonky rear leg of the display table for the smash new CD "Michelle Obama And The San Francisco Macchiato Chorus Sing "I Pinned My Pink Slip To The Gun Rack Of My Pick-Up,' 'My Dog Done Died, My Wife Jus' Left Me, And Michael Dukakis Is Strangely Reluctant To Run Again,' Plus 'I Swung By The Economic Development Zone Business Park But The Only Two Occupied Rental Units Were Both Evangelical Churches' And Other Embittered Appalachian Favorites."
Where was I? Oh, yes. In my book "America Alone," I note a global survey on optimism: 61 percent of Americans were optimistic about the future, 29 percent of the French, 15 percent of Germans. Take it from a foreigner: In my experience, Americans are the least "bitter" people in the developed world. Secular, gun-free big-government Europe doesn't seem to have done anything for people's happiness.
Read (as usual) the whole thing.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I don't think this is unrelated:
I am going to take a bold step in a brand new direction and offer the notion that working class Americans aren't idiots. People who wonder where the Democratic vision of prosperity through higher taxes and stricter regulation would take us need look no further than Europe. And I will echo Michelle Obama by saying that in my adult lifetime I have never been proud of Europe's ability to create jobs or absorb immigrants.
Nor have I. Perhaps the Obamas are, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:52 PMSometimes, you just have to think that these people's brains are broken.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:29 PMDerb has some thoughts:
As so often with creationist material, I'm not sure what the point is. Darwin's great contribution to human knowledge, his theory of the origin of species, is either true, or it's not. Is David saying: "When taken up by evil people, the theory had evil consequences. Therefore the theory must be false"? Is he asserting, in other words, that a true theory about the world could not possibly have evil consequence, no matter who picked it up and played with it, with no matter how little real understanding? Does David think that true facts cannot possibly be used for malign purposes? If that is what David is asserting, it seems to me an awfully hard proposition to defend. It is a true fact that E = mc2, and the Iranians are right at this moment using that true fact to construct nuclear weapons. If they succeed, and use their weapons for horrible purposes, will that invalidate the Special Theory of Relativity?
If David does not think that Darwin's explanation for the origin of species is correct, let him give us his reasons; or better yet, an alternative explanation that we can test by observation. That a wicked man invoked Darwin's name as an excuse to do wicked things tells us nothing, nada, zero, zippo, zilch about the truth content of Darwin's ideas.
I always have to scratch my head at conservatives who are perfectly comfortable with Adam Smith's invisible hand when it comes to markets, but can't get their heads around the concept of emergent properties in the development of life. And of course, the opposite is true for liberalsfascists.
[Evening update]
Jonah Goldberg has more defense of Darwin (and Einstein). Bottom line, with which I agree:
Nazism was reactionary in that it sought to repackage tribal values under the guise of modern concepts. So was Communism. So are all the statist and collectivism isms. The only truly new and radical political revolution is the Lockean one. But, hey, I've got a book on all this stuff.
He does indeed
...and I'm ready to move to Paulville. Abortions will be outlawed there, presumably. But it won't be sending any troops to Iraq.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:53 PMIt will be interesting to see how how NBC (and Dan Abrams) respond to this:
As a matter of fact, I had other things to occupy my time in the White House in 2002 rather than "structuring" a campaign for an Alabama gubernatorial candidate, calling people to raise money for his race, and going through the arduous task of "putting together a strategy." And I certainly didn't meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama about investigating or indicting Siegelman. My involvement in the campaign was to approve a request that the President appear at a Riley campaign fundraising event, one of several score fundraising events the President did that election cycle.
It boils down to this: as a journalist, do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your guests, seek out evidence and come to a professional judgment as to the real facts? Or do you feel if a charge is breathtaking enough, thoroughly checking it out isn't a necessity?I know you might be concerned that asking these questions could restrict your ability to make sensational charges on the air, but don't you think you have a responsibility to provide even a shred of supporting evidence before sullying the journalistic reputations of MSNBC and NBC?
People used to believe journalists were searching for the truth. But your cable show increasingly seems to be focused on wishful thinking, hoping something is one way and diminishing the search for facts and evidence in favor of repeating your fondest desires.
So what else is new?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:28 PMJules Crittenden says let the left have their draft.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:04 PMJonah Goldberg's book
The election campaign itself was the most rigorously fought in Italy since its liberation from Fascist rule in 1944. Berlusconi, often portrayed by the media as something of a clown if not a conjurer of tricks, put the case for a market-based capitalist and democratic system in simple but powerful terms.
His rival, former Rome Mayor Walter Veltroni, leader of the new Democratic Party, succeeded in putting forward the case for a social-democratic system, with the state playing the central role as a distributor of wealth and welfare.Berlusconi spoke of discipline, family values, hard work and individual generosity. Veltroni countered with his talk of solidarity, sharing and collective compassion.
Text coloration mine. All of the red rhetoric could have come right out of Benito Mussolini's playbook. The green stuff is "right wing."
With this defeat, and the complete political demise of one of the oldest and most extreme fascist movements--the Communist Party--perhaps the Italians have finally laid the old socialist to rest.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:59 AMIf this report is true, it looks like NASA is not going to hit its milestone of the first test flight of the Potemkin RocketAres 1-X vehicle planned for a year from now:
Ares I-X now has little chance of making its April, 2009 launch date target, initially due to the delay of STS-125's flight to October.
The first Ares related test flight requires the freeing of High Bay 3 inside the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) and Pad 39B - which will first host STS-125's Launch On Need (LON) rescue shuttle (Endeavour/LON-400) - being vacated for modifications ahead of Ares I-X.However, a new problem has now come to light with the MLP (Mobile Launch Platform) that will be handed over from Shuttle to Constellation for the test flight. This problem relates to the stability of Ares I-X during rollout to the Pad.
The modifications to the MLP initially called for Ares I-X to be placed on one set of the existing Shuttle's Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) hold down posts, with a tower to be erected on the other set of hold down posts - with support for the vehicle between the tower and the interstage level.
When NASA changed contractors for the MLP work associated with Ares I-X, the design changed, omitting the adjacent tower, instead relying on three steel cables - 120 degrees apart - to help hold the vehicle steady during rollout.
Given the projected weight of the vehicle at rollout - with a heavy dummy upper stage - additional stability is now being called for, leading to a redesign of the MLP support structure.
In combination with the projected delay to handing over Shuttle resources post STS-125, internal scheduling is showing 60 to 90 days worth of delay to Ares I-X's projected launch date.
Gee, it's always something. Guess that's what happens when you come up with a new vehicle concept with a ridiculously high aspect ratio, that makes a whip antenna look positively zaftig. Has anyone ever had to use guy wires on a rocket before, or is this another proud first for our nation's space agency?
Anyway, as it goes on to point out, this probably will waterfall down through the whole schedule, further increasing the dreaded "gap." Not that it will matter that much, once the budget gets whacked in the next administration, regardless of who is president. But then, maybe if they'd come up with an implementation that actually appeared to have some relevance to peoples' lives, instead of redoing people's grandfather's space program, they'd get more public support, instead of ever less.
It's hard to see how this ends well, at least for fans of Apollo on Steroids. But it's mostly irrelevant to those of us who want to see large-scale human expansion into space. That will have to await the private sector.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:22 AMWith a computer mouse, you can precisely position the cursor wherever you want. The motion of the cursor exactly mimics the motion of the mouse in your hand. It is a positional controller.
But in many computer games, you have no direct control over position. The joystick controller only controls the rate of motion. You have to provide a direction, and speed, and hope that it will get to the desired location at the desired time. As anyone who has played such games knows, position control using a rate controller is much less precise, and often not even accurate if you're not a good judge of such things.
In last night's political debate (as in almost all discussions of this topic), there was a lot of talk about "cutting taxes," and "raising taxes." Not to pick on him in particular, but as an example, here's the reporting by Jim Geraghty:
Hillary laughs heartily at McCain's comment about "they're going to raise your taxes, and they have the aud-ic-i-ty, the audacity, to hope you don't mind!"
With her laugh, she triggered a thousand primal screams on liberal blogs.Steph asks if she'll make a pledge to never raise taxes for those making under $200,000 per year. She says she's "absolutely committed to not raising taxes on those making less than $200,000."
Obama echoes the pledge, and says he'll cut taxes for those folks.
I don't trust either, but I'm rather surprised that they both were willing to be pinned down in the equivalent of "read my lips, no new taxes."
Wow. Charlie Gibson notes that when the capital gains taxes were cut under both Clinton and Bush, revenues went up.
These are the GREATEST DEBATE QUESTIONS EVER.
Wow. Hillary: "I would not raise the capital gains tax above 20 percent, if I would raise it at all... I don't want to raise taxes on everyone." She rips Obama's plan to raise payroll taxes.
Emphasis mine, in all cases. Every one of these statements is absurd. No one, not the mighty Hillary, not the saintly Obama, has the power to raise or cut taxes. They don't have a tax revenue controller. All they can do is increase or decrease tax rates. And they can't predict with certainty whether or not this will increase, or decrease "taxes" (that is, tax revenues). The absurdity of leaving out this key word is demonstrated starkly in Charlie Gibson's statement: "when the capital gains taxes were cut, revenues went up." How can that be? If taxes are cut, by definition, revenues have to go down. But if he had said that when capital gains tax rates are cut, revenues go up, this is perfectly sensible (though counterintuitive to people who don't understand that tax rates modify behavior).
I expect Democrats (and journalists, who are generally Democrats) to play such word games, but I'm always disappointed when Republicans and so-called conservatives go along with it. People who want lower tax rates (and a more vibrant economy) have to demand them, and stop talking about lower taxes. Yes, it would be nice to cut off funding to the federal government (at least if we could get spending under control), but that's a separate issue. By conflating tax revenues with tax rates, we grant far too much power to the big government types, when we should instead be pointing out their powerlessness. There are many unintended consequences of government action, and it is always useful to point out that this is just one more--that the federal government cannot directly control how much it taxes people (that is, how much money it actually confiscates)--it can only control the the rate at which it does so.
This is just one more example of how we small-government types have to start taking back the language.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:43 AMRobert Ferrigno imagines a future both frightening and amusing, in which Bill Clinton pines for the past. The only part that doesn't ring true is Bill and Hillary divorcing. If they divorced, they could be compelled to testify against each other, and neither of them would want to give up spousal immunity.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:53 AMIt seems like Barack Obama shares a problem with Hillary!--a faulty memory when it comes to shady dealings and associates:
Dem presidential contender Barack Obama's handlers may be telling the press Obama has NO "recollection" of a 2004 party at influence peddler Tony Rezko's Wilmette house, but a top Sneed source claims Obama not only gave Rezko's guest of honor, Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, a big welcome . . . but he made a few toasts!
Hey, maybe he just drank so many toasts that he blacked out the memory. Maybe in addition to giving up smoking, he should join AA?
Must be that "new politics" I've heard so much about.
And Victor Davis Hanson says that Obama (and Michelle, and Jeremiah) just keep on digging:
The American people will forgive slips, even condescension IF they are followed by genuine apology and not repeated ad infinitum. But in this case, there will be a growing weariness, followed by anger, at the notion that a Presidential candidate thinks he can say whatever he wishes, associate with whomever he wants, and feel it's the electorate's, not his own, ensuing problem. So the rub for the Obama campaign is not simply that he has no experience outside the Ivy League and Chicago, or even that he made a Faustian bargain with the Trinity church to jump-start his career, but rather his hubris this spring -- which as we speak is bringing on a summer nemesis.
I'm hoping for a fall nemesis, myself.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:42 AMJonah Goldberg defends Obama. Well, OK, not really. But he does defend elitism:
In his telling Pennsylvania was once Belgium on the Susquehanna -- cheese parties, Sam Harris book clubs etc -- and it can be again if only these people get good enough jobs to lay down their guns and bibles. As just about everyone has observed by now, this is a fundamentally Marxist way of looking at the world and Obama deserves to be called on it.
But it's not elitist, not really. It's clearly snobbish. It's certainly myopic and arrogant. And it's absolutely wrong. But I don't think it's elitist. Maybe I'm biased because I don't have any pressing problem with elitism, rightly understood. Elite derives from the Latin for elect and in our elections we decide who will be our (political) elite. Jefferson believed in a democratic elite which rose up on merit. I do too. We're all elitists in one way or another (Show of hands: Who wants an elite surgeon to perform their heart-lung transplant and who wants a really average surgeon to do it? If you answer that you want the surgeon from the really meaty part of the bell curve, I will concede you are no elitist).What's offensive about Obama's comment isn't its elitism per se, but the arrogance of assuming that those who see the world through a different prism or who are relatively immune to his charms are somehow embittered and confused and therefore less equipped to decide who should be our elected elite.
I don't think that I've complained about "elitism" in my numerous posts on Obama (though I could be wrong), because I agree. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with being elite, and being elite is something to which we should in fact aspire, though it should be a goal reached through hard work, and not simply the luck of birth (other than perhaps genetically endowed talent).
"Elitism" is one of those words, like "judgmental" and "discriminating," that have gotten an unfairly bad wrap. During the Wright imbroglio, one of my anonymous Obamamaniacal commenters amusingly (and idiotically) told me to stop being so judgmental, as though there's something wrong with having, and exercising, judgment. And what is selecting a better job candidate over a worse one, if not "discrimination"? There is nothing wrong with judging or discriminating. What becomes a problem is when the judging and discriminating occur on an irrational basis (e.g., skin color alone--though even there there could sometimes be a reasonable basis).
As an example, I was recently discussing the possibility of doing some consulting for a firm to help with some regulatory issues in the UK. The person I was speaking with thought that I (and my business associates) had excellent credentials for the task, except for one problem--we (due, no doubt to a misspent youth spent largely in the US) had American accents. He didn't think that we could be as effective with Whitehall and Parliament as someone who spoke like most in The City, and we couldn't disagree with him. This was discrimination, but it was hardly unreasonable. He was, in fact, exercising good judgment, and perhaps even being justifiably elitist, in that he wanted the best people for the job.
In any event, I tend to discriminate against people who view the world through a Marxist lens, and can be very judgmental about them, particularly when they are vying for the most powerful position in the world. So sue me.
[Evening update]
Obama keeps digging deeper:
What happened to the people clinging to their guns?Were they "mangled" by insertion? Or have they now been mangled out of existence, now to be discarded? Why is there not a word about them?
(Sorry, but "hunting" is not the same. Don't call me a "hunter," because I don't hunt.)
Has the Second Amendment become a secondary wedge issue now that Obama has thought it over? Or has gun-clinging behavior been subsumed into anti-gay, and anti-immigrant "sentiments" which people don't really feel honestly, but only imagine they do because of exploitative prodding by their leaders?
The disturbing implication, of course, is that under the right, uh, leadership, uh, the negative thinking (all that gun-clinging, and all that bigotry) will be made to disappear.
I'm feeling plenty marginalized by this. It's bad enough to be told that as a gun owner I don't really think what I think, but I have been led into it by others.
But now I'm told that my guns are not the issue because they might as well be bigoted sentiments against gays and immigrants! But that if I harbor these sentiments (which I don't), they are no more mine than my gun-clinging behavior was.
I think that this is more evidence that he does a lot better with a teleprompter than impromptu. It also continues to be a window into what he really thinks about us.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Heh. I like this comment:
Obama's antics remind me of Barry Goldwater's comments about Richard Nixon during Watergate.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:06 AM
"Well, first he shot himself in the foot, and then he shot himself in the other foot, and then he shot himself in the ass."Given Obama's great propensity to shoot himself in various places, I can understand why he might not like guns.
Well, at least in Italy:
The big news is that the Communists are gone, for the first time since the end of the Second World War. Really gone. They didn't win a single seat in either chamber. A lot of famous faces will vanish from Parliament, and it is even possible, although unlikely, that some of the comrades will be forced to join the working class. The Greens are also gone. In fact, there are only six parties in the new Parliament, suggesting that Italy's well on the road to a two-party political system instead of the dreadful proportional electoral model that has destroyed virtually every country where it's been applied. If that happens, a lot of the credit goes to Veltroni, who created a real center-left party and refused to admit the old Left.
Not just big news, but great news, worthy of a celebration. I look forward to the day when one will find them only in museums of bad ideas of the last millennium, and college campuses. Unfortunately, they never really disappear. The toxic ideas will just resurface under another name (as has in fact happened in the guise of environmentalism, though the demise of the Italian Green Party is encouraging as well in that regard).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:14 AMHey, I'm all in favor of factory-manufactured meat, if it can be made to taste as good as the naturally grown variety, but I'm not going to stop eating meat until it happens. My criteria are basically intelligence based, and the first animal I'd give up eating, if I were going to give up any,s would be pigs, but I still occasionally have pork. I don't feel that badly about eating cattle--they just don't seem that bright to me. And the question of whether or not they're better off living a short life, and then being slaughtered, than never having existed at all is one that, as noted, is purely subjective and unresolvable in any ultimate sense. I know that I've seen some pretty happy looking cows on the hillsides overlooking the Pacific in northern California. I can think of worse lives.
By the way, Phil should be aware that marsupials are mammals. The distinction is placental versus non-placental mammals. And there are people (probably some of those "bitter," out-of-work folks) in this country who eat possum, and armadillo.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 AMFrom Lileks:
It's possible there are bitter people who regard their station in life as a direct result of the current rate of capital gains taxes, but it seems an insufficiently reasoned basis for a national economic policy. Oh, it's possible; at this very minute one of the country's innumerable domestic terror cells could be planning a bombing of a Planned Parenthood center, driven to extremism by the very possibility of a Colombian trade pact. But I doubt it.
Not to say economics don't affect people; I'm not that stupid. But like any adversity, you meet it with a certain amount of psychological capital. The more grounded you are in things that transcend the dollar, the better you can deal with the downturns. Some seem to suspect that the "grounding" is nothing more than a stake in the ground to channel the bolts tossed off by madmen in the pulpits, but those are the people most likely to believe that church services either consist of yelling and snake-handling, or gaseous bromides pumped out over a complacent stack of prim-faced morons and hypocrites who spend the service lusting after young women in the choir. There is no goodness, only the momentary self-delusion accorded by participation in a consensual charade.I've been trying to find the right words for a certain theory, and I can't quite do it yet. It has to do with how a candidate feels about America - they have to be fundamentally, dispositionally comfortable with it. Not in a way that glosses over or excuses its flaws, but comfortable in the way a long-term married couple is comfortable. That includes not delighting in its flaws, or crowing them at every opportunity as proof of your love. I mean a simple quiet sense of awe and pride, its challenges and flaws and uniqueness and tragedies considered. You don't win the office by being angry we're not something else; you win by being enthused we can be something better. You can fake the latter. But people sense the former.
Yup. And a lot of them are the people--the so-called independents and "moderate" Republicans"--whom the Obamamaniacs were hoping that they could con this fall.
[Update a few minutes later]
Mickey has some more thoughts:
Making excuses for autonomous human actors is always a form of condescension, I'd say. But when you make excuses for arguably what many people regard as normal, even laudable behavior, you double down on the disrespect, because you are also challenging your subjects' moral framework.
He also has some commentary on Microsoft's brilliant marketing strategy:
It seems like a can't-lose approach for the Redmond, Wash. firm, as long as a) they continue to cultivate the image of a big, clumsy and greedy organization that's just stupid enough to kill a product consumers like in order to try to force them to purchase a product the corporate bureaucracy has ploddingly disgorged and b) their new products continue to be awful.
There hasn't been a breakthrough business plan like this since New Coke. "Suicide marketing." (Buy this before we do something rash!) ...P.S.: The only fly in the ointment is the slim possibility that Microsoft's next operating system, due in 2010, will actually be an improvement over Windows XP. But Ballmer & Co. know better than to let that happen.
[Early afternoon update]
John Judis says that "liberal" commentators are whistling past the fall graveyard if they don't think that Obama's faux pas (i.e., saying what he really thinks of the rubes) won't hurt him in the general election.
And Rick Lowry thinks (as I do) that the donkeys, continuing to be out of touch in their liberal cocoon with the aid of the MSM, are setting themselves up for another electoral disaster:
Obama prides himself on his civility, but it has to go much deeper than dulcet rhetoric. A fundamental courtesy of political debate is to meet the other side on its own terms. If someone says he cares about gun rights, it's rude to insist: "No, you don't. It's the minimum wage that you really care about, and you'd know it if you were more self-aware." But Democrats have an uncontrollable reflex to do just that. Since the McGovernite takeover of their party, they have struggled to work up enthusiasm for Middle American mores. (Since 1980, only Bill Clinton managed it, which is why he was the only Democrat elected president in three decades.)
When the liberal reflex is coupled with a Ivy League-educated candidate who seems personally remote and uncomfortable with everyday American activities, it's electoral poison. After the likes of Al Gore and John Kerry, Republicans had to be wondering, "Could Democrats possibly nominate yet another candidate easily portrayed as an out-of-touch elitist?" With Obama, Democrats appear to be responding with a resounding "Yes, we can!"
And yes, they will, unless Hillary! can stop them. Not that she has a much better chance of winning, since the blacks and the young people who are energizing the Obama campaign are likely to stay home if it is taken from him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:29 AMUnlike the Chinese slow-motion space program, if the Russians are serious about this, it would put them well ahead of us in spacefaring capability, and in a much better position to do missions not just to the moon, but out into the solar system.
According to Perminova, Roskosmos proposed the establishment of a manned assembly complex in Earth orbit. The government Security Council on April 11, supported the idea. The complex can be built ships too heavy to take off from the ground.
What a concept.
But we won't have to worry about NASA getting involved in such a race as long as Mike Griffin and the giant-rocket fetishists are in charge.
[Update about 9:30 AM EDT]
This isn't directly related, but what are the Russians talking about here?
Perminov said Friday that Russia may stop selling seats on its spacecraft to "tourists" starting in 2010 because of the planned expansion of the international space station's crew.
He said the station's permanent crew is expected to grow from the current three to six or even nine in 2010. That will mean that Russia will have fewer extra seats available for tourists on its Soyuz spacecraft, which are used to ferry crews to the station and back to Earth.
This is the first I've heard of such an "expectation." While I have no doubt that a fully-constructed station could support that level of crew, what do they do about lifeboats? My understanding has always been that the limiting factor on how many crew the station can handle at once is a function of the ability to return them to earth in an emergency. I've never agreed with that philosophy, and always thought that a backup coorbiting facility was a much better solution than evacuating the entire crew back to earth, but what I thought has never mattered. Are they proposing to leave crew without a way home, or adding docking modules for additional Soyuz (you'd need three to evacuate nine)? It has to be one or the other, at least until we get Dragon, or Orion or other alternatives flying, and certainly the latter is unlikely by 2010.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:52 AMFrom Kaus, who (smart guy that he is) agrees with me:
It lumps together things Obama wants us to think he thinks are good (religion) with things he undoubtedly thinks are bad (racism, anti-immigrant sentiment). I suppose it's logically possible to say 'these Pennsylvania voters are so bitter and frustrated that they cling to both good things and bad things,." but the implication is that these are all things he thinks are unfortunate and need explaining (because, his context suggests, they prevent voters from doing the right thing and voting for ... him). Yesterday at the CNN "Compassion Forum" Obama said he wasn't disparaging religion because he meant people "cling" to it in a good way! Would that be the same way they "cling" to "antipathy to people who aren't like them"--the very next phrase Obama uttered? Is racism one of those "traditions that are passed on from generation to generation" that "sustains us"? Obama's unfortunate parallelism makes it hard for him to extricate him from the charge that he was dissing rural Pennsylvanians' excess religiosity.
Exactly.
And on his intellectual arrogance:
And Obama never describes his own views as the products of anything except an accurate perception of reality. Come to think of it, has he ever expressed any doubt about--let alone apologized for--his views? He certainly didn't apologize in his "race" speech. He presents himself as near ominscient, the Archimedian point from which everyone else's beliefs and behavior can be assessed and explained, and to which almost everyone's beliefs will revert after the revolution. ... sorry, I mean after President Obama has restored hope!
Of course, as someone else noted the other day, when one considers that Obama's most direct experience with Christianity is sitting in the pew of Trinity United for two decades, it shouldn't be surprising that he thinks that all religious people are bitter, bigoted and xenophobic.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Obama's spinmeisters are trying to avoid the real issue:
While the description of small town Pennsylvanians as "bitter" is certainly impolitic, many political analysts say it's what follows that adjective that is potentially so alienating -- the notion that small town folks "get bitter" after which "they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
But Obama allies are trying to focus on the "bitter" part alone.A robo-call on behalf of the Obama campaign from Mayor John Brenner of York, Pa., says that, "Barack Obama understands us. He's got it right, we are frustrated -- frustrated with polices that enable businesses to leave our community, pensions to be stripped, health care benefits to be taken away and homes foreclosed. Unlike his opponents, who have been part of the Washington establishment that are out of touch with us, Barack Obama will change Washington. It is policies that hurt us. He will take on the special interests and fight for us."
We'll see if the MSM let him get away with it. So far, at least Jake Tapper isn't.
[Update a few minutes later]
Donald Sensing says that Obama needs to learn when to quit digging:
So family, community and religious faith are apparently what angry, bitter people embrace. Well, I'm not bitter about anything (except, perhaps, the exceptionally poor candidates all around for the presidency this year), and I turn to all those things.
So, does Obama mean that happy, contented people have little truck with family, community or faith? I can't believe he thinks that even if he did imply it. (Others have commented that Obama's speaking strength is from prepared texts and he stumbles frequently off the cuff. I dunno). But if he does think that, it's just stunning in its error and stupidity. But again, I don't think he meant to imply it, though he did, and I don't think he believes it.But that doesn't let him off the hook because if he thinks that happy, contented people embrace family-community-religion as quickly as angry, bitter people, exactly what has he said here? Nothing. Really, think about. Nothing. Except that bitter people like to own guns - I truly think that Obama can't fathom why a happy, contented person would want to do that.
I'm starting to think that what Obama can't fathom would fill a large library.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:32 AMI put this in a previous post on Obama and his fascist (not that there's anything wrong with that) antipathy to individualism, but decided that it deserved one of its own:
O Bama, who art on the campaign trail,
Hallowed be thy name;
Thy election come;
Thy will be done,
In the US as it is in Europe.
Give us this day our daily entitlements.
And forgive us our political incorrectness,
As we forgive those bible-thumping gun-toting hicks
That trespass against us.
And lead us not into capitalism;
But deliver us from patriotism.
For thine is the STATE,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever (and ever).
[Via a commenter at Rantburg]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:57 PMOK, Friday night's post was getting way too long with all the updates, but Obama's latest faux pas (i.e., letting slip how he really feels about the rubes) is the gift that just keeps giving. Ace has a plea for help from the hinterlands ("Halp Us Brak, We Are Stuk In Small Town"), and a link to the latest non-apology apology: "I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand what I meant."
And Iowahawk has managed to milk it for another golden oldie: "The Heart of Redness."
I should note that much of the media and the Democrats remain clueless as to why this was so offensive. First of all, few people, even bitter people, like being told that they're "bitter," though of course there are exceptions (no surprise that it's a Democrat). They especially don't like it when they don't feel bitter at all, as is the case for most people, even most Reagan Democrats (which comprise many of the people who he was insulting). Of course, even if Keystone State Democrats are bitter, that's not going to help him in the fall with the vast majority of Pennsylvanians who are not.
But beyond that, as I mentioned in comments yesterday:
He conflated being anti-trade, pro-gun, religious, and bigoted. Now that implies that these things are all similar in some way. They are either good traits, or bad traits, but the implication (and what it is clear that Obama, and much of the Democrat elite believe, based not just on this one foot-in-mouth incident, but many over the years) is that these are bad things. Now I happen to believe that bigotry and opposition to trade are wrong, but I don't think that there's anything wrong with gun ownership (and use) or being religious.
But now we know what the Democrats think of ordinary people in this country. The notion that these double-plus ungood thoughts are caused by economic deprivation are entirely beside the point. It was the bigotry of the elitist Democrats on display, and it wasn't pretty. Now as it happens, Hillary believes this, too, but at least she's savvy enough to lie about it, so she'll be able to take big-time advantage of it.
Commenter "Bob"'s amusing response to this was:
Obama never said or even implied that being anti-trade, pro-gun, religious, and/or being bigoted is bad (although of course everyone says that being bigoted is bad). He was saying that what those four traits have in common is that the Republicans have a lock on them! Now, lets pause, because saying that Republicans or their party has a lock on bigotry is controversial and argumentative (and untrue, in my opinion), but he was speaking to a partisan crowd.
In any case, Rand, I believe you misunderstood. Obama was making an argument for why people vote Republican. He was talking about the Democrat-Republican axis, not the Good-Bad axis.
Well, this might be salient if so many Democrats didn't equate "Republican" with "bad." But there's a lot of truth to the old cliche, Republicans think that Democrats are foolish, and Democrats think that Republicans are evil. If "Bob" doesn't think that there aren't many elitist Democrats (and you can bet that that room to which Obama was speaking last Friday was chock full of them) who think that guns and gun owners are bad, and that religiosity (at least "right-wing conservative" religiosity) is "bad" (and "Republican") then he must not get out much, and hasn't been listening to very many speeches by them.
In fact, Iowahawk hilariously captured this kind of bewilderment with homo red-status and condescension in a spoof on a speech by Howard Dean a year and a half ago. Believe me, satire like this doesn't work without an underlying truth. And it works brilliantly.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Barack Obama, you're no Ronald Reagan.
I'm most of the way through Jonah's book
But as JPod points out, it is the Obamites who are creating the personality cult, and it is Michelle Obama who is making demands of the citizens, something that Reagan never did, and would never have done.
[Update a couple minutes]
Here's a comment from JPod's post that I think is quite insightful:
Obama said that bitter middle Americans cling to guns or religion. What that actually means is that most Americans erroneously rely on themselves or their God to provide and protect them and not the collective state. And they do so not out of bitterness, but from a foundational belief that "We the People" form a more perfect union, not "We the State" form a more perfect people.
It's not middle America that's bitter but Obama. And since he clings to the power of the state to provide and protect him and wants middle America to do so as well. That's the cynicism that Barak and Michelle Obama wants us to shed, our cynicism of the state as our protector and provider. And that's why Michelle Obama is, for the first time in a long time, proud of America, because she stands at threshold of not only scolding Obama for not putting his socks in the hamper and the butter in the cupboard, but the rest of America as well.
Indeed.
[OK, (at least) one more]
Over at Reason, Michael Young nails it:
Obama's approach betrays a very suffocating vision of the state as the be-all and end-all of political-cultural behavior. Outside the confines of the state there is no salvation, only resentment. This is nonsense, but it also partly explains why Obama is so admired among educated liberals, who still view the state as the main medium of American providence.
For those who haven't read Jonah's book
[Yet another update]
Obviously, satire aside, I find this an important topic. Donald Sensing gets right to the nub of it as well, and why I could never vote for Barack Obama:
Let's look at Obama's laundry list of Pennsylvanians' dysfunctions again:
- bitterness
- "Clinging to"
- guns
- religion
- racism
- chauvinism
- anti-trade sentiment
Reading the full context of Obama's remarks, it strikes me that he believes that all of these (presumed) symptoms spring from the fact that there is too little control of the economy by the federal government. Obama said that all of these dysfunctions began when the government let their jobs go away and then, through both Republican and Democrat administrations, did nothing to "regenerate" them.
It is the lack of regulation of the economy, Obama believes, that makes people bitter, racist, religious, hunters, patriotic or protectionist. All these things are bad, and they all result from free-market, democratic capitalism. I know that many of you reading this will think I'm over-reaching here, but I stand my ground: Obama's remarks are in fact as clear a declaration of cleaving to socialism as almost anything he could have said.
...what I find especially disturbing in Obama's remarks, that I have not seen in Mrs. Clinton's ever, is the ideal of the "perfectibility of man." This is the hoariest socialist doctrine of all, explicit in Marxism and later, Marxism-Leninism. This is an idea so utterly vacuous and foolish that not even the Euro socialist governments cleave to it, if they ever did, except in Eastern Europe, and then only when they were communist. Clearly implicit on Obama's remarks is the idea that since racism, religion et. al., arise from the lack of government regulation, they can be expunged by more of it.
You see, we can all become virtuous if only the government controlled our lives.
Not only are Obama's remarks a clarion call to socialism, they also objectify the people he refers to. He dismissed them as free, moral agents in their own right. Gosh, it's no wonder those white people hate blacks and Hispanics, go to church and buy guns and feel angry - they can't help it. The government has let them down. But with proper government regulation, intervention, activism (oh, just pick your own name), then they won't be racists, religious, xenophobic, or own guns.
Emphasis mine. "Perfectibility of man" isn't just a Marxist concept: it's a fascist one as well.
[Early evening update]
The Obama prayer:
O Bama, who art on the campaign trail,
hallowed be thy name;
thy election come;
thy will be done,
in the US as it is in Europe.
Give us this day our daily entitlements.
And forgive us our political incorrectness,
as we forgive those bible-thumping gun-toting hicks
that trespass against us.
And lead us not into capitalism;
but deliver us from patriotism.
For thine is the STATE,
the power, and the glory,
For ever and ever (and ever).
Amen.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:59 AMThomas James, on the difficulty of writing post-apocalyptic survival stories about people with no interest in survival.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:34 AMWell, he still doesn't have one, but there's nothing particularly objectionable about these comments, as far as they go:
Q: What do you plan to do with the space agency? Like right now they're currently underfunded, they, at first they didn't know if they were going to be able to operate Spirit rover. What do plan to do with it?
Obama: I think that, I, uh. I grew up with the space program. Most of you young people here were born during the shuttle era. I was the Apollo era. I remember, you know, watching, you know, the moon landing. I was living in Hawaii when I was growing up, so the astronauts would actually, you know, land in the Pacific and then get brought into Honolulu and it was incredible memories and incredibly inspiring. And by the way inspired a whole generation of people to get engaged in math and science in a way that we haven't - that we need to renew. So I'm a big supporter of the space program. I think it needs to be redefined, though.We've kind of lost a sense of mission in terms of what it is that NASA should be trying to achieve and I think that we've gotta make some big decisions about whether or not, are we going to try to send manned, you know, space launches, or are we better off in terms of what we're learning sending unmanned probes which oftentimes are cheaper and less dangerous, but yield more information.
And that's a major debate I'm going to want to convene when I'm president of the United States. What direction do we take the space program in? Once we have a sense of what's going to be most valuable for us in terms of gaining knowledge, then I think we'll able to adjust the budget so that we're going all out on what it is that we've decided to do."
I've long said that we need to have a national debate on what we want to do in space, and why--something that hasn't really happened since NASA was chartered, half a century ago, so I would certainly welcome such a debate in the unfortunate event of an Obama presidency.
My question is, though: why wait? Why not have the debate now, so we can decide who we want to vote for, at least for those of us for whom space is a voting issue (if not the only consideration). What would be the venue and framework for the debate? What does Senator Obama think that the potential options are? Will he be constrained by past thinking, of space as the province of NASA and astronauts, with billions of dollars flowing in its porcine manner to Houston, Huntsville and the Cape, or will he be open to both goals and means that are more innovative than we've seen from any previous administration, including the Bush administration? Will he be a candidate for "hope" and "change" for the high frontier?
Well, like all his other positions, he does offer "hope" and "change" for space with the above words, but not clue one as to what we should be hoping for, and what form the "change" will take. In other words, as on other issues, he continues to deal in platitudes, and is unwilling to take a stand, or even discuss potential options, for fear of alienating the voters, who he hopes will continue to view him as a political Rorschach test, and see in his space policy, as in all his policies, what they want to see.
So while I hope that if elected, we will have that national dialogue about space, I don't have any high expectations either that it will actually happen, or that anything useful will come out of it, because he offers me no substance now.
Of course, even if he told me that he's going to do all of the things that I'd like to see from a space policy standpoint, it wouldn't be sufficient to get me to vote for him because a) I couldn't be sure that he meant it, given his flip flopping on other issues, 2) his positions on other issues are too odious to allow me to be a single-issue voter on space and 3) even if sincere, there's no reason, given his complete lack of executive experience, that he will have any success whatsoever in implementing them.
Still, I'd sure like to see that national debate.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:14 AMIt's kind of late now if you didn't make plans, and I gave advance notice a few days ago, but tonight is Yuri's Night, as we are reminded by Phil Bowermaster.
And in response to a previous commenter that we shouldn't be celebrating a Soviet victory in the Cold War, we should be long past that. We won, and in fact, if Gagarin hadn't flown, we might not have gone to the moon. Of course, it's debatable whether or not that was a good thing for our expansion into space, in light of the history since.
In any event, it's an historical event, to celebrate the first time a human left the planet and went into space far enough to actually orbit, and almost half a century later, it transcends politics and a dead communist (and fascist) empire.
We aren't attending a party, both because we're not much on partying, if it means loud atrocious dance music, but also because the nearest (and only) one that anyone could muster up in Florida was up in Cocoa Beach. That nothing was organized in the metropolitan tri-counties of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade says something about the importance of space in our culture, but I'm not quite sure what.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:01 PMBarack Obama showed his deft political touch today, and demonstrated his keen insight into the lives of the little people in this country, with a speech that is sure to be worth at least thirty points in Pennsylvania in the upcoming primary:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
I asked around the area, to see how his obvious compassion for Pennsylvanians was viewed. This is just one story, from one man in West Deer Township, but I'm sure that it's typical.
"By cracky, it's like the man sees into my very soul!
"Thirty years ago, I had a good job in the mill in Pittsburgh. I was bringing in a good income, going to jazz clubs, discussing Proust over white wine and brie, with my gay friends of all colors. I was all for free trade, so that we could sell the steel overseas, and I never bothered to go to church, let alone actually believe in God.
"But then, the plant closed down, and I couldn't get another job. I went on unemployment, and found odd jobs here and there, but they barely paid the rent on the loft, and the payment on the Bimmer. I couldn't afford the wine and brie any more, and had to shift over to beer and brats.
"Of course, as a result, I started hanging out with the wrong crowd--the beer drinkers.
"And it wasn't just the beer. Some of them actually went out in the woods in the fall, and shot animals. And kilt 'em. With real guns!
"I was shocked, of course. For all their diversity, none of my gay friends would have ever thought of doing anything like that. But with my job loss, and lack of money for pedicures and pommade, they didn't want to hang with me any more. So I borried a twelve gauge over'n'under, and went out with my new beer-drinking animal-killing friends in the woods. And I'll tell you what, when I shot down that eight-pointer, I felt a sense of power over the helpless in a way that I hadn't since I'd been looking down on the rednecks when I had that good job in Pittsburgh, driving around town in my 528i.
"But somehow the killing, and hating those two-timing nancy boys wasn't enough. I was still in despair. I started to search for answers, and I thought that I found them in Jesus. It started small, just church on Sunday, with prayers and a lecture from the preacher.
"But it didn't stop there. Soon I was attending Wednesday night revivals, and huzzahing and hossanahing, and babbling with the best of them. After a few months I'd graduated to juggling garter snakes, then rattlers.
"But it wasn't enough. Despite all the gun caressing, and animal killing, and hatred of people who weren't like me, and anger at the Colombians who were...doing something to me--I'm not entirely sure what, and the tongue speaking and snake handling, I still couldn't find a job.
"My social life continued to deteriorate. Not only was I no longer interested in those sensitive swishes, or literature, but I was starting to look with lust at my sister. And not just look, I'll tell you what. She'd been out of work, too, and was getting mighty interested, if you know what I mean.
"I have hit rock bottom.
"Please, help me, O Bama. Forgive me, O Bama. O Bama, my Bama, rescue me from this living hell in which Reagan, and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, have consigned me. Restore unto me my loft and my teutonic status symbol. Give me back my poofter friends, and my pinot grigio and my baked gruyere, and lattes. Save me from the killing and the beer, and most of all, from Jesus. Save me, O my Bama, and I will commit my vote unto you.
This is just one story of the many lives that Barack Obama has touched, and blessed, this day in the benighted Keystone State. But with his obvious compassion, and ability to feel the pain of others so unlike him, he is sure to carry the state in a couple weeks.
[Late evening update]
Ace has more:
Obama To Rural Pennsylvanians: Vote For Me, You Corncob-Smokin', Banjo-Strokin' Chicken-Chokin' Cousin-Pokin' Inbred Hillbilly Racist Morons
Yeah, that's about it.
[Saturday morning update]
More from Mickey Kaus:
Excuse me? Hunting is part of working-class American culture. Does Obama really think that working-class whites in Pennsylvania were gun control liberals until their industries were downsized, whereas they all rushed to join the NRA ...
I used to think working class voters had conservative values because they were bitter about their economic circumstances--welfare and immigrants were "scapegoats," part of the false consciousness that would disappear when everyone was guaranteed a good job at good wages. Then I left college. ......Rather than trying to spin his way out, wouldn't it be better for Obama to forthrightly admit his identity? Let's have a national dialogue about egghead condescension!
[Mid-Saturday morning update]
This is turning out to be the Blazing Saddles election:
It's amazing how many lines from that movie work for this campaign.The first question Obama got in Iowa
What's a dazzling urbanite like you doing in a rustic setting like this?
Explaining the Iowa caucus to newcomers
Now, I suppose you're all wondering just what in the heck you're doing out here in the middle of a prairie in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night.
Crowd: You bet your ass.Despite setbacks, Mike Gravel stays in the race
no sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter.
Obama's campaign theme
He conquered fear and he conquered hate He turned dark night into day.
Hillary rounds up her operatives
I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.
Ezra Klein hears a speech
God darnit...you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.
Obama after every press appearance
Ooh, baby, you are so talented! And they are so DUMB!
Obama explaining his post-racial appeal
Well, to tell the family secret, my grandmother was Dutch.
But Hispanics are skeptical of Obama and his supporters
Hast du gesehen in deine Leben? They're darker than us!
The party's new reaction to Hillary
Shut up, you Teutonic tw@t!
The anguish of the superdelegates
We've gotta protect our phoney baloney jobs, gentlemen!
and of course for the current situation
You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Oooh, oooohhh, there's more! I found Obama's Facebook page. Note that one of his favorite books is one about an obsessive hatred of a white whale.
So, is a cigar just a cigar? I report, you decide.
[Update a few minutes later]
One more (more serious) thought. When Obama talks about "clinging to religion," is he saying that his religious belief is founded in something other than economic hardship? Or is he implying that, despite his words and church attendance for the past twenty years, that he's at heart an agnostic, if not an atheist? Was the church thing all for political show (as it was with at least Bill, if not both Clintons)? And of course, if these are his true feelings (and I suspect that one is more likely to hear what he really thinks when he perceives himself to be among a friendly audience), then it's not surprising that he could sit through twenty years of Pastor Wright bigotry and hatred and find nothing exceptional or objectionable about it. He's smart enough to know that others will find it so, so he pretends to be outraged when called on it, but he wasn't smart enough to see how his remarks in this case would be viewed by those to whom he unconsciously condescends.
I think that this could be a campaign killer in the fall. That sound bite will be shown over and over again. I just regret that it came out this soon. Unfortunately, the Democrats still have a chance to eject him before he gets the nomination. But even if they do, it will still be an electoral disaster for them. The problem is that it isn't just Obama. Most of them are just smart enough not to voice their bigotry publicly, but this is how much of the party itself views rural and middle America, and it's going to hurt them all through the fall. And justly so.
[Late morning update]
Mark Steyn has further thoughts:
I had a ton of fun covering Kerry's awkwardness with Americans but, in fairness, it was essentially a consumerist snobbery: he preferred the Newburgh Yacht Club for lunch over the local Wendy's, he'd rather be windsurfing off Nantucket than rednecking at Nascar, etc. Obama's snobbery seems more culturally profound, and unlike Kerry he can't plead the crippling disadvantage of a privileged childhood. Rather, Barack's condescension reveals a man out of touch with the rhythms of American life to a degree that's hard to fathom. As Michelle says, they "chose" to "leave corporate America", and Barack became a "community organizer" and she wound up a 350-grand-a-year "diversity outreach coordinator". I've no idea what either of those careers involve, and most of us seem able to get along without them. But their remoteness from the American mainstream perhaps explains why the Obamas seem to have no clue how Americans live their lives.
And yes, I'm a foreigner. But it takes one to know one, and this guy seems weirdly disconnected from everything except neo-segregationist Afrocentric grievance politics and upscale white liberal condescension. Not much of a coalition.
But that's the modern Democrat Party. Without the media (which is as elitist as they are) in their pocket, they'd never stand a chance.
[Early afternoon update]
Was Obama's faux pas the sound of the horse beginning to clear its throat for its aria? This kind of thing is what keeps Hillary from dropping out.
[Another update a few minutes later]
And of course, Iowahawk has to pile on, with a golden oldie about rebellious youth:
Like most of their classmates, these North Shore Neckies were once bound for some of the top universities in America -- Yale, Duke, Stanford, Northwestern -- until they succumbed to the allure of the Downhome slacker lifestyle. Now some openly talk of dropping out, learning TIG welding, waiting tables at Waffle House or draining oil at Jiffy Lube; some even hint of enrolling at Iowa State. What drives privileged teens to such seemingly self-destructive behavior?
"I guess you might could say we're rebels," says Rachel 'Tyffanie' Stern, 17, lighting a Merit Menthol 100. Once destined for Vassar, Stern is now living with friends after her parents kicked her out of the house for spending her bat mitzvah money on a bass boat. Last month she became the youngest Jewish female to win an event on the Bassmasters Pro Tour.Pausing for furtive glances, several of the teens share sniffs from a bottle of Harmon Triple Heat deer scent.
"Wooo-eee, shit howdy, that's gonna bring a mess of them whitetail bucks," says 19-year old Wei-Li 'Lamar' Cheung. A former Westinghouse Science Award winner, Cheung has devoted his chemistry and biology skill to building a fledgling hunting supply business.
A first generation Asian-American, Cheung says he was drawn to the group by their acceptance of minorities. "Hell, I kept tellin' all my family and teachers I wanna play fiddle, not violin," he explains. "The 'Necks accept me the way I am."
African-American Kwame 'Joe Don' Harris agrees. "Just because I'm black, teachers were always pushing me to go to Spellman to study Langston Hughes and Thelonius Monk," says the 17 year old. "These ol' boys here never laugh at my dream to be a crew chief for the Craftsman Truck Series."
If there is one aspiration that unites them all, it is the dream of moving to Branson, Missouri. Long famed for its laid-back attitude toward religion, country music and the military, Branson has become a Mecca for radical young Neckies seeking an escape from the stultifying conformity of their coastal hometowns.
Only Barack can save us from this ongoing tragedy.
[Late afternoon update]
Obama is doing damage control with some of the yokelocals. I'm sure that Miss Hathaway will be able to smooth things over, except maybe with Grannie.
[Update on Sunday evening]
I've quit updating have some follow-up thoughts on Obama, and what this means about his attitudes toward individualism, here.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:06 PMObama's campaign isn't as grass roots as he'd like us to believe:
That picture differs substantially from the image offered by Obama of a campaign directed by grassroots activists. Their money clearly doesn't do the talking. Bundlers direct the campaign, quite literally, and those bundlers represent moneyed interests -- a much different reality than what Obama and his advocates admit.As someone who opposes most campaign-finance reform efforts as misguided and harmful to free speech, I don't find anything particularly objectionable to this structure. It fits within the legal parameters of campaigning, and it mirrors every other major campaign in American national elections. However, Barack Obama has argued for campaign finance reform and for public funding of presidential elections. His rejection of that money doesn't come from any high-minded sense of civic duty; it's a threadbare rationalization for succumbing to what he himself campaigns against -- the Beltway mentality.
In short, Obama's principles are up for sale. He may make a better pitch than most, but in the end he's just a higher-price sellout than most others. That's not hope or change, but simply hypocrisy on a bigger scale.
I'm sure that this is that new politics that we've been hearing so much about.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:38 AMYes, we can! But I hope we don't.
From the comments section at Frank J.'s place. Can we mock Obamamaniacs? Yes, we can!
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:35 AMATK is making noises about commercializing Ares 1. Unsurprisingly, it's full of bovine excrement right off the bat:
Ron Dittemore, president of ATK Launch Systems, said the human-rating that led NASA to build the Ares I first stage around the shuttle booster should also be attractive to other customers with "high-value" payloads, including the Defense Dept. and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).
"Ares I can deliver humans, can deliver payload to low Earth orbit; it can deliver payload to geosynchronous Earth orbit and beyond - planetary missions - it's got that much capability," Dittemore said at the 24th National Space Symposium here. "And what's unique is that since we're designing this vehicle with human reliability, proven demonstrated systems, high-value payload customers may see a real attractiveness to putting either DOD or NRO payloads on this launch system."
First of all, the Shuttle booster is not "human rated." The Shuttle itself is not, and never has been, human-rated (I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I wish that we could expunge the phrase "human rating" from our vocabulary--very few phrases in the space business are as misunderstood and misused by so many as this one). What he means is that the fact that they have been willing to use the SRB for the Shuttle (despite the fact that in the case of Challenger, it destroyed the vehicle and killed the crew) led them to decide that it was reliable enough to use for Ares.
One of the things that people don't understand about "human rating" is that it is not (just) about reliability, which is the probability of mission success. Human rating is about safety, which is a different thing. It is about the ability to know when the mission is about to go sour, and the ability to safely get away from the vehicle before it does. So while reliability is nice, what's much more important is warning time and escapability, from the launch pad all the way to orbit (something that the Shuttle has never had, which is why it's not human rated).
But satellites aren't going to have a launch escape system, so they don't care about human rating. What they care about is reliability, and I have seen zero evidence that Ares is going to be more reliable than either Delta IV or Atlas V. Human rating the latter two vehicles will not involve making them more reliable--it will involve putting in the systems needed for adequate failure onset detection (FOSD) and ensuring that they have adequate performance to eliminate abort blackout zones throughout their trajectory (something much more difficult for the Delta than the Atlas, due to to its underpowered second stage). So from a mission assurance standpoint, Ares has nothing to offer to a satellite owner over the current commercial vehicles.
Moreover, there is no discussion of cost. Even if they can get away with not having to amortize development, because the government paid for it and it's sunk, how much of an army will a NASA-developed/operated vehicle require? History would indicate a pretty large one, particularly given the politics of the situation. So will a commercial launch have to pay its share of the annual fixed operating costs, or will ATK (unfairly) be able to subsidize and undercut the ULA by only paying marginal costs for the launch, and having NASA pay the freight for the rest? And it will have to use the VAB for processing, and the NASA pad for launch. Will NASA be reimbursed for the use of its facilities? How much?
This seems like a huge potential bucket of worms, and all because NASA decided that it had to develop its own launch vehicle.
Is ATK serious? I doubt it. I suspect that this is just a PR move to maintain political support for it among the rubes inside the Beltway who don't understand these issues, to show that it has applications beyond the NASA lunar (and ISS) missions. Unfortunately, it may work.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Oh, and how could I forget this? How thrilled will the satellite owners be to put their bird on the paint mixer that is the Ares 1, on top of that five-segment solid, when they can get a smooth ride on a Delta or Atlas?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:15 AM"...are like poultry supporting Colonel Sanders."
I think that he really has done us a favor with this new "dialogue" on race. He's shown how mainstream bigotry is within the black community. As the commenters point out, it's (finally, and justly) tearing the Democrat Party apart.
And Roger Simon has more thoughts on the "evil" that those Hollywood Jews have done to blacks:
Lee seems genuinely to espouse the belief that African-Americans should only reconcile with Jews if Jews apologize for the supposed evil stereotypes they created of blacks via, I assume, the movies. I wonder if Lee means that Jew Stanley Kramer who made Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and The Defiant Ones. Or that Jew Ed Zwick who directed Glory? Maybe he's talking about me for scripting Richard Pryor's Bustin' Loose? It's not the greatest film in the world (though it did win an Image Award that year from the NAACP), but if I was trucking in black stereotypes, I'd like to know. Richard might have too, if he were with us. Or what Jew does Lee really mean? I'd like to see him name names. I'll name one - The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Lee is reading from that old racist playback. He is a racist himself.
No, no, no! Blacks can't be racist. Didn't you get the memo, Roger?
[Update in the afternoon]
Obama says that no one has spoken out against anti-semitism more than he has. Jake Tapper isn't impressed:
Really? No one?
Elie Wiesel? Simon Wiesenthal? Alan Dershowitz?No one?
Wow.
Neither am I. Though, as some point out in comments there, you have to be impressed with his arrogance and self righteousness.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 AMHere's a fund raiser to help out the victims of the Canadian Human Wrongs Commission, and fight its (truly) fascist attempt to suppress speech in Canada.
[Late evening update]
A victory, sort of, for Canadian free speech. The Human Wrongs Commission has dismissed the case against McLeans and Mark Steyn. Not because it was ridiculous (which it was), but because that pesky law prevented them from properly censoring them:
The Ontario complaint was rejected because the relevant portions of Ontario Human Rights Code only address discrimination via signs or symbols, not printed material.
But while rejecting the complaint, the Commission strongly criticised Maclean's in a statement."While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean's article and others like them, as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes," it said.
Note that this is really part of a civil war between moderate Muslims and radical ones in Canada:
Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, however, said that for the Commission "to refer to Maclean's magazine and journalists as contributing to racism is bullshit, if you can use that word."
He said the Commission has unfairly taken sides against freedom of speech in a dispute within the Canadian Muslim community between moderates and fundamentalists."There are within the staff [of the Ontario Human Rights Commission], and among the commissioners, hardline Islamic supporters of Islamic extremism, and this [handling of the Maclean's case] reflects their presence over there," Mr. Fatah said, identifying two people by name.
"In the eyes of the Ontario human rights commission, the only good Muslim is an Islamist Muslim," he said. "As long as we hate Canada, we will be cared for. As soon as we say Canada is our home and we have to defend her traditions, freedoms and secular democracy, we will be considered as the outside."
Canadians need to think long and hard about what kind of behavior they want to reward. There is no place for these kangaroo-court, "Human Rights Commissions," where one is guilty until proven innocent, in a truly free society.
[Thursday morning update]
More thoughts from the human rights violator himself:
So, having concluded they couldn't withstand the heat of a trial, the OHRC cut to the chase and gave us a drive-thru conviction. Who says Canada's "human rights" racket is incapable of reform? As kangaroo courts go, the Ontario branch is showing a bit more bounce than the Ottawa lads.
I'd be interested to know whether the Justice Minister of Ontario thinks this is appropriate behaviour. At one level, Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall appears to have deprived Maclean's and me of the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence and the right to face our accusers. But, at another, it seems clear the OHRC enforcers didn't fancy their chances in open court. So, after a botched operation, they've performed a cosmetic labiaplasty and hustled us out.
Instapundit has more, including this:
...for an organization that is supposed to promote "human rights," the HRC's agents seem curiously oblivious to basic aspects of constitutional law. In one famous exchange during the Lemire case, Steacy was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" -- to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." (I guess Section 2 has been excised from his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights.)
[Late morning update]
Here's more on that Canadian blogger lawsuit. It sounds to me like someone, or several someones, need to sue Richard Warman (what an appropriate name) for false accusations and defamation of character.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:02 PMI've been very disappointed in my alma mater, in its continuing racist efforts to give preferences to students not on the content of their character or quality of their academics, but purely on the color of their skin, not to mention its defiance of the law and Supreme Court rulings against this egregious behavior. It now turns out that, in an ongoing effort to continue to illegally discriminate, it has been withholding data and lying to the courts:
Before the UM clamped down on CIR's request for data, Sander was able to confirm his earlier finding that the undergraduate system may have produced fewer harms than the law school system. For one thing, the newly-produced data showed that a substantial number of minorities with strong credentials attend the UM undergraduate college. These students could have been admitted without any consideration of race and presumably resisted offers from more competitive schools to attend the UM. It was thus possible for Sander to compare, for the first time, the academic records of UM undergraduate minorities who did not receive a racial preference with those who undoubtedly did.
According to Sander, there were dramatic differences between the two groups. Undergraduate blacks at the UM who were admitted without a preference had a graduation rate of 93% -- higher than the rate for comparable white students, and far higher than the graduation rate of the school as a whole. In stark contrast, UM undergraduate blacks who received a preference had a graduation rate of 47%. If Sander is right, it raises a real question whether this latter group benefited from the UM's heavy use of race or whether they would not have had better academic outcomes at less prestigious schools.While Judge Lawson now has dismissed the case, the reason probably has less to do with the law and more to do with the what the evidence was starting to show about the real harms of the preferential admissions policies followed for years by the UM and other schools. For the time being, Judge Lawson has sidelined the effort to get a full decade's worth of data as part of this litigation. But given what even three years worth of data seems to show, schools like Michigan will find it increasingly difficult to keep this data secret. If even the "holistic" use of race makes it difficult for minority students to compete academically, the moral and legal imperative to publicize and analyze this information becomes great.
This has done a real, damaging disservice to the minorities in whose supposed interest these misguided programs were designed. Instead of going to a school better suited to their abilities and succeeding, many of them flunk out in the face of the stiff competition in Ann Arbor or, if they make it through, fail the bar, when they may have been successful lawyers going to a second-tier law school. Of course, I suspect that the response of the geniuses who came up with this scheme would be to insist that they be given additional bar scores for their skin color to level the field...
In any event...
All of this is a far cry from last January when Mary Sue Coleman, Governor Granholm and the rest of the political establishment said they would keep Prop. 2 tied up in legal knots for years. While BAMN's decision to sue seemed like a good idea last year, it's a good idea that turned into their worst nightmare. Too bad for them.
Don't look for any boo hoos from me. This seems like poetic justice.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 AMMichelle Obama's handlers wanted to make sure they had enough white people:
While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices of Mrs. Obama's event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama. The Tartan's correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, "Get me more white people, we need more white people." To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, "We're moving you, sorry. It's going to look so pretty, though."
"I didn't know they would say, 'We need a white person here,'" said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. "I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn't know it would be so outright."
Hey, it must be that new politics we've been hearing so much about. Actually, the only thing shocking to me is that it was reported.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:06 PMRobert Bidinotto wants me to boycott Starbucks. It's a worthy cause, I guess, but I've been boycotting Starbucks ever since they opened their first store. I've never purchased anything there for my own personal consumption, with the possible exception of a bottle of water once.
The simple reason is that they have never offered anything for sale in which I have an interest in consuming. It's nothing but various forms of coffee, which I don't drink, and high-glycemic carbs, which I tend to avoid, particularly since there is no protein on offer to go with them (in my limited experience--I suppose it's possible that that's changed). And I'm not that into the "coffee house" experience.
So I can't really help make a dent in reducing their sales, because it's not possible for me to purchase less from them than I already do. If everyone were like me, they wouldn't exist at all to denigrate the capitalism that has made them so successful. But maybe some of my pro-free-market readers can reduce their consumption.
It occurs to me, while I'm on the subject, to write about a topic on which I've often mused, but never posted--what the world would be like if everyone were like me. Well, obviously, it would be a lot more boring place. With no s3x, other than self congress, because there's no way that I would get it on with me.
Just off the top of my head, there would be no rap music. In fact, most popular music wouldn't be popular at all. No dance clubs. There would be college football, assuming that some of me were willing and able to play (not obvious, as my athletic ability is marginal), but probably not pro. There would be baseball (again, my skills permitting), but no hockey or basketball. Or boxing or wrestling, or martial arts. There would be Formula 1, but no NASCAR. Lots of hiking trails in the mountains. No one would live in south Florida.
No coffee houses, as noted above, or coffee production, period. Same thing with tea. No tree nuts would be grown or harvested, because I'm allergic. The Asian restaurants would be much better, as would Mexican ones (they'd all be Sonoran style). No wraps or vegetarian places.
It would also be a much messier place, because I'm kind of a slob.
On the up side, though, traffic would move much faster, and much more smoothly. And we'd all get on and off airplanes extremely expeditiously. And there would be no wars, both because (I know that this will surprise some of the trolls here) I'm not that into them, and I'm not sure what we'd fight about. Oh, and we'd have a sensible space program.
So, what would the world be like if it consisted of only you?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:06 AMA world without borders. You may say I'm a dreamer, but (unfortunately) I'm not the only one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:11 AMAcademia has already been greatly damaged by post-modernists and an extreme leftist bias over the past few decades, but fortunately math and science have been spared, to date. Those days may be coming to an end, though, as Christina Hoff Sommers warns about the potential Title IXing of science, based (ironically) on shoddy science (similar to the "comparable worth" myth).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:03 AMMichael Ramirez has won a Pulitzer.
I liked this recent one, myself.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:28 PMJeff Foust reports on the administrator's testimony before the Senate:
"Do not confuse my desire for international collaboration for a willingness to rely on others for strategic capability," he said in open remarks at a subcommittee hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee last week. Dependence on Soyuz "is not an option we would choose, but it is where we are today. In fact, we must seek an exception to the Iran Syria North Korea Nonproliferation Act because we have no immediate replacement for the shuttle and no other recourse if we wish to sustain the ISS."
Given that statement, you would think that Griffin would be interested in accelerating domestic commercial options like COTS that would lessen or eliminate an reliance on the Russians. Yet, in his comments later in the hearing, he was not that interested in pursuing a crew option for COTS (also known as Capability D) on an accelerated schedule.
Yeah, you'd think. But I suspect that he fears that if COTS is seen to be making too-rapid progress, it will jeopardize funding for Ares/Orion, by making them seem superfluous. Of course, the traditional argument is that they are designed for the lunar mission, whereas a station crew transfer capability wouldn't have that additional capability. And Orion is supposedly not just for going back to the moon but for use in a Mars mission as well (though it is never explained what its role is in such a mission). I can't believe anyone seriously believes that a Mars mission would be performed in a glorified Apollo capsule--it's simply too small, and the crew would go nuts. If it's meant as the means to return them to earth upon return to earth orbit, well, OK, but it's pretty pathetic to think that, seventy years after the first lunar landing, we would still be returning people to the planet in a capsule on a chute (particularly if they end up with a water landing).
Of course, the real danger is that we'll get the worst of both worlds--a continuation of Ares/Orion, which are supposedly being built because they are necessary to go to the moon, but we drop the lunar mission from the policy, so they revert to simply replacing (or competing with) COTS crew capability. And unfortunately, as devoted Democrat Greg Zsidisin has discovered in a one on one, that seems to be exactly Obama's plan. The only saving grace of it is that, in delaying the development by five years, it really means that the program will die. But it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of space policy, and space hardware and development, on the part of Obama and/or his advisors. You can't "delay" a program like this and have any hope that it won't end up costing much more over the long run, particularly because you'll lose many of the key personnel for it, who aren't going to sit around twiddling their thumbs at no pay for half a decade while Obama solves the education problem. It's really quite absurd. But then, most of his proposed policies are--one of the many reasons that he isn't going to be elected.
As an aside, Jim Muncy said during the wrap-up panel last week in Phoenix that NASA has a bigger problem with the Iran Non-Proliferation Act than buying Soyuzes to replace Shuttle. Because the facilities are in the Russian segment, the ISS astronauts won't even be able to use the potty if they don't get a waiver, which could get pretty interesting on a six-month tour. The notion brought up the obvious jokes: "You'll just have to hold it," and "You should have gone before you launched..."
[Tuesday morning update]
Jon Goff has further thoughts:
...if you were a congressman or senator with a limited amount of money available, and you have two risky ventures to pick from to try and reduce the gap, what would you do? Would you place all your money on the one option where your money is going to be a relative drop in the bucket, and that even then has little or no chance of actually reducing the gap? Or would you invest at least part of your money in a much smaller program where it has a much higher probability of actually hastening the day when the US once again has manned spaceflight capabilities--and better yet, commercial manned spaceflight capabilities?
You do the math.
Unfortunately, the only math that interests most congresspeople is the number of jobs in their district or state, with "the Gap" a distant second place. Mike knows that, which is why he can get away with this stuff, or at least why he has to date.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:12 PMI'm still not over this bug. I was pretty much done with the chills, sweats and fever a week ago, but it's transmogrified into something more like a head cold. My nose has pretty much dried up now, and my voice no longer resembles that of a frog, so I can do business on the phone again, but it's settled into my lungs now, and my energy level remains pretty low. Today is coughing-up-a-lung day (though sometimes it feels like I might reach down deep and hock up a kidney). I don't think it's turning into pneumonia, but I'll keep an eye on it. All I know is that I don't have much energy. The good news is that I'm catching up on my reading, including finally getting around to Jonah's book
I'm sure as hell not an Abu Ghraib American. Obama seems to be, though.
[Update early Friday evening]
Here are more thoughts from Jennifer Rubin:
One might argue, as many of us here have, that his association with Wright was more than a failure to anticipate public reaction: it was a moral and intellectual failing. (Juan Williams, as he has before, explains this in today's Wall Street Journal with searing clarity.) Yet she has a point: does Obama lack a "feel" for ordinary voters' sensibilities?
Well, of course. His life experience is utterly unlike the average voter's. On his journey from Hawaii to Indonesia to Hawaii to Harvard, he probably ran into a lot of critiques of American culture and not very much bowling. He hasn't, it looks like, developed an internal compass that warns him when something may be offensive or off-putting to ordinary Americans.
Yup. Like some of my commenters, who will thus be quite shocked when he gets blown out this fall by those same "ordinary Americans." It's actually quite amusing how the supposed "party of the people" has become so elitist, and gotten so out of touch.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:10 AMI don't often agree with Ezra Klein, but he hits this one out of the park:
Criminals aren't sent to prison so they can learn to live outside of prison; they're sent to prison to get what they deserve. And that paves the way for the acceptance of all manners of brutal abuses. It's not that we condone prison rape per se, but it doesn't exactly concern us, and occasionally, as in the comments made by Lockyer, we take a perverse satisfaction in its existence.
Morally, our tacit acceptance of violence within prisons is grotesque. But it's also counterproductive. Research by economists Jesse Shapiro and Keith Chen suggests that violent prisons make prisoners more violent after they leave. When your choice is between the trauma of hardening yourself so no one will touch you or the trauma of prostituting yourself so you're protected from attack, either path leads away from rehabilitation and psychological adjustment.
I think that we have a lot too many people in prison, but that aside, with the possible exception of rapists (for whom it might be an appropriate eye-for-eye punishment) no one should have to fear being raped in prison. I think that it's shameful that our society tolerates this. If we want to be explicit and openly declare that we are sentencing drug offenders and others to be raped, then we should do that, but if not, then we should put an end to it. I accept no excuses from the penal community. If they didn't want it to happen, they could stop it.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has pointed this out, and sadly, it won't be the last, either. I see no groundswell of support to do anything about it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AMGo here.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:56 PMJeff Foust has a report on an interesting talk by Charles Miller that I missed yesterday.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:45 PMSays that we have to engage SEDS, both because it's a good source of enthusiastic people who will work cheap, and more importantly because we aren't getting any younger, and we have to start nurturing young people.
He's here from Washington, and he's here to help.
Depressing to sit in meetings in Washington listening people talk about The Vision, and hearing the same things he heard about X-33, SEI, Space Station Freedom, etc. They don't even seem to learn any new lies.
It is silly season in Washington. Working on the budget. It's an election bill so they won't even finish the budget before the election. Wants the election to be over, and has wanted it to be over for months.
Does it matter? Probably not. He and Lori Garver did a "debate" (really an assessment of the candidates at the time) a month and a half ago. Hillary is probably the most supportive of space spending. Fairly pro defense for a New York Democrat. Has in tepid words endorsed the idea of the vision. Also said positive words about private companies and working with them. Has not specifically endorsed Ares.
McCain's experience with space has been primarily concerned with cost control and getting the job done right.
Obama is the most interesting, and unclear what he thinks. But there is potential for something different, because he says Shuttle is boring. Instincts are not to support current NASA approach. But worst thing would be to continue Ares I and Orion and delay lunar missions. Could create opportunities, or not. Crisis is coming, and crisis represents opportunities. NASA and Air Force are not monoliths.
"You should see the list of things that Orbital wants from Florida to get them to move ther e from Wallops." There are figures inside the establishment calling for different approaches. Senator Nelson is writing a bill that increases COTS by several hundred million dollars to augment SpaceX and bring in an additional provider for crew transport. He recognizes that this is the only way to have a chance of closing "the Gap." Senator Shuttle recognizes that he has to bring private space companies to Florida.
We've seen NASA put out an RFI for human suborbital science from the private sector. Things are changing. But don't assume that NASA and the Air Force have come around in general. Also don't assume that NASA or the Air Force are going to write you a check. Have to figure out what their real mission/requirements are.
We are the PC industry of space. It wasn't just the people running the computer centers and mainframes thinking that PCs were choice. The challenge was getting the people who used computers then to think through what they did, and how they did it, and imagine doing it differently, and how they could use these new small computers. There are half a dozen people like Ken inside of NASA, but that's not enough. We have to do their job (which is also our job) which is to figure out how to provide value to them
from their perspective. What he does for a living is help companies do that.
We have to figure out how we play a role in this future, and if an Obama becomes president, and we can't continue to fund space on an ICBM budget, and we want to continue to send people into space, we will have to come up with new ways.
ESAS is not the same as the Vision. The Aldridge Report is right. It's not perfect, but it's largely right. It's not a blueprint, which is why Griffin was upset with it, and wrote one of his own instead.
Work together, build alliances, come up with concepts to get to market sooner. As the dinosaurs die off, there will be some scraps for the mammals, and room to grow. We are coming to the attention of powerful people, which is a good thing. There are good times ahead, and people are figuring out that there is something wrong. The house of cards is going to fall. Can't say well, but it's going to fall.
Mike Griffin might be arrogant (and he has enough degrees to justify that) and he may be building the wrong rockets, but he has also been putting money into commercial activities while he builds das rocketz. We haven't proven ourselves. Elon still hasn't launched a payload to orbit. John Carmack still hasn't won his two million dollars. Only Burt has an accomplishment to date. We can't just be intellectually correct. We have to show the world that we can do it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:07 PMDoes Obama lack it? I could never find anyone who could explain to me why his "race speech" was so courageous, though it was acclaimed as such in the media.
As one commenter notes, he's no Ward Connerly.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 PMDamn you! It's interfering with the Canadian seal hunt
"It's a very slow start," said Phil Jenkins, spokesman for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, noting that sealing boats were finding it difficult to get to the herds because of thick ice.
Emphasis mine. Just another one of those insidious effects.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:43 PMIf this is true, it's a huge story. It certainly seems plausible. I've always claimed that oil reserves are driven much more by technology advances than by consumption rate:
n the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.
It was not until 2007, when EOG Resources of Texas started a frenzy when they drilled a single well in Parshal N.D. that is expected to yield 700,000 barrels of oil that real excitement and money started to flow in North Dakota. Marathon Oil is investing $1.5 billion and drilling 300 new wells in what is expected to be one of the greatest booms in Oil discovery since Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938.
It's also a story that will enrage those who want us to tighten up our hair shirts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:32 PMKimberly Strassell writes that Snipergate is a proxy for all of Hillary!'s lies and crimes that the press refused to cover properly in the 90s:
The real beauty of Mrs. Clinton's Tuzla torture is that it's self-inflicted. Up to now, Team Clinton had done a surreal job of keeping the scandal genie in its bottle. Think about it: Most of 1990s politics was defined by the Clinton White House, which in turn was defined by the Clintons' endless ethical firestorms. The American public remembers this, one reason why a majority consistently says in polls that Mrs. Clinton is "untrustworthy." And yet even as the former First Lady has lobbed ethical accusations at Mr. Obama -- slamming him for "plagiarizing" speeches, hitting him for his relationship with "slum landlord" Tony Rezko or the Reverend Jeremiah Wright -- her own past has remained a no-go zone for most of the press and for her rival.
This is hangover from the remarkable job the Clintons did in painting themselves as the victims of the so-called "right-wing attack machine." They, and their devotees, have carried that victim mentality into the present, and have made clear that anyone who revives the issues of billing records or cattle futures is little more than the second coming of Ken Starr. They've done such a remarkable job of portraying any investigation into their undeniable shenanigans as a "partisan" venture that even the press has looked away and whistled.
I think that as time goes on, and we get more distance from it, the Clinton administration is going to look an awful lot like the Harding administration, in more than one way.
[Update a few minutes later]
Peggy Noonan, Strassell's Journal colleague, has further thoughts:
I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: "Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy." Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. "She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself." Then she turned to his wounds. "She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood."
Made me laugh. It was like the voice of the people answering back. This guy knows that what Mrs. Clinton said is sort of crazy. He seems to know her reputation for untruths. He seemed to be saying, "I get it."
Well, some of us have gotten it for a long time. Glad to see that at least some of the country is finally coming to its senses.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:20 PMSome thoughts:
It's often overlooked -- thanks in large part to the Clinton "legacy" -- that such misbehavior is almost always accompanied by corruption in other spheres. Insistence by Clinton's defenders that his various lady troubles were "personal matters" succeeded in obscuring the moral connection between Big Bill's follies and the endless bribes, kickbacks, suicides, illegal mass firings, and vanishing files that made the "most ethical administration in history" so entertaining to watch.
So it needs restating as a simple truth that a man who cannot control his sexual impulses is unlikely to succeed in more complex matters. In little over a year, Spitzer threw away the goodwill engendered by his landslide victory through a series of petty conspiracies and dirty tricks, bringing New York state government to a standstill in the process. While McGreevey was a better governor than he's ever likely to get credit for (he solved the longstanding auto-insurance "crisis" that made New Jersey a laughingstock for half a dozen previous administrations), his penchant for putting his muscle boys on the state payroll undercuts any other claims for his record. The same can be said for Paterson. Though, being both blind and black, he may likely survive, revelations concerning his practice of awarding jobs and positions don't bode well for the future.These men are clearly representative of the post-Clinton Democratic Party. They set out to follow in Bill's footsteps, have ended up much the same as he did, and have dragged their party and political doctrine along with them. (At this point somebody will bring up the names Foley and Craig. But neither stood anywhere near the center of American conservatism in the way that the Northeastern governors do with liberalism as a matter of course. Foley and Craig were rotten apples. With the Democrats, it's the whole barrel.)
That's sure the way it seems lately. And it's taking its toll on the superdelegates.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 PMOK, so Hillary dissed the military when she lied about being shot at. I'm sure that it was just a slip of the tongue--surely she didn't mean to.
Well, actually, since she's running for president, I am sure that she didn't mean to. But it's indicative of her cluelessness about the armed forces over which she viciously ambits to become Commander-In-Chief. When he came into office, her husband was similarly clueless. It took him a long time to learn to salute properly, and he never really got it down (though it should be noted that there is no requirement that the President salute to the troops--that was a tradition started by Ronald Reagan, and one that both Clintons no doubt wish that he hadn't). But this goes beyond simply basic lack of understanding of how the military works. Underlying it is a contempt for the military, and authority itself, other than their own.
Consider this passage from Unlimited Access:
Another close source, this one in the Secret Service, told me that she had ordered her Secret Service protective detail to "stay the f--k away from me!" and to keep at least ten yards of distance between her and them at all times.
The Secret Service agent told me that it was much harder to protect her from a distance of ten yards, and she was told this, but she didn't seem to care what the Secret Service said. He also told me that she had a clear dislike for the agents, bordering on hatred, in his opinion.Along those same lines, another source told me that two Secret Service agents heard Hillary's daughter, Chelsea, refer to them as "personal trained pigs" to some of her friends. When the friends were gone, the senior agent tried to scold Chelsea for such disrespect. He told her that he was willing to put his life on the line to save hers, and he believed that her father, the president, would be shocked if he heard what she had just said to her friends. Her response?
"I don't think so. That's what my parents call you."
As is noted there, if true (and frankly, I certainly have no reason whatsoever to disbelieve it in light of their general history*), it makes sense, because Bill and Hillary were sixties campus radicals, and did indeed come from a culture that considered law enforcement officials "pigs."
And we know, going all the way back to the first Clinton campaign that, no matter how he chose to spin it at the time or now, his letters about his draft deferment indicate that he did indeed "loathe" the military. There's no reason to think that Hillary felt differently, then or now. And when you loathe something, you're unlikely to invest much time in learning about it, or becoming familiar with it. The military culture is completely alien to this woman, and this incident is just one more bit of evidence for that.
And beyond that, even for someone unfamiliar with the military, it would seem obvious that when you tell a tale of running under fire on an air base where the people are dedicated to providing for your safety, that doesn't reflect well on their performance. Obvious to anyone but Hillary Clinton. And she probably thought that showing her bravery under fire would be politically advantageous someone who probably knows nothing about the military other than action movies (many of which depict American troops as depraved) by her Hollywood pals.
But insulting the troops? Telling blatant and repeated lies? What does it matter, as long as she gets back into the White House? The hilarious thing is that it has blown back so badly on her.
The most brilliant woman in the world.
Right.
*Yes, before the trolls drop by and tell me that Aldridge's book has been thoroughly discredited because of the story about Bill Clinton being sneaked out for trysts through a White House tunnel, I give that argument about as much weight as that OJ was innocent because Mark Furhman made some racist remarks--you don't throw out an entire body of evidence because some of it has proven to be suspect.
And, of course, for those who are going to argue that I'm being unfair in ignoring Pastor Wright's good works in condemning his lunatic remarks, I'll just say that the two situations are not in any useful way equivalent, and if you're too dim to understand why, I'm not going to waste time attempting to explain it to you.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 AMIn 2005, Obama said of himself the same things that Gerry Ferraro said about him:
Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
This is outrageous, and racist. Right?
Will Obama demand his own resignation?
Or will he say, "I can no more disown Barack Obama than I can my bigoted, America-hating lunatic pastor"?
[Update a few minutes later]
Hitchens, on Obama's political cynicism:
"If Barack gets past the primary," said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the New York Times in April of last year, "he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen." Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he'd one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago "base" in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.
You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)Looking for a moral equivalent to a professional demagogue who thinks that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by the white man, Obama settled on an 85-year-old lady named Madelyn Dunham, who spent a good deal of her youth helping to raise him and who now lives alone and unwell in a condo in Honolulu. It would be interesting to know whether her charismatic grandson made her aware that he was about to touch her with his grace and make her famous in this way. By sheer good fortune, she, too, could be a part of it all and serve her turn in the great enhancement.
More and more, it is clear that this is 2008's Bill Clinton of 1992, in the way that he is treated by the press and his acolytes. We aren't supposed to be judgmental about his mendacity and ability to spin and prevaricate. No, we're supposed to admire how good he is at it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:58 PMThis opinion piece by Republican Doug McKinnon has every false trope and misplaced assumption in the debate on display. As is often the case with opinion pieces, opinions are put forth with the certainty that should be reserved for actual, you know...facts. It starts off wrong in the very opening sentence:
Because of the 2008 presidential election, our nation's human spaceflight program is at a perilous crossroad.
The implicit assumption here is that our nation's "human spaceflight program" would be just fine if we weren't having a presidential election, but anyone who has been following it closely knows that it has many deep and fundamental problems that are entirely independent of who the next president will be, or even the fact that we will have a new president. NASA has bitten off an architecture that will not be financially sustainable, and may not even be developable, and for which it doesn't have sufficient budget. That would be true if the president suspended elections this year (as some moonbats still probably expect him to do).
Beyond that, by framing it this way, there is an implicit assumption that "our nation's human spaceflight program" is identically equal not only to NASA's plans for human spaceflight in general, but for the specific disastrous course that they've chosen. This false consciousness comes through clearly in the very next sentence:
While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all have made allusions to supporting the program, none has made it a priority.
Emphasis mine. I don't expect any better from Democrats--they are, after all, the party of big government, but just once in a while, I wish that I could hear something from a Republican (other than Newt Gingrich) on this subject that isn't brain dead.
Just once, I'd like to hear a Republican talk not about "the program," but rather, about the nation's human spaceflight industry, and how we implement new policies to make this nation into a true spacefaring one. The latter doesn't mean building large rockets to send a couple crew of civil servants up a couple times a year, at horrific cost per mission. It means creating the means by which large numbers of people can visit space, and go to the moon, and beyond, with their own funds for their own purposes. It means building an in-space infrastructure that allows us to affordably work in, and inhabit, cis-lunar space. It should be (as it should have been when the president first announced the new policy a little over four years ago) about how America goes into space, not about how NASA goes into space. But Mr. McKinnon is clearly stuck in a sixties mind set, as evidenced by the next graf, admonishing Senator Obama's apparent (at least to him, if not the rest of us) short sightedness.
Perhaps now would be a good time to remind Sen. Obama of the sage and relevant words spoken by a president with whom he has been compared on occasion. On Sept. 12, 1962, at Rice University, President John F. Kennedy addressed the importance of the United States having a vibrant and preeminent space program. "We mean to be part of it we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond. Our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to become the world's leading spacefaring nation."
Hey, I'm all in favor of us becoming (or remaining) the world's leading spacefaring nation. But I don't think that the word "spacefaring" means what he thinks it means. Clearly, he is stuck in the Apollo era (hardly surprising, when the NASA administrator himself describes his plans as "Apollo on steroids"). His myopia and Apollo nostagia is further displayed in the next paragraph.
No matter who is our next president, he or she is either going to have to buy in completely to the premise of that young president, or stand aside and watch as other nations lay claim to the promise of space. There is no middle ground. John F. Kennedy understood it then, and the People's Republic of China, with its ambitious manned space program run by its military, understands it now. Preeminence in space translates to economic, scientific, educational and national security advantages.
Sigh...
"There is no middle ground." What a perfect encapsulation of the sterile nature of space policy debate. Ignoring that sentence, and the nonsensical unsupported characterization of the Chinese "program" (there's that word again) as "ambitious," one can agree with every word in this paragraph and still think that the current plans are not going to result in, or maintain, "preeminence in space." And particularly, the notion that ESAS/Constellation provides anything with regard to national security advantages is ludicrous. This is one of the two key areas on which it has been most harshly and appropriately criticized as completely ignoring the Aldridge Commission report.
Sorry, I don't accept that "there is no middle ground." There are many potential policy initiatives that could be implemented that would be vastly more effective in giving us "preeminence in space," than the current one. It's not ESAS or nothing, despite the next paragraph. This is called the fallacy of the excluded middle. This is stealing a rhetorical base.
And what to make of this next?
With regard to the space shuttle, the International Space Station, Orion and Ares, the new president must make three words part of his or her space policy: "Stay the course." On Jan. 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced a "new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system." With Orion and Ares as the centerpiece of this new direction, it is essential that that there be no delays caused by partisan politics.
What does this even mean? Is Mr. McKinnon unaware that the Shuttle is due to be retired in two years? Does he know that there are no plans for ISS beyond a decade from now? What "course" is he proposing that we "stay"?
And again with the false assertion that only Ares and Orion can allow us to "explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system." Not only is this not true, but there are many much better ways to do so, most of which were extensively analyzed by some of the best people in the space industry, but which were completely ignored when the new administrator came in to implement his own pet ideas. Those ideas remain out there, and will probably be reexamined under a new administration and a new administrator.
I do agree with this next statement, as far as it goes:
If a Democrat is our next president, he or she cannot look at the Orion and Ares programs as a "Bush" or "Republican" initiative to be scrapped.
Though not being a great fan of George Bush, I agree that to scrap a program simply because it is his would be stupid and partisan (not that this would keep it from happening, of course). But there are so many other, better reasons to scrap these plans, that the point is probably moot.
Should the next president decide to delay or cancel our next generation spacecraft and rockets for partisan reasons, he or she will be condemning the United States to second-class status in space for decades to come.
To this, I can only say "horse manure."
Delays or cancellations will cause a massive loss of capability as the work force with the knowledge and expertise to take us back to the moon and beyond will retire or move on to other careers.
Again, he seems to ignore the fact that delays (and potential cancellation) are already cooked into the dough of "the program." They will happen completely independently of who the next president is, because "the program" is fundamentally flawed.
And as for worrying about "the work force with the knowledge and expertise to take us back to the moon and beyond" retiring, this is sadly hilarious. That horse left the barn many years ago. There is almost no one remaining in industry who knows how to get us to the moon, let alone "beyond." Everyone who was involved with Apollo (the last flight of which occurred over thirty-five years ago) is dead, or retired. This is, in fact, one of the reasons that the program is floundering. Rather than sit down and take a fresh, twenty-first century approach to space exploration, and (much more importantly) space utilization, the kids who grew up with Apollo are simply trying to replicate what the Great Space Fathers did. They imagine that by building their own big, new rockets, they can somehow recreate the glory of their childhood. But they weren't involved--they were just observers. I've likened this attitude of redoing Apollo to cargo cult engineering. I think that remains a pretty accurate assessment.
The United States has committed itself to this new direction. The next president must ratify such a commitment.
Again, this false equating of ESAS with "this new direction," is nonsensical. And we aren't even committed as a nation to the Vision for Space Exploration itself. It would certainly be nice to see the next president continue the support of sending humans beyond earth orbit, but it would also be even nicer to see him (or, in the unlikely event, her) reexamine the specific implementation of such a plan, and to expand it far beyond NASA budgets, to encompass federal space policy in general, including military and commercial aspects, as the Aldridge Commission urged, and which NASA has utterly ignored, with the Bush administration's apparent acquiescence.
The piece cluelessly ends up with one more attempt at scaremongering the rubes who are not familiar with the nature of the Chinese space program:
Should our space program flounder, Chinese astronauts will establish the first bases on the moon, and the American people will be the poorer for our lack of leadership.
Even accepting the nonsense that the Chinese are going to establish bases on the moon at all, let alone the first ones, there is no support at all for why this will make the American people poorer. It's easily seen how it makes the Chinese people poorer, given that the Chinese, to the degree that they plan to go to the moon at all, are using a ridiculously high cost and very slow approach, but since NASA's approach is similar, it seems that continuing on this flawed path is what will make the American people poorer. And keep them earthbound.
As I said, this is a perfect example of the false assumptions and false choices that permeate what accounts for the moribund state of the space policy debate in this country. Until we start to discuss space intelligently (including a bedrock discussion of the actual goals, which should not be to do Apollo again), it's unlikely that we'll ever get sensible federal policy.
[Update a few minutes later]
Shorter Doug McKinnon: The president's space policy is not only wonderful, but it is our only chance to lead in space, and anyone who opposes it, for any reason, partisan or otherwise, is dooming Americans to toil in the Chinese rice paddies. So get with the program.
Is that succinct enough? It doesn't matter that it's complete nonsense. And completely unsupported by anything resembling actual policy analysis, and displays no evidence that he even understands the policy. Doug wrote it, and he's a Republican, so it must be so.
While I don't agree with their posts necessarily, (and the chances that I will be voting for a Democrat for president, regardless of what lies they tell me about their space policy, are nil), at least Bill White and Ferris Valyn have applied a little thought to the situation, unlike Doug. But then, they have the advantage of actually being interested in seeing us become a spacefaring nation. It's not at all clear what Doug's motivations are. Perhaps (as noted in comments) his being an aerospace industry lobbyist has something to do with it. I wouldn't normally indulge in such an ad hominem attack, but I can't find anything else in the piece that might explain his strange positions. That one makes the most sense, by Occam's Razor.
[Late evening update]
Mark Whittington (who loves the piece--more solid evidence, if not courtroom proof, of its cluelessness) once again demonstrates his inability to comprehend simple written English:
Apparently there isn't a single syllable of MacKinnon's piece that doesn't make Rand Simberg spitting mad.
In other words, in his hilariously stupid hyperbole, he didn't understand the meaning of this sentence, from above:
Though not being a great fan of George Bush, I agree that to scrap a program simply because it is his would be stupid and partisan (not that this would keep it from happening, of course).
While most of my readers don't need the clue, Mark clearly does. That's what's called "agreeing with a part of the piece." Which means that there were at least a few syllables that didn't make me "spitting mad" (not to imply, of course, that there were any syllables that made me that way, let alone every one).
And of course, as also usual, he can't spell, being unable to distinguish "complimentary" from "complementary." Not to mention "unweildy." But I guess he doesn't mind beclowning himself, as usual. Mark, get Firefox. It has spell check built in. It won't help with the homophones, but it would have caught the other one.
And that's the Mark that we all know and (OK, not so much...) love.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:05 AMAh, New York:
...should Governor Paterson resign, his place will be taken by Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno ...Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AM
...who is still, I believe, under investigation by the FBI for his business dealings.Somewhere down there in the chain of command of New York State politics, there must surely be an honest person. It could take a while before we work our way down to him, though.
January 15th, 1945
WASHINGTON (Routers) With the "Allied" forces continuing to be bogged down in the Ardennes Forest, many are questioning Roosevelt administration war policies, the unreasonable length of the war, and even whether or not it can be won.
The 7th Army's VI Corps is waging a desperate, and perhaps futile battle with German troops, surrounded on three sides in the Alsace region. A whole month after the beginning of the renewed German offensive, with almost twenty-thousand American troops dead in this battle alone, there remains no clear end in sight, or hope that the American lines can be closed.
There are serious questions about the competence of Generals Bradley and Patton, concerns that were only heightened shortly after the beginning of the battle, when two armies from Bradley's army group were removed from his command and placed under that of the British General Montgomery. General Montgomery's comments in a press conference a week ago have served only to buttress such legitimate doubts. He didn't even mention their names in describing the limited efforts to recapture lost ground, that remains unsuccessful, with the Germans continuing to take the initiative.
Many point out that these lengthy battles, and lengthy wars, are somehow indicative of a fundamental failure of American policy, not just in waging the war, but in the very decision to enter into it.
"It's not just that we're a whole month into this battle with no clear resolution or exit strategy. In a few more months, this war will have gone on as long as the Civil War," said one Republican critic of the administration. "And that one was Americans against Americans. We should have expected to do much better against Germans. After all, this war has now gone on twice as long as World War I, when we mopped up the Kaiser in a year and a half." He went on, "It's clearly the fault of this Roosevelt administration, that lied us into war, and then botched it. I'll bet that had Tom Dewey won the election a couple months ago, he would have exercised his judgment by immediately implementing his policy of not having entered the war."
Others disagree. One administration spokesman has said on background that this seems like flawed logic.
"One can't judge war progress by a calendar. Wars aren't run on a schedule, and every one is different," he pointed out. "And neither can one judge the progress of a battle that way, or by the casualty count. Often the heaviest fighting occurs just before victory. Our heaviest losses at Normandy were just before we took the beach and the cliffs."
"Yes, the fighting is fierce in the Ardennes now, but Hitler is waging a war on two fronts, and he's down to young boys and old men as soldiers. We will simply have to outlast him, and I'm confident that we will start making serious progress into Germany in a month."
But war opponents will have none of it.
"This administration has been telling us we've been winning for two and a half years, ever since Midway," said the leader of one of the prominent anti-war groups. After over three years of killing and terror, it's time to stop the lies, and the war."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:52 PMWhy is Barack Obama against drug legalization?
I'm running through the issues, and I can't find a single one on which I agree with him, other than that blacks should take more responsibility for their own lives.
That's great but, sorry, it's just not enough. Just another non-federalist fascist.
This comment probably explains his position:
The only black dude and admitted former drug experimenter in the race cannot afford to look soft on drugs.
Yup. New politics.
Can someone pass the Kool-Aid?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:25 PMI never understood back in 2004 (or any other time, for that matter) why people told me that John Kerry was such a brilliant man, when it was always clear to me that he was a pompous, arrogant windbag, and a certifiable moron.
I think that this bears out my thesis:
Kerry isn't just stereotyping blacks. He is stereotyping Muslims too. And he is drawing an equivalence between American blacks, a racial minority in one country, and Middle Eastern Muslims, a religious majority in a whole region. To John Kerry, it seems, all "disenfranchised" people look alike.
Never mind that, as Greenwald points out, "Arab Muslims [are] none too happy with their black countrymen in northern Africa." Never mind that in some African countries, notably Sudan and Mauritania, Arab Muslims still enslave blacks.To Kerry, it seems, all "oppressed peoples" look alike. The man has all the intellectual subtlety of a third-rate ethnic studies professor.
I think that "third-rate" is an overrating.
And on a related subject, can anyone explain to me how blacks have somehow acquired this bizarre mythology that Christians enslaved them, and that Muslims are their liberators?
Anyone familiar with the history of slavery know that the blacks were sold into it by the Arab traders, and that it was only abolished due to moral pressure from (wait for it) Christians.
Which brings me to the next subject, which is the general disconnect from reality of the so-called "black liberation theology" of which, apparently, Obama's church is one of the biggest proponents.
So. OK. The Senator says that he doesn't agree with everything preached in his church. Let's get down to brass talks.
What journalist has the stones to call him on it?
I'd like to see someone ask him questions like this:
Senator, your church believes that Jesus was black. Do you agree? If not, what do you believe his ethnicity was?
Your church believes that the "white church in America" (whatever that means) supported slavery and segregation, and that it is the Anti-Christ. Do you agree with that assessment?
Your church supports a "liberation theology," which is generally understood to be a form of Marxism justified by the Bible. Do you share the support of your church for that ideology?
If you don't agree with your church on these issues, which seem both extreme and fundamental, how can you remain a member of it, when there are so many alternatives? Certainly most Americans would not.
Do you believe that nurturing these sorts of beliefs are helpful to African Americans? If not, why do you continue to implicitly support them by continuing to attend and donate funds to your church?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:43 PMIt's a couple weeks old, but here's a very interesting article on the current debate among medical ethicists of when someone should be considered dead for the purpose of organ donation:
Truog is one of a handful of vocal critics who believe the medical community is misleading the public -- and deluding itself -- with an arbitrary definition of death. The debate, which is being fought largely in academic journals, has important implications for the modern enterprise of transplantation, which prolonged the life of more than 28,000 Americans last year. Truog and other critics believe that changing the rules -- and the bright-line concept of death that underlies them -- could mean saving more of the 6,500 Americans who die every year waiting for an organ.
...This debate exposes a jarring collision: On the one hand, there is the view that life and death are clear categories; on the other, there is the view that death, like life, is a process. Common sense -- and the transplant community -- suggest that death is a clear category. Truog and other critics suggest that this is to ignore reality."They think, 'We can't remove these organs unless we decide that you're dead,"' says Truog, "so the project becomes gerrymandering the criteria we use to call people dead."
Many people assume that we have good criteria for determining when someone is dead, but we don't and never have. I wrote about this several years ago, during the Ted Williams cryonics controversy:
There's no point at which we can objectively and scientifically say, "now the patient is dead -- there is no return from this state," because as we understand more about human physiology, and experience more instances of extreme conditions of human experiences, we discover that a condition we once thought was beyond hope can routinely be recovered to a full and vibrant existence.
Death is thus not an absolute, but a relative state, and appropriate medical treatment is a function of current medical knowledge and available resources. What constituted more-than-sufficient grounds for declaration of death in the past might today mean the use of heroic, or even routine, medical procedures for resuscitation. Even today, someone who suffers a massive cardiac infarction in the remote jungles of Bolivia might be declared dead, because no means is readily available to treat him, whereas the same patient a couple blocks from Cedars-Sinai in Beverly Hills might be transported to the cardiac intensive-care unit, and live many years more.
I find it heartening that this debate is finally occurring, rather than the medical community dogmatically keeping its head planted firmly in the sand. Because it lends further credence to the concept of suspension (cryonic or otherwise), and clarifies whether or not cryonics patients are alive or dead. The only useful definition of death is information death (e.g., cremation, or complete deterioration of the remains). As long as the structure remains in place, the patient hasn't died--he's just extremely ill, to the point at which he's non-functional and unable to be revived with current technology.
In fact, given that this debate is about organ donation, it's quite applicable to cryonics. In a very real sense, cryonics is the ultimate organ donation (and in fact it's treated that way under some state's laws). You are effectively donating your whole body (or just your head, in the case of a neurosuspension) to your future self.
But it will continue to tie the legal system up in knots, and declaring cryonics patients to be alive would be a problem under the current cryonics protocols, because unless one is wealthy, the procedure is paid for with a life insurance policy. If you're not declared dead, then you don't get the money to preserve yourself. But if you don't preserve yourself, you'll eventually be clearly dead by any criteria, as your body decomposes. At which point the policy would pay off, far too late to preserve your life.
And of course, if a cryonics patient isn't considered dead, then the heirs won't get any inheritance at all. Cryonics patients already have enough fights with relatives over the amount that they'll inherit due to the cost of the suspension. Keeping them legally alive will only make this situation worse. We really need to come up with some creative new laws to deal with this, but I suspect it's not a very high priority among legislatures who, when they deal with cryonics at all, generally instead of facilitating it, attempt to outlaw it or regulate it out of existence. And that's not likely to change any time soon, regardless of the state of the debate in the medical ethics community.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:29 PMIn Denver.
Denver is not equipped to handle any convention scenario other than a coronation, and certainly not the most (potentially) contentious national convention in 40 years.
It is important to point out that the state of Colorado, and the city of Denver, is currently nearly completely controlled by Democrats at every level of government. This puts these locals in a box, politically and from a law enforcement standpoint. This sets up a scenario similar to Seattle 1999 WTO debacle. I happened to be living in downtown Seattle during that awful experience, and what stands out is that the city and state (even the Federal Government at that time) were all controlled by Democrats at every level, even police chief. That meant they were politically unwilling to confront their own in the days leading up to the summit: that is, the anti-globalism/WTO protestors, greenies, and union members that were planning major marches, civil disobedience, and even outright mischief.The reason is simple, they didn't want to alienate their own constituencies by seeming too heavy handed. The result was that by the time they had to crackdown, it was too late and with police state tactics, water cannons, gas cannisters, police in riot gear, and dusk to dawn curfews on the streets. There is still a lot of these scenes on YouTube and many disenchanted lefties are promising a repeat in Denver this year. Any variation of this would be a potential public relations disaster for the Democrat nominee in trying to win Colorado, and one that would virtually ensure not only a McCain victory in the state, but a stigmatization that could likely lead to major setbacks for the Democrat party in Colorado for years to come.
[Early afternoon update]
It's already starting, and it's still March:
Spagnuolo has been meeting monthly with city officials for a year, hoping to win the right to use Civic Center throughout the convention. He says 50,000 war protesters are coming for a march from Civic Center to the Pepsi Center on Aug. 24.He said Thursday that he would not respect the host committee's permit and would occupy the park, even if it forced police to intervene.
Referring to the $50 million in federal security money slated for the convention, Spagnuolo said Denver police would need "$25 million to protect the Pepsi Center and $25 million to protect Civic Center."
I have no sympathy. When your political party encourages and welcomes brown shirterry (as long as it's aimed at "neocons" and "globalists," and "capitalists," and other evil people), this is what you get. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.
[Update at 1 PM]
More bad news for the donkeys:
In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote. Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.
That's already starting to show up in the national polling, where McCain is way ahead of both Hillary! and Obama. As I've been saying for months, the Dems have set themselves for a shellacking, because both of their lead candidates are unelectable in the general, and the internecine strife just makes it worse. Their only hope lies in a brokered convention, and a different candidate, and even then, it's unlikely that they'll recover.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:00 AMClarice Feldman has some useful advice for Howard Dean:
Have Carter rerun the entire damn primary before June 7. Really, Carter can do this.
I suppose right now you're saying," Where did he get this idea?" I'll tell you, friend. it came to me listening to Carl Levin who asked, "How can you make sure that hundreds of thousands , perhaps a million or more ballots can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided?"See, I read that and remembered that Carter does this all the time. He's the election certifier extraordinaire. From his supervision of the 1990 election in the Dominican Republic to his oversight of the Chavez recall collection in Venezuela he's become the one man in the world who can, with the acquiescence of the entire world, put a gold stamp of approval and purity on a completely unfair and corrupt election. Fraud in counting votes? In registering voters? Discrepancies between the number of cast ballots and voter registration lists? Jiggered machines? Doesn't matter. The guy will keep his eyes and ears closed and stamp the entire thing kosher.
See, what I'm saying, is that there's no way you can resolve the present contretemps without at least half your party claiming the result is unfair. They will always believe the nomination was "stolen" from their candidate and given the players and so-called rules of your party's nomination process, they will have a point. So why not go whole hog. Have the process planned, overseen and supervised by the man who's given his stamp of approval to crooked elections everywhere else on earth. He was YOUR president, after all. He's good enough for East Timor and not for his own party?
Maybe he could even win another Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 AMJohn Tabin writes that, regardless of the election outcome, the next president will be a fascist:
JOHN McCAIN IS a huge admirer of TR. His career has been marked by an instinctive enthusiasm for regulation. He brags of a military career chosen "for patriotism, not for profit," clearly viewing civilian life as debased.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:20 AMGoldberg's Afterword, "The Tempting of Conservatism," holds up McCain and the "National Greatness Conservatives" who backed him in 2000 as an example of how progressivism can enthrall conservatives. (Possible good news: McCain has praised free markets in the course of this campaign -- for the first time in his political career, according to McCain biographer Matt Welch.)
Hillary Clinton's calls in the '90s for a "new politics of meaning" and for the state to act as the "village" that raises our children has deeply totalitarian implications that Goldberg discusses at length. In 1996 she declared that "there isn't really any such thing as someone else's child." Assessing her worldview, Goldberg labels Clinton "The First Lady of Liberal Fascism."
Barack Obama's enormous rhetorical talents have already earned him an extremely creepy personality cult. His wife declares that her husband "will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism... And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
The oceans don't seem to be warming. Even NPR says so.
This is obviously one of those many insidious effects of global warming.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:34 PMThe last Soviet premiere was a Christian.
I find arguments (such as Dennett and Dawkins, and Hitchens) put forth that religion is the source of all evil in the world to be tendentious. Much evil has been (and continues to be) done in the name of a god, but the most nihilistic, murderous regimes in history, in the twentieth century, were godless. Belief in God (or lack thereof) is neither a necessary, or sufficient condition for evil acts. The real dividing line, as Jonah points out, is not whether or not one is a deist, but whether or not one is an individualist. Say whatever else you want about a classically liberal society--it might leave some behind, but it won't murder them wholesale.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:23 PMDerb again:
At the Olympics, the Maoists will be dealing with free people from free nations, and there is only so much they can do to control them. It's not clear they understand this. They've been living for decades in a bubble of unchallenged power, and are not very imaginative. The opportunities for embarrassment are endless, and the prospect of it very delicious to anyone who loves liberty. Personally, I hope their stinking Olympics is a huge fiasco, and I see encouraging signs it may be.
I wouldn't shed a tear if there was never another Olympics. Not that I care that much, one way or the other, because I don't care about the Olympics, but I think that it demeans the event to hold it in dictatorships. But maybe that's just me. Maybe we ought to have a democratic Olympics. Any country could send a team, but it would never be hosted in a place like China. Or most countries in the Middle East (not that there's much prospect for that).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 AMMickey Kaus dissects the Obama speech. I think that he hurt himself with it more than helped, though obviously the Obamaniacs will disagree. One way to know is to see if he recovers in Pennsylvania, where he's down twenty-six points (before the speech).
My bottom line (still not having read the whole thing).
There would seem to be four, and only four possibilities.
If (1), it seems like a political naivety that is inexcusable in a presidential candidate. If (2), what does this say about his ability or willingness to stand up to a dictator? If (3) this isn't "new politics." It's the same old cynical pandering. If (4), do we really want a president that believes this kind of thing in his heart?
As I've said, take away this whole issue, and I'm still not going to vote for Obama, for a lot of reasons. But if I were, this would be a deal breaker for me. I pity the choices of Democrats this year (and generally, every year). But then, no one made them be Democrats.
[Update at 9 AM EDT]
Victor Davis Hanson has some related thoughts:
Two corollaries always follow the Obama victimology: moral equivalence and the subtle suggestion that any who question his thesis of despair are themselves suspect.
So we hear of poor Barack's grandmother's private fears in the same breath as Wright's public hatred. Geraldine Ferraro is understood in the same context as Reverend Wright. The Reagan Coalition and talk radio are identical to Reverend Wright -- albeit without similar contexts for their own purported racism. Your own pastor, priest, or rabbi are analogous to Rev. Wright.And then, of course, your own motives are suspect if you question any of this sophistry. For Michelle it is always "they" who raised new obstacles against this deprived Ivy League couple and their quest for the Presidency; for Barack it is those who play "snippets", or the system of "corporate culture" that has made Wright the object of anger to similarly victimized poor white pawns.
The message? Wright's motives for espousing hatred are complex and misunderstood; your motives for worrying about Obama and his Pastor are simple and suspect.
I don't think that Obama understands how offensive this speech was to many listeners, and listeners that he needs in a general election. A lot of people have pointed out that it was a speech to the super delegates, which is probably right. I guess he'll worry about binding the wounds of the rest of us at or after the convention. But the bloom is definitely off the rose.
Oh, and he can't even keep his story straight:
Barack Obama's campaign is not premised on making history? Could have fooled me. Let's go to the tape.
...there's only 563 mentions of the phrase "make history" on barackobama.com and another 1,750 mentions of "making history" on the candidate's website alone. How on earth could anyone have gotten the idea that Barack Obama was suggesting that a spectrographic analysis of his skin color proves that his mere election as president would be a positive historical event? In fact, one might say that "making history" was a successful campaign theme for Obama precisely because it used race to his advantage, making the subtle suggestion that electing a black man would make Americans feel better about the state of race relations. And isn't this exactly what Geraldine Ferraro was eviscerated for pointing out?
[Update at 10 AM]
Obama's double standard:
So Imus, who peddles "toxic information," "stereotypes," and "degrading comment[s]," should be deprived of his livelihood. While Reverend Wright, who peddles in "incendiary language," a "profoundly distorted view of this country," "racially charged" remarks, and views that "rightly offend white and black alike," gets the honor of baptizing Obama's daughters.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Stanley Kurtz writes that Obama is just a moderate Wright:
Obama's relationship to Wright is paradigmatic. Obama's own views are not precisely Wright's, but Obama understands and is attracted to Wright's radicalism and wants to win at least a gruff sort of understanding and even acceptance of it from Americans at large. What's scary is that this is all-too-similar to the way Obama thinks about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Asad. Obama may not agree with them either, but he feels as though he understands their grievances well enough to bridge the gap between these leaders and the American people. That is why Obama is willing to speak to Ahmadinejad and Asad without preconditions.Can we fairly make analogies between internal American splits and differences between nations? No we cannot. But that is precisely Obama's error-and it is pervasive on the dovish left. The world of nations is in fact a scarcely-hidden anarchy of conflicting interests and powers. Yet liberals treat the globe as if its one great big "multicultural" nation in which reasonable folks can simply sit down and rationally iron out their differences. Obama sees himself as a great global reconciler, on exactly the same pattern as he sees himself as a national reconciler-the man who bridges not only all races, but all nations. Unfortunately, what reconciliation means for Obama is getting Americans to accept folks who don't like them, and to strike bargains (on disadvantageous terms, I would argue) with those who mean to do us serious harm.
...Obama is the appealing face of American radicalism -- the man who unites the leftism of the professors with the radicalism of the Afrocentric clergy, and ties it all up in an only slightly more moderate package. And that is exactly the sort of "unity" we'll get, when and if Barack Obama becomes president of the United States.
Yes, this is one of the many reasons that I would never vote for Obama. And the wrongs of Wright only highlight this problem.
[Update late morning]
VDH says that Obama can fix the double standard:
The new sophistic Obama, however, would recount to us all the charity work and good that Imus had once done and still does, that we don't understand the joshing of the shock-jock radio genre that winks and nods at controversy in theatrical ways, that Imus was a legend and pioneer among talk show hosts, that Obama's own black relatives have on occasions expressed prejudicial statements about whites similar to what Imus does, that we all have our favorite talk shows, whose hosts occasionally cross the line, and that he can't quite remember whether he'd ever been on the Imus show, or whether he ever had heard Imus say anything that was insensitive -- and therefore he could not and would not disown a Don Imus.
This is the real message of the Obama racial transcendence candidacy.
Don't hold your breath.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:10 AMNational Socialists chose the second part of their name for no particular reason - it's anti-capitalist propaganda. The movie begins not on the dock, or on board, or in a boisterous café by the quay; no, it starts off in the White Star boardroom, where the eeeevil investors are figuring out the best way to manipulate the stock. Yes, that's correct: insider trading sunk the Titanic. The head of White Star - a tall, dashing, cynical, cunning, selfish Bruce Ismay (snort) pushes the captain to reach New York in record speed to boost the stock, which had gyrated up and down prior to departure, and had been subject to large block purchases by other characters on the ship - oh, don't ask. The interiors looks nothing like the Titanic, but the special effects aren't bad, and it's impressively shot. It's just all wrong. Every frame is just saturated with a strong dose of Wrong.
Forgot the best part: the hero is a German. He's a fictional officer who tries to warn everyone about the ice. He's cool, composed, devoted to duty, and scornful of the capitalists. At least the Soviets had that Russian-soulfulness thing going, so their movies would be soaked with sloppy emotion and Slavic hymns; the Nazis were tin-eared thick-thumbed boors when it came to art. God help us if they'd won; I cannot imagine their sitcoms.
I just got my copy of Jonah's book
...as things stand, Obama is damaged. If, as some folks are arguing, hanging with Uncle Jeremiah is simply the price of doing politics in black Chicago, that makes the Senator not the change you can believe in but just the same-old-same-old. And at least a sliver of the electorate will find it hard to accept that even the political realities of Illinois require a man to raise his daughters in a church led by a vulgar kook who makes humping motions from the pulpit when he discusses Bill and Monica. Jeremiah Wright is not most Americans' idea of a pastor, and the longer he's in the spotlight the more he distances Obama from the electorate. Accepting (as everyone assures us) that the candidate himself is not an Afrocentric liberation theologist who believes every crackpot conspiracy of the last 70 years, every other explanation as to why Barack Obama spent two decades in the company of a profane race-baiter leaves the Senator looking either weak or weird. If he can wriggle out of this tonight, he's some kind of genius.
We'll find out. This may be a bridge too far.
[Update a few minutes later]
Despite his track record of controversy, Obama appointed Sanford as a member of his Hope and Unity central advisory committee. He dismissed complaints about Sanford's earlier statements, calling them "isolated comments of an elderly man with a heart condition who likes to speak his mind."
Harder to dismiss were Sanford's increasingly controversial statements directed toward Hillary Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, which were caught on video and spread throughout the internet. In one speech, Sanford says "I'm gonna push her face in some dough and make some gorilla cookies," and later says "that woman look like a fish head sandwich." In another, Sanford holds up a clear sheet of plastic and taunts Mrs. Clinton to "wear it fo' a Godzilla mask."At first Mrs.Clinton laughed off Sanford's remarks, and even said she would "welcome Mr. Sanford's help after I am nominated." Mr. Sanford replied that "I'm a junkman, not a plastic surgeon." As the campaign wore on and her lead disappeared, she began responding testily, issuing statements that "God's gonna strike you down Fred Sanford," and "shut up foo'."
Will the controversy never end?
[Update late morning]
Well, if these two snippets are any indication, the speech is less than genius level, at least to me:
For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
...Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
The nagging questions remain. He's not merely "an occasionally fierce critic of US foreign policy." He's a man who believes that the US government was behind 911. He didn't merely say things that were "controversial." He accused the US government of deliberately creating AIDS and importing cocaine, in order to kill and injure black people. He didn't merely have political views with which one might "disagree." He held (and as far as we know, continues to hold) views that are vile, hateful, and by most lights, insane. I find this minimization and mischaracterization of the remarks to be utterly disingenuous.
As to the last graf, so what if he was a Marine? So was Lee Harvey Oswald. Who cares what other universities and seminaries he lectured at? They are no doubt the same ones that welcome Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky. And Ahmadinejad.
As I said previously, even if I were a church goer, there are no amounts of good works that would allow me to hold down a pew in the presence of someone who spewed such lunacy from the pulpit. There is simply some bad that cannot be balanced against the good, when it comes to being a member of and donor to a church, and exposing children (of all ages, apparently, to judge by audience reaction) to such bigotry, hatred and idiocy. It's like praising Castro because Cuba has universal health care (ignoring the issue of how good the health care actually is in Cuba--I don't see many people flocking down there for the clinics). But then, many of the people who get funny feelings up their legs listening to Obama are exactly the sort of people who do that, so maybe I'm not the target audience here.
I understand that it's not the whole speech, and I understand that I'm only reacting to the actual words, and not his golden delivery with the halo above his head. (This latter "argument," such as it is, reminds me of people who, to my great amusement, told me that I couldn't and shouldn't judge or criticize Michael Moore's "masterpiece," Farenheit 911 by the screenplay that I read, but that I should instead watch it, as though that would somehow render nonsense sane.)
I doubt it would make a difference. The question for me remains: what was he thinking? And if this is a reliable guide to his judgment, then my judgment is that he would be a disastrous president, probably Carter-like, and an eager coddler and appeaser of dictators.
[Update a few minutes later]
Some Cornerites find some things to like about the speech:
...here was Obama praising the Founders for their ideals. Here he was noting the stain of slavery, but not letting it become THE story of the Founders, but only a part of the story, not letting it press out the reverence the Founders are due.
That might be the lasting legacy of this speech. The Jeremiah Wright controversy will eventually become a footnote in American political history. But the moment of the first serious black contender for the Oval Office speaking with reverence and admiration for slave-owning Founding Fathers, and dismissing explicitly the idea that the United States is, by virtue of the nation's Original Sin of slavery, a fundamentally racist nation, has the potential to become a turning point.
And "he's so clever":
By framing his Rev. Wright problem as part of the unfinished business of America's founding principles, he makes it unpatriotic to turn away from him now. This isn't a Barack Obama problem; it's an American problem that only he can help solve.
Well, no one has accused him of not being a talented orator or politician. But sorry, I'm still more inclined to see it as Obama's problem rather than America's.
Jonah writes:
I thought it was a much better speech than I thought it would be. It had some lovely movements and he came across as a remarkably classy and decent guy. But I think there were some serious logical, philosophical and political flaws to it.
Yup.
Charlotte Hays shares my opinion about his minimization of the remarks:
Obama is no longer a post-racial candidate. In his speech (it's still going on, but I've heard enough) today, he has embraced the politics of grievance. He says that the Rev. Wright has "elevated what is wrong" with America -- elevated?
Not fabricated but elevated. Does that mean the Rev. Wright is correct about America's deserving the attacks of Sept. 11 -- but he just elevates it to undue prominence? Obama says that we shouldn't "condemn without understanding the roots" of remarks like those Wright made. Whatever the roots, these remarks are to be condemned. Within what context is it correct for the Rev. Wright to say "God damn America?"
Or does it mean that he's correct about the US government deliberately creating AIDS? And he just "elevated" that "issue"?
Sorry, just doesn't wash, no matter in what dulcet tones it's spoken. And it's a good point, as Mark Hemingway expands on, that the real problem is that, no matter how good the speech, the days of Obama as a "post-racial candidate" are over.
[Update in the early afternoon]
Here's the full text. I'm not sure I'm interested or unbusy enough to read the whole thing, but if I get around to it, I may have further comments.
[Update at 3 PM EDT]
The speech is slippery, evasive, dishonest, and sometimes insulting.
Yes, it pays to actually read what he says, rather than just bask in the glow of the flowing oratory.
[Update a few minutes later]
Hmmmm...the Derbyshire post seems to have disappeared. Not sure why. Too bad I didn't grab the whole thing. He provided several examples.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:41 AMHas Obama taken a torpedo below his water line? His numbers have dropped significantly through the weekend, relative to Hillary!, no doubt due to the (not so) Wright Stuff.
So what do those who wish no good for the Democrat Party, at least in its current form, do now? Many thought that the reason that Rush Limbaugh was urging people to vote for Hillary in crossover primaries was because he really wanted to see her in office in preference to McCain, which (despite all of his fulminating against him over the past months, and years) is of course silly. Others thought that if was because he thought that she would be a weaker candidate against McCain in the general election. There may have been something to that, but it's not at all obvious who will do better in an election that is still eight months out.
No, the primary reason that he wanted to do so was the same reason that the Reagan administration provided some support to Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war. They wanted to bleed both sides, and hope that they both lost. Iraq seemed like the underdog, so they propped it up to keep it going and prevent Iran from winning, and capturing the Iraqi oil fields. As in that case, the goal is not to choose one side or the other, because Republicans (and other non-Democrats, such as myself) have no dog in the fight. The goal is to ensure that the race remains in chaos, and to keep the Dems divided right up to the election.
Unfortunately, the timing on the Wright revelations wasn't optimal. It would have been better if it came out after the last of the voting, or (if Obama left the convention as the nominee) in the fall.
Someone over at Free Republic used an apt (albeit disgusting) metaphor. When you're roasting a rat, you have to turn it over occasionally. Now that Obama is slipping, and potentially losing his grip on the nomination, for those who want to cause maximum mischief, it's time to throw support to him, to prevent Hillary from somehow wrapping it up before August, as both voters in the upcoming primaries, and the super delegates panic over the Wright imbroglio and start taking a second look at electability. Thus, don't be surprised if Rush switches to Obama this week.
[Update in the evening]
Here are some thoughts from Amy Holmes that might be of interest to my clueless commenter.
...the first black president will more likely be a conservative -- someone who has already grappled with, and rejected, victim based politics. Can you picture Michael Steele, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Condoleezza Rice or any number of thoughtful black conservatives listening to Pastor Wright's sermoninzing for one afternoon let alone years on end? Maybe for research purposes.Barack Obama is not being tied in knots by black middle-class alienation. He's being tied in knots by left-wing grievance politics with which he chose to align himself. Moreover, plenty of black voters have been willing to vote for Obama in primary after primary on the message of unity and racial reconciliation without any particular knowledge of Obama's association with Pastor Wright and his extreme views.
While it may be true that Obama will be more likely to heal the divide than any of the other candidates, he's not more likely to heal the divide than a true post-racial black candidate, such as Rice, or Jindal, or Steele. That's where my clueless commenter goes off the rails. And of course, as I point out, the country has much bigger problems right now than healing the "racial divide." The only people being damaged by the "racial divide" are the people who continue to indulge themselves in the politics of victimhood and grievance, such as Senator Obama's pastor.
Just as an aside, one of the reasons that I'm so hard on him (or her) is that I find the use of oh-so "clever" screen names annoying in the extreme. If you're too cowardly to use your real name here, then just be anonymous. If you want to get any respect from me, or my other readers, don't try to make some kind of point with a fake (and usually stupid) "handle."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:47 AMCould Jeremiah Wright explain to me how boycotting Walmart improves the quality of life in the third world?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:15 AMMike Griffin is worried about losing a Shuttle crew if the program is extended:
"Given that our inherent risk assessment of flying any shuttle mission is about a 1-in-75 fatality risk, if you were to fly 10 more flights, you would have a very substantial risk of losing a crew. I don't want to do that."
If we accept his risk number, that translates into a 13% chance over ten flights. That doesn't seem "substantial" to me. There are a lot of good reasons to not extend the program, but risk of crew loss isn't one of them. I'm sure that most of the astronauts would be happy to take the risk, and the real loss wouldn't be astronauts (of whom we have a large oversupply), but the loss of another orbiter, which would almost certainly end the program, because they probably couldn't manage with only two left. If what they're doing is important enough to risk an orbiter, that is almost literally irreplaceable, it's surely important enough to risk crew, who are all volunteers, and fully informed of the risk.
When I was watching coverage of the cranewreck in Manhattan yesterday, they cited a statistic from the Bureau of Labor statistics that there were forty-three construction deaths last year (I think in New York alone). Can someone explain to me why is it acceptable to kill construction workers, but not astronauts?
On the other hand, here's one thing that I do agree with Mike on: the last thing we need is another space race.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:11 AMThe media style guide for defending Obama.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AMWell, we don't know yet, but I just wanted to be the first to ask the question. You can bet it will be the hot topic amongst the talking heads tomorrow morning, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:21 AMObama is being Clintonian:
What I think he's saying here is that he didn't hear these particular statements because he didn't happen to be in attendance. He's not saying that he never heard Wright say these kind of things, although he wants to leave that impression.
Well, it's not like that's the only thing they have in common.
[Update at 6:40 PM EDT]
Here's a lot more from "Allahpundit":
Now that we're into "what did the Messiah know and when did he know it" territory, watch for the left to move the goalposts by wondering what it is, precisely, that's so terrible about what the old man said. So he thinks America's responsible for HIV. A lot of people think a lot of things, y'know? Can't "an old black man have his anger in the privacy of his church"?
Looks like Obama's in full damage-control mode.
[Late evening update]
Another Clinton parallel:
I sat in his church, but I didn't inhale.
Heh.
[Saturday morning update]
A few weeks ago, I said that when it came to Obama's speeches, there's no "there there." Now Instapunk says that's true of Obama himself:
Regardless of how the campaign war turns out, both sides have been crippled. Obama cannot win because there is no one inside the gauzy, unreal image to battle through the contradictions to a mandate based on character rather than a mosaic of sliver identities. His white vote will shrivel as ordinary Americans discover they can't determine where his allegiance lies, unless it's to himself only. Women will sit on their hands because they've seen enough of the slick young operator who waltzes in at the last moment and swipes the opportunity from the deserving veteran female (and being half-white doesn't help him in this respect). But Hillary can't win, either, because of the one-drop rule. Even though Obama is not and never was an African-American, he has always been black enough to benefit from the superannuated slave culture that forgives every corruption and hypocrisy in those who have any claim on being black. If Hillary is the nominee, African-Americans will stay home in significant numbers. Unlike Jeremiah Wright, John McCain is the irascible uncle we'd go to for help in a pinch, not hide from because of the revolver he keeps in a cigar box.
At the end of the day, Reverend Wright is a self-fulfilling prophecy, the poison in the well. Like Moses, he can never accompany his chosen ones to the promised land When his people finally learn to stop following his like, they will find what they seek, as if by magic. But for now, the horse he groomed for them is scratched at the gate.
The Democrats have set themselves up for a well-deserved electoral catastrophe this fall. And it didn't just happen this year. It's been building for almost half a century.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:55 PMDavid Freddoso has some thoughts on Boeing's loss of the tanker contract, and free trade.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:52 PMThere's an old fable about a condemned prisoner, who makes a deal with the King. He promises that, if his life is spared for a year, he will teach the King's favorite horse to sing. The King, amused, decides to give him a shot.
As he's being led back to his cell in the stable, the guard asks him, "What are you doing? Are you crazy? You'll never teach that horse to sing."
The prisoner replies, "I have a year. Much can happen in a year. The King could die. I could die. The horse could die. Or, the horse might learn to sing."
After Super Tuesday, many viewed Hillary's campaign as condemned, and many urged her to pull out for the good of the party. But the good of the party will always come second (or third, or fourth, or...) to what's good for Hillary, and her ambition, and sense of entitlement to both the nomination and the presidency. And anyone who doesn't think that she has such a sense only has to go rewatch that interview with Katie Couric, in which she confidently asserted that she has not considered what she will do if she is not the nominee, because she is going to be the nominee (note: this is why her campaign didn't have a plan for after Super Tuesday--they didn't think that they needed one). She is not going to give up, any more than when Bill was under fire, and impeached. As John Podhoretz notes:
Hillary Clinton is not stupid. She knows perfectly well that she's not going to catch up with Barack Obama when it comes to delegates or the overall popular vote in the primaries, and that her lead with superdelegates is not at all secure. She's staying in the race to see what happens -- to lengthen it so that there is a chance Obama will implode for some reason or combination of reasons, leaving her to pick up the pieces.
Exactly. She has nothing to lose by staying in, except for the potential wrath of some in her party, to which she is indifferent. And now that Obama's media bubble is finally popping, it doesn't look like that bad a bet. She may not be able to tutor singing horses, but it looks like she's finally taught the press to cover Obama more objectively, which may be all that she needs.
But even if it doesn't pan out, I've predicted before that if she doesn't get the nomination, she'll figure out how to sabotage Obama's candidacy, because she'll figure that her only hope is to run against McCain in 2012. I still think that's true, and I'd say that the fact that she's willing to tear the party apart by fighting so hard for a poisoned chalice is pretty strong evidence of it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:21 PMWell, he may not be able to do it much longer:
...there's no cherry-picking occurring here. Furthermore, the cherry-picking defense, even when plausible, has never been accepted when it comes to racism. Don Imus, for example, has received widespread condemnation for very occasional statements that showed racial insensitivity. Trent Lott was condemned for one statement praising Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign.
Obama appears to be playing a double game here, distancing himself from Wright without really denouncing him. It's essentially the same game Obama (we now see) has been playing for years -- cater to racist black nationalists at home while presenting himself as "post-racial" nationally.
Ah, but you see, according to the narrative, Reverend Wright can't be a racist, because it's not possible for blacks to be racist. Only the Man, with the power, can be a racist.
You know, this double game kind of reminds me of when Yasser Arafat would give one speech in English, talking about peace and negotiations with Israel, and then the very same day, give another one in Arabic, calling for the destruction of that nation and the death of the Jews. But in this case, the media doesn't even have the excuse of not understanding the language.
[Update a few minutes later]
Another good point, from Mark Hemingway:
How many times has Obama used "judgment" as a cudgel against his opponents this campaign? Well, choosing someone to offer your family spiritual guidance that isn't an anti-semite coddling, America-hating, race-baiting crazypants would appear to be a far easier decision than deciding whether to go to war. I anxiously await to see how Obama explains this aspect of his celebrated decision-making ability.
Don't we all.
[Update a while later]
New readers who came via Instapundit might want to see my follow-on thoughts on Hillary teaching a horse to sing. Or just click on the main page in the link above, and check out the place in general. Anyway, welcome to all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:12 PMGerard Vanderleun has some thoughts, with implications for the Obama campaign. As Iowahawk notes in comments, they're brutal.
Hey, somebody should write a book
A screed, over at the Navlog:
That's it for me. I am no fan of Ms. Clinton. And as a conservative I have become used to perpetual abuse and viciousness from a Left my mother would neither recognize nor stand for, despite her politics of 40 years ago. But enough is enough, Mr. Wright, you whiney candyass. The fact is that you, Mr. Wright, will never know what it is like to step out of school as a kid and year after year, hear someone yell, "Get the kike!" and have four or five kids jump you and beat you up, sometimes leaving you unconscious by the side of the road. The difference, Mr. Wright, is that Jews -- and Mormons and Catholics and Adians -- who suffered through such a childhood 40 or 50 years ago never called a press conference, never demanded 'reparations,' never went to the press with demands, never just sat on their asses and complained. They just determined to work even harder to succeed and learned to fight. Mr. Wright, you are a poisonous embarrassment to the United States and to black America. That Mr. Obama refuses to call you for what you are and continues to seek your support should be all that a voter needs to know this November.
He not only "refuses to call him for what he is," but he gives him thousands of dollars (while Michelle whines about what a terrible world it is in which she has to pay back her loans that got her through the Ivy League and into her multi-hundred-thousand-dollar job), and he takes his young children to church on Sundays to poison their minds with this America hatred.
I can understand why the Clinton campaign is so furious with the media, when they could have been reporting this stuff months ago. On the other hand, I have no sympathy, since Bill Clinton could never have gotten elected without similarly fawning and myopic press coverage. If I were a Democrat, I would be very, very concerned about what's going to happen this summer and fall. And it couldn't happen to a more deserving political party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:01 AMIowahawk is on the case. First, he talks about the damage to the brand of high-priced courtesans, and then, to commemorate, he has a new song: Love Client #9 (warning, strong content).
And just for the record, he takes a little poetic license. I won't say how I know, but what he says about Jewish girls isn't necessarily true.
I mean, hey, the Happy Hooker is Jewish...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:57 PMWhy isn't this guy doing hard time?
Michael Sheridan was stripped of his title as class vice president, barred from attending an honors student dinner and suspended for a day after buying a bag of Skittles from a classmate.
What is the world coming to when people can openly buy and sell candy on a school campus?
I guess his big mistake was paying money for it (you know, like prostitution?):
The policy also prohibits bake sales and other food sales during school hours. The policy does not say anything about students sharing snacks when no money is exchanged.
So, if he'd given it away, things would have been OK. But I have no sympathy. The only way to clean this up is to go after the johns.
You know, I think that someone should write a book
[Friday update]
Saved by Mark Levin:
Levin gave out the phone number of the spokesperson for the New Haven school district, but asked his listeners to be civilized about the calling. The civilized part was easy. Getting through was another matter. Within ten minutes of the number's being given out, the New Haven school district's phone system crashed, as did its website.Within an hour of that, the wheels were already in motion to clear Sheridan's name and restore his and the other student's good standing.
What kind of conservative is he, anyway, coddling criminals like that?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:46 AMKimberly Strassell writes about how a fawning media enabled Eliot Spitzer:
...from the start, the press corps acted as an adjunct of Spitzer power, rather than a skeptic of it. Many journalists get into this business because they want to see wrongs righted. Mr. Spitzer portrayed himself as the moral avenger. He was the slayer of the big guy, the fat cat, the Wall Street titan -- all allegedly on behalf of the little guy. The press ate it up, and came back for more.
Time magazine bestowed upon Mr. Spitzer the title "Crusader of the Year," and likened him to Moses. Fortune dubbed him the "Enforcer." A fawning article in the Atlantic Monthly in 2004 explained he was "a rock star," and "the Democratic Party's future." In an uncritical 2006 biography, then Washington Post reporter Brooke Masters compared the attorney general to no less than Teddy Roosevelt....What makes this history all the more unfortunate is that the warning signs about Mr. Spitzer were many and manifest. In the final days of Mr. Spitzer's run for attorney general in 1998, the news broke that he'd twisted campaign-finance laws so that his father could fund his unsuccessful 1994 run. Mr. Spitzer won anyway, and the story was largely forgotten.
New York Stock Exchange caretaker CEO John Reed suggested Mr. Spitzer hadn't told the truth when he said that it was Mr. Reed who wanted him to investigate Mr. Grasso's pay. The press never investigated.
Actually, I think they were right. Eliot Spitzer does represent the party's future. Which is to say, that it is facing a massive meltdown resulting from its own internal contradictions and self-righteous coddling of corruption.
I have to be amused at the charges being flung in the presidential race between the two identity-politics-based campaigns of Obama and Clinton. Her people say that Obama's campaign is behaving "like Ken Starr." His people say that they're using "Republican" tactics. All of this projection is hilarious, since it is the Clintons who refined the "politics of personal destruction" to a high art, particularly when it came to destroying anyone with the temerity to tell the truth about them.
Poor Gerry Ferraro is now being pilloried for stating an obvious truth--that Barack Obama wouldn't have a prayer of almost having the Democrat nomination sewed up if his skin had a lower melanin content. I listened to her this morning, having to defend herself against accusations of racism. The delicious irony, of course, is not that they're "acting like Republicans." No, what's really happening is that they're behaving toward each other the way Democrats and the left have always behaved toward Republicans--accusing them of "hate" when they simply want people to obey the law, accusing them of "racism" when they want the law to be color blind, accusing them of "fascism" if they oppose the latest "liberal" fascist project.
And funny thing, they don't seem to like this kind of treatment any more than Republicans have enjoyed it when they've been on the receiving end for decades. But I doubt that they'll take any lessons from it. I expect them to continue to engage in it, and I hope that it shreds the party, and causes it to finally implode from its own toxic politics, just as Eliot Spitzer has.
But in another way, Spitzer also represents, or is on a continuum with, the party's past.
There was another Democrat politician, who was vaulted to power by an adoring press that ignored (and even helped cover up) his negative aspects. He was another politician who was all in favor of laws that would help "the little guy (or gal)," but apparently didn't think that they should apply to him. He signed a bill with his own pen, to much applause at the time from the so-called feminists, that made sexual harassment (which was broadly defined to include any sexual activity between a boss and subordinate, even consensual, particularly when the power was greatly disparate) a federal affair, subject to federal civil law suits. Beyond signing the law, he was the person who had taken an oath of office to defend the Constitution, and see that the laws of the land were faithfully executed.
Yet, when sued under that same law by a state employee for an incident that occurred when he was a governor--having a state policeman escort her to his hotel room, where he allegedly demanded oral sexual services from her--he brazenly declared that the law didn't apply to him. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
And when the law suit progressed, he not only lied under oath, but suborned perjury from others, both through bribes, and through threats, both direct and relayed through others, to prevent her from getting a fair hearing in court. It came out that he had not only engaged in the incident for which he was being sued, but had also indulged in sexual activity with another extreme subordinate, on company time at the work place, and (as the most powerful man in the world) exposed himself to potential blackmail through this reckless behavior.
And all throughout, much of the press defended him, and stenographed the spin and lies, and attacks, of his defenders. A woman who was one of those who had had her family threatened if she didn't perjure herself, but who despite that told the truth in the affair was vilified, and called a liar, and mocked for her morality and even for her physical appearance. And in the end, with the aid of the media, after all the mendacity, after all the hypocrisy, after all the continued arrogance, the man survived politically, and even maintained a positive approval among many in the public.
And Eliot Spitzer no doubt observed all of this, and took what he thought to be a valuable lesson from it. Why in the world wouldn't he have thought that he could do exactly do the same thing and get away with it? After all, the press loved him, too.
This morning, as he is about to announce his resignation, he's got to be wondering, how did this happen to him? What did he do wrong?
[Update early afternoon]
Well, there are a few attempts to defend him from the left. They're pretty lame, though. But then, so were the defenses of Bill Clinton, so maybe hope springs eternal.
[Evening update]
As a commenter notes, I was mistaken above about Bill Clinton signing the law that expanded sexual harassment law suit discovery procedures (how did that myth start?--I've believed it for years. No doubt some of the detritus from the hyperbole of impeachment years).
President George Herbert Walker Bush caved and did it the year before Clinton's election, as a result of bullying in the wake of the Clarence Thomas imbroglio. But there's no reason to think that Clinton wouldn't have signed it, and Bill Clinton was just as obliged to obey laws signed by his predecessors as he was to obey those he signed himself. Despite his ongoing narcissism, arrogance, and corruption, he was not a king.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:47 AMYesterday, I speculated that Spitzer's downfall would cheer up Wall Street. Well, I guess they finally decided to party today. Of course, that potentially inflationary gusher of liquidity today probably didn't hurt, either.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:08 PMLileks seems to be a co-religionist with me:
You know, every so often I run across comments on message boards from the "12 Monkeys" demographic, the people who wish people would just disappear and leave the earth alone. If the Aftermath show has any message, it's how useless the world would be without people. Without humans it's just hunting and rutting, birthing and dying, a clock with no chimes. It's always interesting how people romanticize Nature, and ascribe all manner of purpose and intelligence to it, lamenting the injuries people wreak on the innocent globe. I'd love to read an interview with Gaia in which she says that her goal all along was to come up with a species that could produce Beethoven and make rockets to send the music deep into space. Now that's something to make the other planets sit up and take notice. You think the point is merely to provide a home for thirty billion varieties of insect? I can't tell you how much they itch. Sorry about the earthquakes, but it's the only way I can scratch.
I do believe in a teleology, and this belief is not scientific at all.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:06 AMIndeed I am. That's great, great news. And that he goes down in such flames of hypocrisy is all the more delicious. The Greeks had another H-word for this, ending in "ubris."
And when he does, New York gets its first black governor. I wonder if he'd be able to win reelection? We may find out.
And you'd think that Wall Street (which hated him, with good reason) would be celebrating, but the Dow is down. I guess that higher oil prices overrode any "Ding Dong, the witch is dead" feelings.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:50 PMOver at Jonah's place:
"We must know our IMMIGRANT's pedigrees. They are flooding our shores with actual and potential Insanity, Imbecility, Pauperism, Prostitution, Alcoholism and Crime""When the low immigrant is giving us three babes while the Daughter of the Revolution is giving us one it means the Gibson and Harrison Fisher Girl is vanishing. Her place is being taken by the low-browed, broad-faced, flat-chested woman of lower Europe. "
This guy must have known different European women than I do.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:41 AM...about greenhouse theory?
Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.
So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.
And why is there resistance to his theory? Follow the money:
NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.
Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."
It's always amusing, and frustrating, to hear people who attack skeptics ad hominem because they're on the take from Big Oil or Big Coal, when places like the Competitive Enterprise Institute actually get very little of their funding from such sources. But climate researchers are always portrayed as objective, noble and selfless, unswayed by the need to maintain their grant funding stream from Big Climate Change. All I know is that I wish I was getting paid as much to be a skeptic as some apparently think I must be. Or getting paid at all, for that matter. But so far, not a single check has shown up in the mail from Exxon-Mobil or Peabody. It's also an interesting story, in light of Hansen's complaints that he was "muzzled" by the administration, all while he was going around giving speeches evangelizing to the faithful.
I also found this criticism underwhelming.
Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.
Yes, can't be overturning two-hundred-year-old theories. That would be completely unprecedented in science.
[Update in the afternoon]
This cautionary essay about science journalism seems to be relevant: beware the underdog narrative.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:14 AMArnold Kling has some thoughts on our near-term (in the next couple decades) energy future.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:02 AMIs it possible that Hillary! is being less than truthful about her and Rwanda?
I think it's a lot more likely that she either didn't advocate action on Rwanda at all, or did so only in passing. If so, this would have to be the definitive example of her attempt to claim responsibility for everything good that happened during her husband's presidency, while disavowing all responsibility for his mistakes. This was, in my opinion, the most shameful moment of the Clinton administration. It ought, by rights, to have a place in Hillary Clinton's "thirty five years of experience working for change." Or perhaps she might claim that she wasn't that interested in foreign policy at the time, or that for whatever reason she just didn't pick up on the genocide in Rwanda until it was too late to act. That would at least be honest.
But if, in fact, Clinton missed the chance to urge her husband to help stop the Rwandan genocide, then she should not pretend that she was, in fact, right there on the side of the angels all along. That's just grotesque.
In a related question, do bears defecate in the sylvan wilderness?
"Grotesque" doesn't start to describe the former First Couple.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:59 AMJohn Marburger, the president's science advisor, apparently gave an interesting speech the other day, which can be somewhat summarized by this statement:
"Exploration by a few is not the grandest achievement," he said. "Occupation by many is grander." (Although he added that by "occupation" he did not necessarily mean settlement but instead "routine access to resources".) His long-term vision for the future is "one in which exploration has long since ceased and our successors reap the benefits of the new territories."
As I noted in comments at Space Politics, this is the most visionary thing that I've ever known a president's science adviser to say, and the other notable thing is that he himself says explicitly (as well as implicitly in the above comment) that space isn't just about science. (As an aside, I've always thought that "Science Adviser" was too restrictive a title for that position--it's always been science and technology.)
As I also noted over there, it's unfortunate that NASA's current plans are so completely unattuned to that vision, being specifically designed for "exploration by a few" (and rarely) rather than "occupation by many." One wonders if he's ever complained to anyone about that.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:04 PMApparently, that's what Ahmadinejad should be asking about the Iraqis:
Weeks of hard work by Iranian emissaries and pro-Iran elements in Iraq were supposed to ensure massive crowds thronging the streets of Baghdad and throwing flowers on the path of the visiting Iranian leader. Instead, no more than a handful of Iraqis turned up for the occasion. The numbers were so low that the state-owned TV channels in Iran decided not to use the footage at all.
Instead, much larger crowds gathered to protest Ahmadinejad's visit. In the Adhamiya district of Baghdad, several thousand poured into the streets with cries of "Iranian aggressor, go home!"
But, but... I thought that our foolish adventure in Iraq only created an Iranian puppet there?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:20 AMIt's not insurance.
Nothing new here to people familiar with the situation, but many don't seem to understand the problem. But this is the origin of it:
Health insurance started to change, though, during the Truman administration. (I hasten to mention that I wasn't actually there: I was born during the Eisenhower administration, when the process had only gotten started.) Truman wanted to implement the progressive new notion of a national health care plan, but couldn't get it through; at the same time, post-war wage controls were still on, so employers bidding for new workers had to find other ways to compete.
Through a sequence of compromises, what came out of it was a system in which companies and only companies could buy health insurance and health care for their employees, and deduct the cost as a business expense. My father's music store and the steel mill across town could buy health insurance, basically, at a discount. (My uncle the butcher couldn't; he wasn't a "business.")Years pass. (Insert visual of wind-blown calendar leaves here.) Medical care becomes more complicated, legal conditions change, and a lot of things that used to be major medical issues that mostly affected the life insurance rates become things that could be cured, or at least managed. Increasingly, what was "major medical" insurance became, simply, health insurance; we expected the insurance companies not just to pay for unexpected events, but for the normal sort of day-to-day maintenance we all need.
People will pay to repair their car, or their pets, or appliances out of pocket, but somehow, over the past decades they've come to believe that it's a fundamental human right to have someone else pay for your doctor visits. Until we cut off this disastrous government policy of tying health insurance to employment, and allow everyone to deduct medical expenses on a level playing field, and get people to understand that we have to return to the model of health insurance the problem will not be solved.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AMI've been predicting for a while that this won't be another summer of love for the Democrats, but a lot more like Chicago, 1968. Apparently a lot of Obama supporters agree with me.
...if the Machine tries to give the Clintons the victory at the convention, I swear to God, [1968] Chicago's going to look like a Sadie Hawkins dance. People my age are going to be throwing stones. We all have transportation -- cell phones -- disposable income -- the Internet -- free time -- and Seattle as our example. Part of me is scared of a riot. Part of me isn't. The nomination belongs to Obama. Do you think we're going to let the Democratic Leadership Council take it? "God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water, fire next time."
Between this kind of stuff, and the recruiting office bombing, this year is shaping up to give me a sixties nostalgia (and the King and Kennedy assassination fortieth anniversaries, both events that I remember clearly, are coming up soon).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:59 AMDoes anyone really buy this?
In her statement, Power said her comments "do not reflect my feelings about Sen. Clinton, whose leadership and public service I have long admired."
No, of course not. You don't really think she'll do anything necessary to attain power. You just said that for no reason at all.
Sometimes, to slightly paraphrase Freud, a cigar really is a cigar.
Of course, she's saying what non-Clinton-koolaid drinkers have been thinking for many years, but whose loyalty to their political party exceeds their loyalty to common decency.
I think that I'll just keep the corn a poppin.'
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:04 AMLileks has some thoughts:
Of course, home-schooling Bolsheviks will have less reason to complain soon. "This bill would delete provisions that prohibit a teacher giving instruction in a school from teaching communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism." Apparently the teacher's right to teach Communism trumps your right to school your kid yourself.
What a world. Sometimes, when I look at the educational system here--primary, secondary, college--I wonder if we really won the Cold War.
[Update mid morning]
Apparently the LA Times got the story wrong (What! Say it ain't so!) about not allowing unaccredited parents to home school, so the situation in California is not as dire as originally thought in regard to home schoolers.
Maybe it was just wishful thinking on the part of the Times' reporter and editor, since that paper has long been in the tank for the teachers' union.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:48 AMRick Moran explains.
The parallels with the Clintons in 1992 remain amazing:
The difference, and problem (of course) for them is that there is no Ross Perot this year to suck off squishy Republican votes. Neither of the Dems' candidates have a prayer of winning this year, but I'll enjoy watching the fratricide, which will just make the landslide all the larger, and perhaps provide coattails for the Congress.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:14 PMI just remembered that I called the Bob Davis show this morning to talk about the new theory re: Moses and the Ten Commandments: dude was high. Apparently a professor somewhere has suggested that the entire experience was the result of a mushroom or some such ceremonial intoxicant. I called to say I didn't believe it, because if Moses was tripping we wouldn't have ten commandments. We would have three. The first would make sense, more or less; the second, written half an hour later, would command profound respect for lizards who sit on stones and look at you, because they're freaking incredible when you think about it, and the third would be gibberish. Never mind the problem of getting the tablets down the mountain - anyone who has experience of watching stoners try to assemble pizza money when the doorbell rings doubts that Moses could have hauled stone tablets all the way down.Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:51 AM
This is highlarious. I liked this comment:
And we wonder why democrats can't get a damn thing done.Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:08 PM
Every answer they give to a question sounds like a 16 year-old kid standing in front of a clerk at a liquor store trying to remember the address and birthdate on his fake ID he just acquired from some smelly hippy from the wrong side of the tracks.I hope to God (whatever that is to you) that someone writes a period piece on the democratic-controlled house and calls it "Lessons in Stupid - the Pelosi years."
Would a ban on space weaponry be verifiable? It seems intuitively obvious to me that the answer is "no."
I think that this is a key point:
The President's Space Policy highlights our national and, indeed the global, dependence on space. The Chinese interception only underscored the vulnerability of these critical assets. Calling for arms control measures can often appear to be a desirable approach to such problems. Unfortunately, "feel good" arms control that constrains our ability to seek real remedies to the vulnerabilities that we face has the net result of harming rather than enhancing U.S. and international security and well-being.
I always trust hardware over paper and good intentions.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:56 AMI don't actually watch that much network television, but I have to admit that I probably watch more Foxfare than anything else.
Tonight, there premiered a new show, called "New Amsterdam."
It's an interesting premise. A man who was born in the early seventeenth century (or even a century before) is given eternal (or almost eternal--hang on) life in perpetual youth. He lives that long life in what was at that time New Amsterdam, but what become shortly thereafter (once the British took it from the Dutch) New York.
He sees the village evolve into a town, then into a city, then into the greatest city in the western world (if not the world itself), which is why it was attacked six and a half years ago by those to whom the western world is an anathema to their seventh-century beliefs. But I digress.
He becomes a homicide detective in that great city, and his knowledge of the past is a great aid in solving gotham crimes.
As I said, an interesting premise. I mean, given that CSI, Wherever, is one of the biggest hits on network television, how could any producer turn it down?
But there's a (supposedly) dark undercurrent to the story.
His eternal life is not viewed, by the story writers or himself, as a blessing. It is apparently a curse. He cannot end his life volitionally. The only way to put an end to this (apparent, and obvious, at least to the script writers) misery of endless youth and health is to find his true love.
Then he can die.
Just how perverse is that?
Let's parse it.
OK, so you've "suffered" through four centuries of youthful life, in perpetual health, in a world in which your chances of dying are nil, and you apparently don't even suffer any pain, though this is a world in which even dentistry is barbaric for at least the first three hundred years. And now, after having seen a little village purchased with beads on a little island at the mouth of a river, you've watched it become the most powerful city on the planet, you want to check out?
You're in the early twenty-first century, about to enter a world in which many may join you in your longevity, though without the "burden" if having to find their true love to end it.
Well, both boo, and hoo.
Here's the thing that makes this science fiction (or rather, speculative fiction).
In the real world, people who are offered the gift of living forever will also have the capability of ending that endless life, barring some sadistic fascist government that (like some perceptions of God) thinks that the individuals are the property of the state, and not of themselves. If they really get tired of life, they will check out, either legally and easily, or illegally and in a more difficult manner. But the will to die, if it is strong enough, will win out.
So to me, the real suspension of disbelief in this new series is not that a man could live for four hundred years, but rather, that he would have to live that long in misery.
Thus, it is more of a morality tale, based on unrealistic premises, than one based on anything resembling the true future.
I hope that no one decides that long life is a bad thing, and more importantly, that no one thinks that it is something that no one should have, based on this foolish, deathist premise.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 PMActually, it sounds like something I would do, if I had nothing better (or more entertaining) to do:
I just had a young lady, age 22, call me up from the Clinton campaign to see if I had voted yet. I said no, but it was raining, and I wasn't sure I was going to get out and vote. She wanted to know who I was supporting, Hillary or Obama? I said it was difficult to choose between the two of them, and asked for her opinion. I kept that poor girl on the line for about a half hour (work-wise, I was having a slow day). I had her jumping through hoops on NAFTA, health care, the war in Afghanistan, etc. No matter what we talked about, I would get squishy and head off in a different direction (that's my usual impersonation of a lib). I started expressing my concern that "the minority community" would feel betrayed if Obama doesn't get the nomination. "What will this do to future of the Party?"
But at least he's not as rough on telemarketers as this guy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:35 PMIt's rotten:
In the 60 pages of words, there's hardly a major new idea or an idea that departs significantly from the Democratic Party's agenda since the New Deal. It's all here: the activist government, the ambitious programs without reference to costs, the appeal to some people's sense of victimization. There is also one striking omission--a list of anything that Senator Obama has actually done in the course of his brief career to advance any of these goals.
The point is that there is nothing here to back up a candidacy that is based on bringing the nation together to effect change. It's a rehash of the same policies and programs that the Democratic Left has been pushing--largely without success--for the last 40 years. For some people, as least, the era of big government is not over.
I continue to be amazed at the willful self delusion on the part of the Democrats that either of their candidates are electable.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:36 AMOver at Reason, the sad tale of a free-loader wannabe:
The group was now "out of food, hadn't slept in days and were really cold," and decided, in a grubby version of Dunkirk, to abandon the mission and head back to England. Boyles is disappointed-but not deterred. He is, the BBC reports, planning "to walk around the coast of Britain instead, learning French as he goes, so he can try again next year." At which point the cycle begins anew, when, upon reaching Baden-Baden, the poor lad will realize that he should have also studied German.
As Wilde said in another context, one would have to have a heart of stone to read this and not laugh out loud.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 AMBill Gray is predicting global cooling within the next decade. And he's willing to put money on it.
Of course, as he notes, at his age, he may not be around to find out whether or not he won the bet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:14 AMJim Manzi has some thoughts on conservatism, libertarianism, and subsidiarity.
His emphasis on federalism, despite his conservatism, was the biggest thing that I liked about Fred Thompson.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:33 AMIowahawk provides a glimpse of Hillary!'s future in the restaurant business.
Describe Incident(s) (be specific, including time)
At initial clock-in at 3:55 4/21/08, Sharon says Hillary refused to change into uniform skirt, which she said was demeaning, unflattering to legs. Hillary agreed to wear skirt only after lengthy argument between Sharon and Hillary's attorneys. After numeorous complaints from customers, Hillary allowed to wear pants.On 4/22/08, Sharon arrived for dinner shift, found restaurant unstaffed. Entire crew was in breakroom, where they said Hillary forced them to attend something called "Sausage Pricing Taskforce."
Disciplinary Action:
Verbal reprimand; ordered new pantsuit uniform from District 6 Supply (size 18 short)
It gets better, naturally.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 AMIt's not a new subject, but Lileks muses on what's happened to Hollywood (and popular culture in general):
...imagine a story conference for the Beowulf movie: you know, I see modern parallels here - not surprising, given the timelessness of the epic. But the Mead Hall is civilization itself, an outpost constructed against the elements, and Grendel is the raging force that hates the song they sing-Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:00 AM
"They hate us for our singing!" Knowing chuckles around the table.No seriously, he does hate them for their singing. That's the point.
He hates what they've built, what they've done, how they live their lives.
"Maybe he has reason. That's the interesting angle. What drives Grendel?"
Yes, you're right. You're absolutely right. No one's ever taken the side of the demon in the entire history of literature, especially the last 40 years. By all means, let us craft an elaborate backstory for the guy who breaks down the door and chews the heads of the townsfolk, that we may better understand how we came to this point.
Selena Zito writes that all of the remaining presidential candidates are Scots-Irish.
Really? This is the first I'd heard that Hillary! was of Scots-Irish descent. I'd always assumed that she was from Puritan stock. That's the way she's always acted. And Obama is obviously, at best, only half Scots-Irish.
Zito doesn't seem to quite get the concept, either:
How can there be such scant understanding of a 30 million-strong ethnic group that has produced so many leaders and swung most elections?
Perhaps because political academics and pollsters parse the Scottish half off with the WASP vote and define the Irish-Catholic half as blue-collar Democrats. They are neither.
There is no "Irish-Catholic half" of the Scots-Irish. Scots-Irish aren't Irish at all. Neither are they Scottish. They were mostly Anglo-Saxon, not Celtic. They were also a violent people with an honor culture, mercenaries from the border area between England and Scotland. As the article notes, they were sent by the English to colonize Ulster, to get them out of Britain after the war between England and Scotland was settled and they had no more need for them. The ones too violent for Ulster were shipped off to America, so they're a double distillation of the most violent culture that the British Isles produced. After they fought (mostly for the South) in the Civil War, many of them headed out west.
People who think that America is too violent blame it on the proliferation of guns. But they confuse cause and effect. We have a lot of guns because we have a lot of Scots-Irish (aka rednecks). But it comes in pretty handy during war time.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:29 AMSome thoughts on the electorate from Victor Davis Hanson. He also has some more news about Al Qaeda in Iraq for Barack Obama.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:47 AMCharlotte Allen is embarrassed to be a woman. She gets the math wrong here, though:
Women really are worse drivers than men, for example. A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men's 5.1, even though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women.
Since the statistic is on a per-mile basis, the fact that men drive more miles a year is irrelevant. So the disparity--5.1 versus 5.7--is actually quite small, and perhaps within the statistical error.
Of course, the thing that statistics like this don't reveal is how many accidents they cause, unbeknownst to them, because they are oblivious to their surroundings. I'm always bemused by someone who I know to be a terrible driver bragging about the fact that they've never had an accident. Not to imply that men don't do this as well, of course.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:05 AMWith all the hue and cry about Korans in toilets in Guantanamo, where are all the staunch defenders of the Geneva Conventions now?
The terrorists are operating within civilian areas, many times with the actual assistance of these civilians, and more often than not with their tacit approval. Brace yourselves for the palestinian propaganda offensive going into overdrive, including stories about civilian deaths, many of which may not be true.
Here's another point:
We are lectured a great deal about the importance of democratizing the Middle East as, somehow, a strategy to defeat terrorism. I do not want to reargue this issue or make too much (again) of the fact that popular elections have thus far succeeded in empowering terrorists.
My question for the moment is this: Does this democratization ever entail any responsibility? The Palestinian "civilians" were given a choice in 2006, and they chose to elect Hamas -- a choice that was overwhelming in Gaza, where the terror organization -- having ousted the more "moderate" terror-mongers from Fatah -- now rules. If the civilians, eyes wide open, opt to be led by a terrorist organization whose chief calling card is its pledge to destroy Israel (a sentiment shared by a large majority of the "civilian" population), how upset are we supposed to get when the said civilians get caught in the cross-fire that is provoked by the savages they elected?
I have always thought that one of the aims of the Israeli pullout of Gaza was to demonstrate that the Palestinians are incapable of forming a functioning state, and of having someone accountable when Israel is attacked. If that was the goal, it seems to have succeeded. Hamas has declared war (or actually, Hamas has never not been in a state of war with Israel, since the destruction of Israel is one of its primary purposes), and now it will have to accept the consequences.
Hamas is blatantly violating just about every one of the Geneva Conventions, I suspect, but I fearlessly predict that only Israel will be charged with "war crimes." We know that the world will claim that the death of every innocent civilian in Gaza, among whom these war criminals hide, will be Israel's fault. No one, after all, can ever violate the Geneva Conventions except for the US and Israel, even when they don't.
Hmmmm...I wonder what the ICRC has to say about this?
[wandering over and reading]
The most recent release related to the subject is from Thursday, in which it simply tells both sides to "use restraint" against killing civilians. It says nothing about military operations among civilians in Gaza, or indeed anything specific at all, about anyone's behavior. I thought that they were supposed to be the defenders and upholders of the Conventions? Why can they not denounce this?
[Update a little while later]
I just reread the release at the ICRC site, and I just can't get over it. Let's just unpack this one graf:
Numerous rockets have been fired at the Israeli towns of Ashkelon and Sderot, hitting civilian areas and landing inside a hospital compound. At the same time, the Israel Defense Forces have carried out several air strikes inside the Gaza Strip. On both sides, there have been civilian fatalities and injuries.
Really?
"...rockets have been fired, and 'at the same time' the IDF have carried out several air strikes." Surely they don't mean literally "at the same time"? As though both Israel and Hamas decided to bomb babies, just for the hell of it?
All right, no doubt by "the same time," they are simply expressing an equivalence between them, not literally saying that the events were simultaneous. Of course, the reality is that first the rockets were fired, with the deliberate intent of killing Israeli civilians to the maximum degree possible, given the crude aiming capability of the rockets, which was followed, afterward by air strikes from Israel whose purpose was to take out the facilities that were launching the rockets in order to prevent further rocket attacks.
This moral equivalence, with no mention whatsoever of the daily, ongoing war crimes by Hamas, is simply nauseating. The ICRC may have moral standing in the world, but it has none with me.
[Update on Sunday afternoon]
A good point in comments. The release isn't even neutral. "Rockets were fired" (passive voice--who knows who fired them? Maybe they fired themselves?) versus the active and specific "IDF carried out air strikes."
[Update a little later]
Here it comes. The Saudis (who else?) are accusing Israel of war crimes. And not just any war crimes, no. Nazi war crimes.
And a bad word for the state that is actually committing war crimes.
[Via LGF]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:02 PMSome thoughts from Jonah.
And I thought this bit, while not directly pertinent to the point, did seem pertinent to some recent discussion here.
The reaction from so many liberals to William F. Buckley's death is a good case in point. How many of them insist that even though Buckley recanted his earlier views on race that these views are all important and eternal when it comes to assessing the man? But the fact that the founding fathers of Progressivism and modern liberalism were chock-a-block with imperialists, racists, eugenicists, fascist-sympathizers and crypto-fascists is not only completely irrelevant but tediously old news? Am I alone in seeing a disconnect here?
No. No, you're not.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:50 PMIt would be a waste of money otherwise.
Hezbollah says that the US warship off the Lebanese coast is a theat. I wonder if the fact that it's the USS Cole is sending a subtle message as well?
[Update on Saturday]
The Saudis must think that something is up, too:
Future Television, privately owned by Saad Hariri who heads the majority anti-Syrian bloc in parliament, said Saudi Arabia had advised its nationals to leave Lebanon 'as soon as possible.'
Do they know something we don't?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:40 PMWell, despite this, I don't think so. I think that it's pretty settled English common law that the offspring of two citizens of a nation is a natural-born citizen of that nation, regardless of the location of birth, and particularly when it occurs on that nation's territory, even if not within its borders.
It would explain a lot, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:01 AMIs Obama demagoguing NAFTA just to win the nomination? Will he continue to do so in the general election, if he gets the nomination?
Well, at least I'm glad to see that he's not as bad on free trade as his campaign rhetoric suggests. But one wonders what other flowery things he's saying that he doesn't really mean.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:02 AMMickey thinks so (scroll down past the post about the administration's "virtual fence" fiasco):
If Hillary wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, that's what she's going to claim. It's not a bogus argument. Voters in late primaries have more information than voters in early primaries. Superdelegates should be able to take note. That's different from arguing that Hillary should be able to pull strings and get superdelegates even if she keeps losing.
I agree.
I think that there are some similarities between presidential primaries and the mythical national college football championship (particularly this year, when perceived front-runners kept losing each week). A loss early in the season is nowhere near as damaging as a late one, in terms of the polls. Given how arcane the primary system is, with different rules for every state, it does make sense that a later primary should count more than an early one, which is why Hillary! shouldn't be counted out yet (and won't be, if she has anything to say about it). Barring a disaster for her (huge losses in both Texas and Ohio on Tuesday), I expect her to fight all the way to Denver. And I'll love every minute of it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:05 AMThe US Navy is sending three warships to the eastern Mediterranean Sea in a show of strength during a period of tensions with Syria and political uncertainty in Lebanon.
It's hard to believe that Syria really wants another war, given how easily Israel penetrated their supposedly impenetrable Russian defenses last fall. I think that the message is that if Hezbollah wants to take on Israel again, they'd better do it alone.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:15 PMFrank J. has the man himself to explain.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:09 PMIn his previous submission to the people seven years earlier, Saddam got 99.89 per cent of the vote. And, given that the 0.11 per cent foolish enough to write in Ralph Nader were no doubt subsequently shoved into the industrial shredder, it seemed a safe bet that the old butcher would do even better this time round. Nonetheless, throughout the day, CNN kept up the Election Special excitement to the point where you half-expected a Gallup exit poll showing Saddam plummeting to 99.82 per cent, or Frank Luntz live with a focus group of Tikrit soccer moms who want more spending on health care and less on anthrax. Saddam "sought" re-election and happily found it, and, after the removal of his regime, survived in his spider-hole long enough to enjoy an increasing number of approving pieces in the Western press bemoaning the way the blundering neo-cons and their incompetent stooges among Iraq's democratic parties had destroyed a smoothly functioning dictatorship. From the London Spectator: "Things Were Better Under Saddam." Once Cuba begins the inevitably messy birth pangs of democracy, expect similar Castro nostalgia to the nth degree: Havana not as quaint as it used to be, full of ghastly American banks and fast-food outlets.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:53 PM
Rich Karlgaard thinks that's what's going on, and the cure for it is supply-side tax-rate cuts. He doesn't call them that, though--he makes the mistake of calling them "tax cuts," even though it's clear that he knows that's not what they necessarily are:
Conservatives generally avoid the class warfare talk, but they do fall into two other traps about supply side tax cuts. One trap is that tax cuts add to the federal deficit. There is no evidence of this. The evidence is either neutral or points the other way. Government tax receipts after supply side cuts have been enacted go up, not down.
I've kvetched about this before.
By definition, if revenues went up, it's not a tax "cut." It's a tax increase, achieved through lower rates but faster economic growth and an increase in GDP. Sloppy language like this is one of the things that makes it hard to sell the concept.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:38 PMOne can only shake one's head at the mindset of copy editors at the AP.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:25 AMIn what fantasyland does Obama think that this is a winning campaign plank during a war?
I see another 1972 coming up for the Dems.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 AMOr, rather, crazier. Jonah's Book
The racial (and sexual) internecine warfare within the Democrat Party continues.
It's going to get a lot uglier than this before it's over. And it's well deserved, by both sides of the identity-politics gang.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:00 PMWhile I'm not a conservative, and never have been, I came to appreciate William F. Buckley much more as I grew older and started reading National Review (though not consistently--I've never had a subscription) back in the Reagan years. An intellectual giant has passed.
The Corner is (not surprisingly) all WFB all the time right now.
[Update at 2:30 PM]
A tribute from Mario Cuomo:
I was privileged to know William Buckley for more than 20 years and was in fact his opponent in his last public debate.
He may not have been unique. But I have never encountered his match. He was a brilliant, gentle, charming philosopher, seer and advocate.William Buckley died ... but his complicated brilliance in thought and script will survive him for as long as words are read. And words are heard.
[Early evening update]
Bob Poole weighs in, with a libertarian perspective:
By creating National Review in 1955 as a serious, intellectually respectable conservative voice (challenging the New Deal consensus among thinking people), Buckley created space for the development of our movement. He kicked out the racists and conspiracy-mongers from conservatism and embraced Chicago and Austrian economists, introducing a new generation to Hayek, Mises, and Friedman. And thanks to the efforts of NR's Frank Meyer to promote a "fusion" between economic (free-market) conservatives and social conservatives, Buckley and National Review fostered the growth of a large enough conservative movement to nominate Goldwater for president and ultimately to elect Ronald Reagan.
In many ways, this is a loss for the conservative (and libertarian) movements even greater than that of Reagan. But due to his influence, which is immeasurable, he leaves behind many to pick up and carry the torch for freedom forward.
[Evening update]
Ed Kilgore has further thoughts:
Buckley once said he offered his frequent polemical enemy Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., a "plenary indulgence" for his errors after Schlesinger leaned over to him during a discussion of the despoilation of forests and whispered: "Better redwoods than deadwoods." And that's certainly how a lot of us on the Left feel about the legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr. (see progressive historian Rick Perlstein's tribute to WFB's decency and generosity at the Campaign for America's Future site). He made us laugh, and made us think, and above all, taught us the value of the English language as a deft and infinitely expressive instrument of persuasion. I'll miss him, and so should you.
It's a shame that I have to suffer pea-brained feces-flingers in my comments section on the occasion of his passing. That person will clearly never be able to use the English language as an expressive instrument of persuasion, infinitely or otherwise. It's sad that he's unable to realize how unpersuasive, and deserving of the contempt of all, that he is. It's equally sad that he has no sense whatever of shame, no matter how deserving.
[Update early Thursday morning]
The Washington Post says that Buckley will be missed. Well, not by certain scumbags in my comments section, of course. But who cares about them...?
[Update early morning on February 28th]
Here's a huge compendium of encomia from all points on the political spectrum. Sadly, the only unbonum words that I've seen have been expressed in my own comments section. But then, I don't deliberately go to the wacko leftists web sites.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:27 AM...has to be Keith Olbermann:
But you've got to love the staggering ignorance behind his continued insistence that fascists weren't socialists because they beat other socialists to death. Golly. How many socialists did Stalin kill? Pretty much all of the show trial victims weren't mere socialists but hardcore Communists. I guess Stalin was anti-Communist. Hitler's Night of the Long Knives involved the slaughter of Nazis, so I guess by Olbermann's logic Hitler was anti-Nazi. Most lefties can't stand Joe Lieberman, I guess they're anti-Democrat.
Heh.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:52 AMJust call Barack Mr. Potato Head:
So when Jamie Lynn Dixon looked down at the potato she noticed that staring back at her was the visage of a man. And not just any man.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 AM
"Is it Jesus?" Earl Sr. asked."No," replied his son. "Better. It's Obama."
Right off, three of the waitresses up and fainted at the mere mention of Obama's name.
The title of this post may be the Clintons' epitaph.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:43 PMBill Clinton had a Freudian slip while supposedly campaigning for his wife. "If you elect me..."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:50 PMObama doesn't want to be called a liberal. Even though his positions seem to be uniformly "liberal" (used here in the modern, statist sense, not the classical sense).
I recall another liberal presidential candidate who didn't want to be called a "liberal":
JIM LEHRER: Do you think he successfully painted Dukakis as a liberal?MS. STEELMAN: Oh, no, the beauty of last night was that he didn't have to paint at all. Dukakis clearly painted himself as a liberal. His responses were right down the liberal line, every one of them. That was the thing that most of us inside the Bush campaign found most remarkable is that he didn't even try to move to the center. George Bush, on the other hand, I think has shown himself as a very moderate candidate, a very conservative candidate at the same time, conservative on the issues where the American people believe the Reagan Administration has been successful, interest rates, inflation, economy, and moving forward on other issues where the American people clearly believe we need to have some answers like child care and others. And we think it was a very good debate because we didn't paint anything. There was no image making. Dukakis is a liberal and it showed. Bush is very much in the mainstream of American values and American opinion. And that showed.
It didn't work out very well for him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:33 AMIn the overzealous law enforcement department, a man was arrested for animal cruelty after yelling at a police dog.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:27 AMPhil Bowermaster has some thoughts:
See how deftly it's done? Stupid religious Americans, clever "heathen" Europeans. Unfortunately, in the context, this doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. Americans are opposed to stem cell research because we're ignorant religious bigots. Okay, sure. But we're opposed to nanotechnology for the same reasons? And GM foods?GM foods? Now wait a second...a lot of Europeans are opposed to GM foods. I bet they would even say it's on moral grounds! Yet somehow, they manage to pull that off without being either 1) religious or -- more importantly -- 2) stupid. Personally, I think being morally opposed to GM foods is kind of stupid, and being "morally" opposed to nanotechnology is idiotic. However, I don't see how American stupidity is dumber than European stupidity; one may be informed by religious belief, the other by a paranoid superstitious dread of scientific progress. Advantage: Europe? If you say so.
I just hope that Americans aren't stupid enough to fall for Obama, as the Democrats currently seem to be.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:04 AMAs for the NRA logo, it's a reminder of the happy days of FDR's attempts to revive the economy by pouring a bowl of alphabet soup over its face. The NRA, among other things, was intended to prevent the depredations of competition, and "allowed industry heads to collectively set minimum prices," as this rather scant wikipedia entry notes. (The same page relates the story of the tailor who was arrested for charging 35 cents to press a suit; the NRA rules specified the price at 40 cents. So he was arrested. Consider that the next time someone complains that liberty and civil rights have been eliminated in the last 7 years.)Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 AM
Spengler says that Obama hates America.
I don't know whether he does or not, but his wife's attitude is very troubling, and I don't think that he's going to be the next president. I think that the first (true) black (and woman) president is much more likely to be a Republican.
[Update a few minutes later]
Isn't it interesting that the American press doesn't seem interested in stories like this one? I guess that it's just another example of foreigners doing the jobs that Americans won't do.
This would be a gift to the Clinton campaign, if they were in a position to criticize people over land deals. You can bet that the McCain campaign will use it in the general, if Obama gets the nod.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 AMDan Walters writes that the Dems fear train-wreck scenarios.
And I'll keep the corn popping.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:32 PMMichael Kinsley has the best take so far on McCain and the New York Times:
I have come under some criticism for my criticism of the New York Times for its criticism of Sen. John McCain. Many readers of last week's New York Times article about McCain, including me, read that article as suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist. This is obviously a much more important question. To be absolutely clear: The Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair, although others, apparently including McCain himself, apparently felt that there was no such appearance.
Read all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:58 PMDriving, or walking? John Tierney stirs up a hornet's nest of vegans and other morally overrighteous high-horse riders (see comments). I mean, to question Ed Begley, Jr. Isn't that just the height of apostacy?
This reminds me of a piece that I've been thinking of writing about overall energy and fuel costs, including human fuel. With the ethanol boondoggle, we've gone back to the point at which we're using crops for transportation (something we largely left behind at the end of the nineteenth century) and we now have increasing prices in both food and fuel as they compete with each other for the same farmland. This isn't a good trend for the Third World (consider that one of the effects of the ethanol subsidies has been a dramatic increase in corn and tortilla costs in Mexico, making a poor country even more so).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:18 PMOver at Free Republic, "lowbridge" has been checking out what's going on with the candidates in Second Life.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:04 PMThe Clintons turned the Democratic party into a star vehicle and designated everyone else as extras. But their star quality was strictly comparative. They had industrial-strength audacity and a lot of luck: Bill jumped into the 1992 race when A-listers like Mario Cuomo were too cowed by expert advice that Bush Snr. was unbeatable. Clinton gambled, won the nomination and beat a weak opponent in a three-way race, with Ross Perot siphoning votes from the right. He got even luckier four years later. So did Hillary when she embarked on something patently absurd -- a First Lady running for a Senate seat in a state she's never lived in -- only to find Rudy Giuliani going into instant public meltdown. The SAS, Britain's special forces, have a motto: Who dares wins. The Clintons dared, and they won -- even as almost everyone else in their party lost: senators, congressmen, governors, state legislators. Even when they ran into a spot of intern trouble, sheer nerve saw them through. Almost anyone else would have slunk off in shame, but the Clintons understood that the checks and balances don't add up to much if you're determined not to go: As at that 2000 convention speech, they dared the Democrats not to cheer.
With hindsight, the oral sex was a master stroke. Bill Clinton likes to tell anyone who'll listen that he governed as an "Eisenhower Republican," which is kind of true -- NAFTA, welfare reform, etc. If you have to have a Democrat in the Oval Office, he was as good as it gets for Republicans -- if you don't mind the fact that he's a draft-dodging non-inhaling sex fiend. Republicans did mind, of course, which is why Dems rallied round out of boomer culture-war solidarity. But, if he hadn't been dropping his pants and appealing to so many of their social pathologies, his party wouldn't have been half so enthusiastic for another chorus of "I Like Ike."
Read it all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:07 PMHillary managed to keep her thesis under wraps throughout the Clinton presidency. Michelle Obama's is now apparently available for download. I'm sure that many will be commenting on it.
I have to say that I'm not sure that it's fair to judge her by this (though attempting to hide it somewhat increased the justification for why we might want to). Her recent words are bad enough in themselves, in my opinion.
[Update on Saturday morning]
Captain Ed has read the whole thing.
Again, what she thought and wrote as a college student is much less important (and perhaps not important at all) compared to what she says, writes and (to the limited degree we can ascertain it) thinks now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:44 PMScientists now have a plausible, and likely theory for what created the Burgess Shale:
By looking over hundreds of micro-thin slices of rock taken from the famous shales, the researchers have reconstructed the series of catastrophic underwater landslides of "mud-rich slurry" that killed tens of thousands of marine animals representing hundreds of species, then sealed them instantly - and enduringly - in a deep-sea tomb.The mass death was "not a nice way to go, perhaps, but a swift one - and one that guaranteed immortality (of a sort) for these strange creatures," said University of Leicester geochemist Sarah Gabbott, lead author of a study published in the U.K.-based Journal of the Geological Society.
I use the scare quote because that's the word used in the headline. This kind of language, I think, is (at least partly) what bothers people who continue to rebel against evolution, and science. It is a certainty of language (like "fact," rather than "theory") that they consider hubristic, and arrogant. After all, when Sherlock Holmes "solved" a case, it generally was the last word, case closed.
In this case, what the word means is that scientists have come up with a plausible explanation for an event for which they'd been struggling to come up with one for a long time, and it is sufficiently plausible that there are few scientists who argue against it, thus presenting a consensus. Does it mean that they have "proven" that this is what happened? No. As I've written many times, science is not about proving things--scientists leave that to the mathematicians. What scientists do (ideally) is to posit theories that are both reasonable and disprovable, yet remain undisproved.
There may be some other explanation for what happened up in what is now Yoho National Park that corresponds better to what really happened, but until someone comes up with one that makes more sense, or comes up with some inconvenient indisputable fact that knocks this one down, it (like evolution itself) is what most scientists, particularly the ones who study such things for a living, will believe.
And of course, I won't even get started on how upset some anti-science (and yes, that's what they are, even if they don't recognize it) types will get over the statement that one of the ancestors of humans is in that shale.
[Update a few minutes later]
Oh, the main point about which I put up this post. This is an excellent illustration of how rare are the circumstances in which we find the keys to our biological past. Those that demand that we cannot know the history of life until every creature has died on the body of its parents, perfectly preserved, are being unreasonable. To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, we do science with the (rare) evidence that we have, not the evidence we'd like to have. There will always be many huge holes in the fabric of the evidence, barring the development of a time machine to the past. We simply do the best we can with what we have, and put together theories that best conform to it. To say that God (or whoever) did it isn't science--it's just a cop out. And that is true completely independently from the existence (or not) of God (or whoever).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:11 PMA platoon is the smallest unit deployed outside of [special forces] operations. Sending 24 men to one theater and 15 to another would destroy unit cohesion, leave one group without an officer and be a nightmare for the next higher unit's (the company) command, control and communication structure. You should take this story with a grain of salt -- that grain being the size of the moon.
"Ready to be CiC."
Riiiigggghhhht.
Of course, if Hillary wasn't equally clueless, she would have called him on it--she missed a huge opportunity to embarrass him. But then, it took a couple years for Bill Clinton to learn how to throw a proper salute (IIRC). And of course, she'd have probably loved to use the story herself.
[Update in late afternoon]
Despite comments, my post title stands. The fact remains that whatever the actual story, Obama told a tale in the debate last night that was implausible on its face, for reasons that many pointed out. The fact that there was an actual story that was somewhat like it (it was a Lieutenant at the time, they were split up before they were deployed, they didn't actually have to capture Taliban for their weapons, etc.) doesn't change the fact that as actually related in the debate, it was clueless about the way the military works. Someone with actual military experience would have realized this, and worded it differently (and more accurately).
And the point was never that the Obama campaign fabricated the story. It was that they didn't recognize one that seemed implausible, because they didn't have the wherewithal to recognize it as such, and it fit their political agenda (Bush is the Worst President Ever) as was, ignoring the fact that there's never been a time when troops had everything they needed, when they needed it, under any president.
Ace has more thoughts, and continues to call bovine excrement.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:11 AMRalph Nader may be jumping into the race
I'm going to have to go over to Costco to pick up a fifty-gallon barrel of Orville Redenbachers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:33 AMIs Hillary avoiding process servers?
Doesn't the question answer itself?
Hillary Clinton was dismissed as a co-defendant in the case at a hearing in April, 2007 because of democrat Appellate Court Judges' support of her belated effort to seek the protection of California's Anti-SLAPP law. At that hearing, trial court Judge Aurelio Munoz admonished David Kendall by telling him unequivocally that any effort to deny Senator Clinton's testimony as a witness in the case would be "Dead on Arrival". To emphasize his point, the Judge followed his statement by saying "Did you hear that Mr Kendall?"
In typical Clintonian hubris and contempt for the judicial process, Hillary had her diminutive counsel with the over inflated ego state to Paul's lawyer, Colette Wilson, that none of the three lawyers of record representing Hillary in the case would accept a witness subpoena for her deposition on her behalf.
It doesn't seem like it should be all that hard. Just show up at a campaign event, ask her for an autograph, and hand it to her. Then announce that she's been served. Be sure to have a confederate with a videocam, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:03 AMAlan K. Henderson has found the reason for McCain's support of amnesty for aliens.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 AMGizmodo has a video and the story on the satellite hit.
Oh, and so much for the naysayers who said it wouldn't work. Wishful thinking, one suspects.
They've been poo-pooing this since the eighties, going back to Tsipis and Garwin in SciAm. A good example of Clarke's First Law, about elderly and distinguished scientists.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AMZimbabwe's inflation rate is 100,000%:
In Africa's fastest shrinking economy, per capita gross domestic product in Zimbabwe fell from about $200 in 1996 to about $9 a head last year.
What a disaster Mugabe has been. It shows how easy it is to destroy a once-vibrant country (Rhodesia was the bread basket of southern Africa) with insane government policies. And the sad thing is that his fellow African autocrats refuse to denounce him. I'll bet that if there was a free and fair election there today, the people would vote Ian Smith back in.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:42 AMYou know, I think that someone wrote a book
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
They can have my cynicism and uninvolvedness when they pry it from my cold dead soul that needs healing.
[Update a few minutes later]
Further thoughts from Mr. Steyn:
I wouldn't mind if it was a high-minded call to a self-reliant citizenry, but you get the feeling all it boils down to is a demand that we take our place and twirl our batons in the 300-million cheerleading squad for Barack! The Barack Obama Show starring Barack Obama. The "shed your cynicism" bit sounds like a scene from one of those dystopian movies where you get slid into the Cynishedder as a bitterly sardonic old crank in a pork-pie hat and after 30 seconds bathed in the rays of the Obamatron you emerge in a turquoise 1970s catsuit with a glassy-eyed stare.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:24 AM
This post by Matthew Yglesias would be a lot more interesting if he explained why it was "advantage, Obama."
What is Yglesias' position?
It kicked off a lively discussion in the comments section, in which he doesn't participate (so we still don't really know what he thinks), but in which sometime commenter here, Bill White, and Ferris Valyn, do. Ferris has further thoughts, and links.
It also roused a spirited defense of government manned spaceflight programs (at least I assume that's what he's defending) by Chris Bowers. I find Bowers' argument a little (well, OK, a lot) incoherent:
...the space program is about as good an example of stretching and expanding our capabilities as a nation and as a species that one can name. Deciding to not test the limits of our engineering and intellectual potential, and to not explore our surroundings because we have more important things to do, strikes me as a profoundly dangerous path to follow. That is the path of stagnation, and even regression, as a people. Further, it is a terribly utilitarian approach to life, concluding that only bread matters, and that roses are worthless. Personally, I don't want to live that way, and I don't think many other people want to live that way, either. Everyone, no matter their financial situation, has aspects of their life that expand beyond mere bread and into roses: art, religion, family, travel, and scholarship are only a few examples of this. To think that we shouldn't have government funded roses in our lives is to posit a far more dreary nation than the one in which I want to live.
Well, I think that a nation in which one must count on the government to provide either bread or roses a dreary one. Last time I checked, there was plenty of bread, of all varieties, on the shelves of the local grocery, and I suspect that if the government weren't involved, it would be even cheaper. I also bought two dozen roses last Thursday at the same place--there was no shortage, and they didn't seem to have a stamp that said they were manufactured by the government. If he means rose gardens, there are plenty of those, too, both government and private. And I sure don't want the government involved in family or religion, so I guess I just don't see what his point is.
I do agree with this, though:
Space exploration is not an issue with clear partisan divisions. Some conservatives view it as a wasteful government expenditure that is better handled through private enterprise, while some progressives view it through a utilitarian lens in that it does not provide much direct benefit to humanity.
Unfortunately, this is quite true. In fact, it's one of the reasons that our space policy itself is so incoherent. The people who promote it don't generally do so from any kind of ideological base. It's either a bread-and-butter local issue to provide jobs, or it's a romantic urge that crosses ideological boundaries. And that's why the arguments (in both Bowers' and Yglesias' comments section) are never ending, and never resolved. Heinlein once wrote that man is not a rational animal; rather, he is a rationalizing animal. Most arguments for a government space program are actually rationalizations for something that the arguer wants to do for emotional reasons, which is why so many of them are so bad. I say this as a space enthusiast myself, but one who recognizes that it is fundamentally an emotional, even religious urge.
I'm not going to beat up on Obama over this (though I'm not going to vote for him, either). Here's what he reportedly said:
...the next president needs to have "a practical sense of what investments deliver the most scientific and technological spinoffs -- and not just assume that human space exploration, actually sending bodies into space, is always the best investment."
Contrary to what some reading-challenged people write (see the February 16th, 2:22 PM comment), this doesn't mean that he "hates manned spaceflight." Those words, as far as they go, are entirely reasonable, and Hillary was pandering for votes in Houston. The rub lies in how one makes the determination of what is "the best investment."
Unfortunately, in order to evaluate an investment, one must decide what is valuable. That's where all these discussions founder, because everyone comes to them with their own assumptions about goals, values, costs, etc. But these assumptions are never explicitly stated, or agreed on, so people tend to talk past each other. Until we have a top-down discussion of space, starting with goals, and then working down to means of implementing them, people will continue to argue about what the government should be doing, and how much they should be spending on it.
This is why getting a private space program, a dynamist
I wouldn't want to be the person to deliver this news to her. The Teamsters are endorsing Obama.
At some point, a person who cared about their party and country would withdraw and help the nominee position for the general election. But Hillary! isn't that person. She's been dreaming of being president since she was very young, and this is her only realistic shot--it's now or never. I still expect her to fight it all the way to Denver, barring a complete electoral collapse in two weeks.
And don't be shocked if, even with a united party (it won't be), Obama turns out to be another George McGovern, or Walter Mondale, in terms of electoral votes. I don't think that the donks have any notion of how much they're screwing themselves in nominating either of them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:23 AMAlan Boyle has a comprehensive write up of the "debate" between the Clinton and Obama science advisors at the AAAS meeting. I can't say that I'm thrilled about either of their proposed policies. But I don't expect much better from McCain, particularly given that he's drunk deeply of the global warming koolaid.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 AMLileks has some thoughts on Obama, and his acolytes:
There is tremendous faith in his ability to just wave a love-wand and get things done. I remember the same zeitgeist afoot in the land in 1992; change was the mantra then, too. Odd how things turn out - I'd be happier with Hillary as President than Obama, simply because she seems a bit more seasoned and realistic. And I do find it interesting that people who have decried the shallow, theatrical, emotion-based nature of contemporary politics are now so effusive in their praise for someone's ability to move crowds. Perhaps they don't mind a fellow on a white horse if he promises to nationalize the stables.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:09 AM
The Communist News Network (aka CNN) has issued instructions to its reporters as to how to report the Great Fidel's stepping down from power, after only fifty years. And they call Fox News biased?
Nick Gillespie has un-Christian thoughts. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:04 PMThere will always be more sheep than wolves. There will also be a lot more sheep than sheep dogs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:48 PMThere's a massive snowstorm in Greece. You know, that balmy, Mediterranean country? Did Al Gore visit recently?
I don't know who said it first, but when it's hot, it's climate, but when it's cold, it's just...you know...weather.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:51 PMSome encomia, from the few (but unfortunately not few enough) remaining other commie stooges and dictators. And don't you have this sense from a lot of the press coverage that managing to brutally remain in power for half a century is some sort of laudable achievement?
(And yes, lest the pedants leave comments, I know that the plural is encomiums, but I just like encomia better, having studied Latin.)
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:13 PMThe question almost answers itself--the press is in love with him. Glenn thinks that he has, but as his reader points out, it's only been by the left. Interestingly, when the Clinton campaign attempted to go at him obliquely from the right, tainting his electability by talking about his race or past drug use, it was viewed with opprobrium. But in fact there are a lot of unanswered questions about him, and now that he's looking like the likely nominee, the true vetting on the right is starting. For instance, was he a red-diaper baby? If so, should we care? Is to ask the question (and yes, I am asking the question) intrinsically dirty politics? Is it "McCarthyism"?
But here's a more interesting issue that is just starting to surface. Michelle Obama hasn't gotten a lot of attention, and particularly negative attention, to date. But that's starting to change as well, with her apparent inability to come up with anything about which to take pride in America in the past quarter century. They're supposed to be the first "post-racial" candidates. But are they?
...the evidence is plain that Barack and Michelle Obama both belong to that subset of educated black Americans to whom their own blackness is of obsessive interest, or at very least was up through their college years. Barack famously wrote "A Story of Race and Inheritance", about his own long struggles with his racial identity.
Now here's Michelle Obama in the current Newsweek cover story. She graduated from Princeton in 1985 with a major in sociology and a minor in African-American Studies. Sociology, huh? At first sight that's encouraging -- I mean, at least she didn't spend her entire college career obsessing about her blackness. Then Newsweek tells us the title of her senior sociology thesis: "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." (I have this mental image of her thesis adviser saying: "Michelle, isn't there some way we can squeeze another 'black' into that title?")
Again, does it matter? At least in her case?
A little history is in order here. Once upon a time, a man ran for president. He had a law degree. So did his wife. Both from Yale, to be specific. In fact, the wife was lauded by an adoring press to be one of the most brilliant women in America, if not the world. But there were things about her that were not only not reported, but actively kept hidden (and we're not just talking about the Rose law firm billing records). One of them was her college thesis, which only recently became available for the public's perusal. Why was it secreted away for the eight years of the presidency? And why should we have cared?
Well, one of the themes of that presidential race was that the superwoman would be a "co-president," that the fortunate nation would be getting "two for the price of one."
So now enter Barack Obama, a charismatic young man with a message of, if not from, Hope, with a law degree of his own and a wife with a law degree as well (both from Harvard). Now he hasn't been campaigning as a two-for-one special, but it's very clear that his wife strongly influences him in his campaign, and there's no reason to think that she wouldn't do the same as commander-in-chief. So, even setting aside the issue of whether we want someone who values "feeling" over "thinking," it seems reasonable to wonder about her political views and methods as well, particularly if we're going to get a "co-president" by stealth.
And as we wonder, what do we discover? That (assuming the report is correct) her college thesis has been embargoed until election day. Like Jonah, I wonder why as well. What are they trying to hide? Something that can't simply be laughed off as the naivety of youth?
I also wonder what other similarities to another aspiring first couple there are.
[Update a little later]
I hadn't read that entire WSJ piece, but deeper down in it, we find this:
In her senior thesis in 1985, Mrs. Obama wrote that her college experience "made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' " than ever before, adding, "I will always be Black first and a student second" on campus. At Harvard Law, Mrs. Obama, involved in the Black Law Students Association, pushed hard to improve the low numbers of African-American faculty and students."We got into big debates on the condition of black folks in America," says Harvard classmate Verna Williams. "She's got a temper."
I guess someone read it before it was locked away.
Does she remain this aggrieved? Based on her very recent statement that her husband's presidential campaign is the only thing praiseworthy about America, one suspects so.
[Update an hour or so later]
How do they do that? I only posted this an hour or so ago, and it's already in the top ten of a Google search for "michele obama princetonn thesis." And they didn't even spell "Princeton" or "Michelle" right.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Someone just did a search on it spelled correctly (after reading this post?), and it was only in the top thirty, not the top ten.
Weird.
[Late afternoon update]
Per the commenter who answered my rhetorical questions above about "red diaper" babies. I agree. So does Andrew Stuttaford over at NRO. It will probably be a counterproductive avenue of attack.
But here's something interesting in regards as to whether or not Obama is an empty suit. One of the questions was how effective his speeches are without a teleprompter. Now the issue is how effective his speeches are without his ability to plagiarize others' speeches:
Speaking at a Town Hall in Texas, and the Deval things appears to already be having an effect. He was reading straight from a speech in front of him on the lectern, instead of the famous sweeping oratory, complete with hand gestures and eye contact. He stumbled a lot, and the ideas were awkwardly phrased. He was talking about the mortgage crisis, which I'll admit, I don't fully understand myself, but he clearly didn't understand it either. I don't know if he's tired, or if he feels he can't use his normal stump speeches for the time being, or if it was the format, or what, but it was weird for sure. I've grown used to the other Obama, the confident, consummate Obama.
Apparently, if true, he's not only lost without his teleprompter--he's been using a lot of stock phrases as part of his magician's patter that he's no longer able to use, and his speeches are suffering for it.
[Mid-evening update]
The Anchoress is thinking along the same lines as I am--is Michelle Obama the new Hillary?
[Another update a few minutes later]
Is David Axelrod the man behind Obama's curtain?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:44 AMI would love to see this happen:
The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee [sic]. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate.
That would make it a walk-in for McCain. In fact, it would be deliciously ironic, because it was exactly that kind of situation (with nutty billionaire Perot) that allowed Bill Clinton to slip into the White House in the first place. If Bush had gotten all the votes that Republicans normally get, Bill wouldn't have had a chance. So the justice would be poetic if Hillary's nomination was torpedoed by an independent run that pulled a lot of the Democrat vote.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's likely. Even if Hillary does win (or steal) the nomination, much as I'd like to see it, I don't believe that Mike Bloomberg is so politically stupid as to think that he can run as a "centrist" on an Obama ticket. And "centrist" (nannyism and all) has always seemed to me what he fancies himself as. But an Obama campaign, whether Democrat or Independent, isn't going to pull centrists, particularly once his voting record gets highlighted. It would split the Democrats, not the Republicans or "independents," and it would probably not only give McCain the presidency, but possibly give the Republicans the Congress back.
If Bloomberg really does something like this, it can only be because he deludes himself that McCain is a "right winger" and that there is plenty of room to his left. As I said, I'd love to see it, but I'd have to see a lot more evidence than "the word on the street" from Armstrong Williams.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:06 AMAn interesting comment from this post:
Me and my family used to be the biggest fans of Bill Clinton. Everyone in my community can't stand to see Bill on TV anymore. I'm not sure if its his older age or maybe the lack of sleep lately, but I truly believe his lost his mind. He makes no sense anymore, cares about nothing other than attempting to get his wife elected, plucks words right out of the air while stating nothing, and now even goes against the voices of mass voters...
Bill Clinton is really not he same person I USED to respect and admire!
Sorry, he's exactly the same person you used to (foolishly and myopically) respect and admire. He's the same person he's been his entire political career, going all the way back to the seventies in Arkansas. Anyone who has followed his career, or read non-hagiographic biographies of him knows this. The only thing that's changed is that you've found a new empty vessel into which to pour your emotional political longings, and he's attacked it, so now you see the Bill Clinton that the rest of us have seen all along.
As I've said many times, I don't now, and never have "hated" Bill (or Hillary Rodham) Clinton. I find them far too trivial and unworthy subjects on which to expend such an intense and miserable emotion. I think that I'm in fact far more clinically objective about them than most Democrats have ever seemed to be able to be. The problem is not the "Clinton haters" (most of whom were merely pointing out the reality), but the far too many people who have loved him, far beyond reason, for decades. That was the source of his power.
And now that the scales have fallen from the eyes of many like the commenter above, the end may be very ugly, particularly if they are perceived to have stolen the nomination from Obama (something that they are surely plotting as I write this). Denver may make Chicago in 1968 look like a Sunday-school picnic.
They've never cared about the Democrat Party, other than as a convenient vehicle for the conveyance of their unlimited and insatiable ambition and lust for power, and they've been a disaster for it ever since they hit the national scene. They cost it the Congress for the first time in four decades, and the party couldn't hold on to the White House at the end of their term, at least partly because of the stench of it in the minds of the voters in 2000. Having Bill Clinton campaign for a Democrat has generally been the kiss of death, but because of this irrational love of them, they've managed to keep on doing it.
When it comes to the Clintons, it's always about them, and they always come first, and the national Democrats are finally starting to realize it, sixteen years later. If they'd been smart, and listened to Arkansas Democrats at the time, they could have had the much earlier epiphany, and spared their party a lot of corruption and embarrassment.
Oh, when the end comes, it won't be as bad as the Ceausescus (this is America, after all), but it will certainly be as final. There will be no more comeback kids. If he's still around in a couple decades, I suspect that Bill Clinton will be continuously enraged and deeply envious of the legacy of George W. Bush.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:06 PMWell, probably not quite this desperate (be sure to read the PS). At least not yet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:59 PMI frankly don't get all the Obamamania. But then, I never got all of the talk about Bill Clinton's charisma, either. And to be fair, I never understood what the big deal was with Ronald Reagan, the great communicator. I guess I'm more into substance than style. I'm more interested in what people say than in how they say it.
Anyway, given the nature of his career, it's certainly a legitimate point to question his experience and qualifications as president (ignoring the minimal constitutional requirements of native born and thirty-five years old). His speeches remind me of Gertrude Stein's comment about Oakland--there's no there there.
So is there more to it than his speeches? Well, he's apparently left no paper trail to discern his views on much of anything:
A simple question: Does anyone know whether Obama, while serving on the Harvard Law Review from 1989-91, published anything? The law students on the Review all have the right to publish at least one piece (typically they publish at least their third-year papers, which they have to write anyway), and many publish at least two pieces. It would seem surprising if Obama published nothing at all in the very Review over which, he has so often boasted, he presided as President.If Obama published NOTHING, that would tend to reinforce the contemporaneous impressions of his fellow editors (at least those a year behind him) that while "likeable enough" (to borrow a phrase), he was basically lazy in carrying out his duties. See my earlier comments here and here. It would be interesting if he was so lazy he didn't publish anything during the two years he served on the Review -- not even a short case comment or book review.
(Apparently, judged by the objective results of his work (later scholarly citations to the volume which he oversaw), Obama was the worst president of the Harvard Law Review in the past 20 years -- there was a huge drop in the citations to the volume he produced compared to the years just before, and just after, he served as president. See here.
In his recent interview on "60 Minutes" (see here, about 2:50 into the video), Obama conceded that other than his Review presidency he has no executive experience -- that the Review is the only thing he's ever run, setting aside his own senate office and his campaign. Analyzing his job performance on the Review thus seems like a legitimate, indeed important, task.)
(Follow my link to follow the commenter's links)
So, his only executive experience is running a law school magazine, and not with any apparently distinguishment.
Here's something else disturbing. He hasn't performed that well in debates. His primary accomplishment, and talent, seems to be to make vaporous but inspiring (to some) speeches, that make (supposedly) grown men swoon and get funny feelings up their legs (are you sure that wasn't something running down your leg, Chrissie?). And when he doesn't have a teleprompter, apparently even his speeches aren't all that great:
...the liberal commentators have gushed their praise nearly every time Obama has opened his mouth before a Teleprompter the past few monthsIt was thus interesting to see Obama climb to the stage at Virginia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on Saturday night. As he strode to the podium, Obama clutched in his hands a pile of 3 by 5 index cards. The index cards meant only one thing--no Teleprompter.
Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. He looked down at his obviously copious notes every few seconds throughout the speech. Unlike the typical Obama oration where the words flow with unparalleled fluidity, he stumbled over his phrasing repeatedly.
The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. All the Obama dramatis personae that we've come to know so well were there--the hapless family that had to put a "for sale" sign on its front lawn, the factory forced to shutter its doors and, of course, the mother who declares bankruptcy because "she cannot pay her child's medical bills."
The tone was also vintage Obama. The prepared text reached out to all Americans, including (gasp!) Republicans. It also evidenced Obama's signature lack of anger. While his colleagues have happily demagogued complex issues and demonized the Bush administration, Obama always has taken pains to strike a loftier tone.
But Saturday night's stem-winder turned out quite differently from the typical Obama speech. With no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion. He had to rely on notes. And his memory. And he improvised.
I'd suggest reading the whole thing.
So, does he even write the speeches? If so, then he must be more aware at the time he's writing them how important the tone is. It seems to me, though, if there's a big difference in tone between a read speech and an extemporaneous one, that someone else, who better understands the nature of his campaign and appeal, is writing them. And when you take away the magic words, the magic candidate disappears as well, and his true voice emerges.
If this is the case, then we are on the brink of taking a cipher, with no notable accomplishments in running anything, who is persuasive and compelling as a speaker only when reading others' words, and putting him in charge of the armed forces and other government institutions of the most powerful nation in the history of mankind.
Is this really a good idea?
As I've said before, the Dems grossly overestimate their chances of regaining the White House this year. Both of their remaining candidates are seriously flawed, in different ways. If you look at the last few decades of presidential elections, the Democrats have won resoundingly only once--in 1964, when the Republicans ran someone perceived to not only be, but someone who was proud to be, an extremist. Since then, the few times the Dems have won have been in very close races. Jimmy Carter might have lost in 1976 if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, and made the foolish faux pas about Poland in the second debate. Bill Clinton couldn't have gotten into the White House without the help of Ross Perot. People forget that he only got 43% of the vote in 1992. The only reason he won was because George Bush only got 39%. Even in 1996, he couldn't muster a majority--even in beating Bob Dole, he only got 49+%.
Maybe that long jinx is about to be broken, but it sure doesn't look to me like they have the candidates to do it this year.
[Late afternoon update]
Is Obama a liberal fascist?
I think the most obvious place to start is whether Obama is promoting something like a political religion. The messianic nature of Obama's campaign has been noted by many for a long time now. He often sounds like he's reviving the social gospel. There's even a website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?"Many of the tropes of a political religion/liberal fascism are evident. He exalts unity as it's own reward. His talk of starting new and starting over often sounds like more than merely "turning the page" on the Bush-Clinton years. It sounds a bit like starting at Year Zero.
But what I find most intriguing is his rhetoric of destiny and "choseness." He often makes it sound like he has been selected by forces of providence or God or simply history for this moment. He is, in Oprah's words, "The One." But even more interesting, he tells voters they are the ones. "This is it," Obama proclaimed on Super Tuesday. "We are the ones we've been waiting for, we are the change that we seek." That's pretty oracular stuff.
Well, there's little doubt that Hillary is.
[Early evening update]
Leon Wieseltier has some related thoughts:
...into this unirenic environment strides Obama, pledging to extract us promptly from Iraq and to negotiate with our enemies. What is the role of a conciliator in an unconciliating world? You might think that in such conditions he is even more of an historical necessity-but why would you think that all that stands between the world and peace is one man? George W. Bush was not single-handedly responsible for getting us into our strategic mess and Barack Obama will not be single-handedly responsible for getting us out of it. There are autonomous countries and cultures out there. The turbulence that I have described is not caused by misunderstandings. It is caused by the interests of powers and the beliefs of peoples. Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, Pyongyang, Islamabad, Gaza City, Khartoum, Caracas-does Obama really believe that he has something to propose to these ruthless regimes that they have not already considered? Does he plan to move them, to organize them, to show them change they can believe in? With what trick of empathy, what euphoria, does he hope to join the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds in Iraq? Yes, he made a "muscular" speech in Chicago last spring; but I have been pondering his remarks about foreign policy in the ensuing campaign and I do not detect the hardness I seek, the disabused tone that the present world warrants. My problem is not with "day one": nobody is perfectly prepared for the White House, though the memory of Bill Clinton's "learning curve" is still vivid, which in Bosnia and Rwanda cost more than a million lives. My problem is that Obama's declarations in matters of foreign policy and national security have a certain homeopathic quality. He seems averse to the hurtful, expensive, traditional, unedifying stuff.
Indeed.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:32 AMThe inevitability about Hillary Clinton seems to be becoming an inevitability of her defeat in the primaries. Ron Fournier has a piece about her abandonment by her former allies/cronies/sycophants as Obama continues to build momentum:
"If (Barack) Obama continues to win .... the whole raison d'etre for her campaign falls apart and we'll see people running from her campaign likes rats on a ship," said Democratic strategist Jim Duffy, who is not aligned with either campaign.
Actually, I think that a better analogy would be a sinking ship abandoning a pair of rats.
But I think that he underestimates both the power and the ruthlessness of the Clintons. Perhaps after losing enough primaries, she'll bow out, but if so, I'll be very surprised. She's been working for this for decades, and I don't think that she'll give up without a very vicious fight, including a convention fight to seat the Michigan and Florida delagates, and a lot of behind-the-scenes pressure. In addition, we don't know how many FBI files they actually had access to back in the nineties, or whose they were, or what was in them. It's certainly conceivable that this is a weapon that they can hold over the head of the super delegates.
And even if she ends up not getting the nomination, I suspect that the Democrats will still have an ugly election in the fall. There are many ways that Billary can sabotage Obama's run without it being obvious that that's their intent (just as in fact Bill may have sabotaged Hillary's primary campaign, perhaps out of fear of being shown up by his wife as president). After all, if he wins, it makes it a lot harder for her to make another attempt in 2012. No matter who wins the nomination, I won't be surprised, nor will I be displeased, to see the civil war within the Democrat Party (that was started by the Clintons) continue.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:15 AM...than a blogge by Sir Iowahawke on that ArchBisheoppe Of Canterbeerry:
25 Sayeth the pilgryms to Bishop Rowan,26 "Father, we do not like howe thynges are goin'.
27 You know we are as Lefte as thee,
28 But of layte have beyn chaunced to see
29 From Edinburgh to London-towne
30 The Musslemans in burnoose gowne
31 Who beat theyr ownselfs with theyr knyves
32 Than goon home and beat theyr wyves
33 And slaye theyr daughtyrs in honour killlynge
34 Howe do we stoppe the bloode fromme spillynge?"
35 The Bishop sipped upon hys tea
36 And sayed, "an open mind must we
37 Keep, for know thee well the Mussel-man
38 Has hys own laws for hys own clan
39 So question not hys Muslim reason
40 And presaerve ye well social cohesion."
Reade, thee, the reste.
It cood be only the product of an undhimmified English major.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 PMI know that no one knows or cares any more, with that abomination known as "Presidents Day" (we're supposed to honor Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce along with Washington and Lincoln?), but today is Lincoln's birthday, something that we actually observed when I was a kid.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:44 AMThey just don't realize it. And they don't realize they're losing, though many, particularly in the UK, are starting to.
Spengler, on Europe in the Dar Al-Harb.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:50 AMThere's an interesting post on military aircraft procurement over at Winds of Change today (interesting if you're interested in such things, that is).
Norm Augustine, former head of Martin Marietta (now part of Lockheed Martin) wrote an amusing (and insightful) book back in the eighties called "Augustine's Laws" (it's now on its sixth edition
One point made in comments over there is that the reason these things cost so much per unit (I was shocked to read that the Raptor is a third of a billion dollars per unit) is because it includes amortization of the development and fixed production costs--if they had decided to purchase the originally planned seven hundred, the price per aircraft would be much lower. The problem is that, though we get more bang for the buck, we never want to spend that many bucks.
We did the same thing with the Shuttle. It was about a five-billion-dollar development program, in seventies dollars, but when the fleet size was cut from seven to five during Carter-Mondale (Mondale actually wanted to completely kill the program) as a cost saving, the price per orbiter went up a good bit. It would have probably only cost an additional billion or so to get the two extra vehicles, and we'd be in a lot better shape now (all other events since being equal) with a remaining fleet of five, instead of three. Having had two more might have made us more willing to continue to press forward even in the face of the losses, because even if the president hadn't decided to end the program next year, we'd probably have to do it anyway, particularly if we lost one more, and had only two left. In fact, one of the few smart moves made on the program in the eighties was to order "structural spares" (things like the titanium keel and spar) before the production was shut down and tooling dismantled. That allowed us to build Endeavor after Challenger, something that would not have been possible otherwise, and in the absence of that new vehicle, we'd have been down to two after the Columbia loss.
We're not just penny-wise pound-foolish in production. The Shuttle has a similar problem in ops. If we'd had more vehicles, and made the investment in facilities for them, we could have doubled the flight rate, without that much of an increase in annual fixed costs (perhaps a billion more a year). Which would have been a better deal: four flights a year for three billion a year (a typical number), resulting in a cost of three quarters of a billion per flight, or eight flights a year for four billion, with a cost of half a billion per flight?
Neither number is attractive, but the taxpayer would have gotten a lot more for the money if the purse strings had been loosened on the program. It might have made it a lot more sustainable.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:53 AMSome intelligence agencies are starting to think that maybe bin Laden hasn't been alive for a long time:
Questions about Bin Laden are being raised by intelligence officials who say that without a specific time mark with a photo of Bin Laden, his presence cannot be confirmed and the most recent statements could have been put together from older audio.
Yes, and that has been true since Tora Bora. Haven't these people ever wondered, or speculated why bin Laden, who was second only to Senator Schumer when it came to being a camera hog, all of a sudden switched from video to audio about six years ago? Even if he said things that seemed to indicate knowledge of recent events, that could have been done by splicing and manipulating an audio tape, or finding someone to imitate his voice. Maybe they've been using voice prints, but I don't know how reliable they really are. I do know that it's a lot harder to fake a video, and when I consider the fact that we've heard only audios, and not seen a new video (at least one that can be shown to be from a post-2002 period) I have long thought that he's been pushing up poppies since then.
Of course, the other reason that I've long thought that he's dead is that our so-called intelligence agencies--the same ones that subverted our pressure on Iran last fall with their "intelligence" estimate that they're not building a bomb--have continued to tell me that he's alive. To me, the question is not whether or not he's alive, but why so many in the so-called intelligence community have been so determined to continue to attempt to convince us that he is for the past six years.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:23 PMThe misspelling is deliberate:
Perhaps some members of Congress had been fooled by CAIR's deception. But now they have no excuse. Now Sen. Barbara Mikulski, who saluted CAIR's "important work," and Sen. Paul Sarbanes, who applauded "CAIR's mission," know better.The criminal briefing should also disabuse Rep. John Conyers, who's trumpeted CAIR's "long and distinguished history." Rep. John Dingell, who said "my office door is always open" to CAIR, now has an obligation to slam it shut.
No red-blooded American lawmaker wants to do anything that would facilitate the support of terrorists, not even Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who's gushed "CAIR has much to be proud of."
And shame on the (much fewer) Republicans on the list as well.
Moderate American Muslims need to form and promote an organization that truly speaks for them, and not for radicals and terrorism. But if they do, will the Democrats pay any attention, or will they remain enthralled with CAIR?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AMI don't generally agree with Paul Krugman (to put it mildly) and in fact I don't agree with much in this piece, either, except for one thing:
I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.
But the real reason I put this post up is to note the lie that will not die (mostly because the media liars, or at least deranged, such as Krugman, who may actually believe it, continue to promulgate it).
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons' part, yet the "scandal" became a symbol of the Clinton administration's alleged corruption.
There was abundant evidence of wrongdoing found, and it can be found in Bob Ray's report. The fact that he chose not to indict was not because there wasn't "any" evidence. It was because he didn't think that he had enough (and indeed, he may have thought that no amount would have been enough) to successfully prosecute and convict them, given the fact that it would only take a single Clinton cultist to hang a jury, as happened in the Susan MacDougal case.
Just to clarify the record. I won't bother to fisk the rest of Krugman's Clinton-defending nonsense today.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AMAl Qaeda in Mesopotamia is very demoralized:
In the Anbar document, the author describes an al-Qaida in crisis, with citizens growing weary of militants' presence and foreign fighters too eager to participate in suicide missions rather than continuing to fight, said Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a U.S. military spokesman."We lost cities and afterward, villages ... We find ourselves in a wasteland desert," Smith quoted the document as saying.
The memo cites militants' increasing difficulty in moving around and transporting weapons and suicide belts because of better equipped Iraqi police and more watchful citizens, Smith said.
The author of the diary seized near Balad wrote that he was once in charge of 600 fighters, but only 20 were left "after the tribes changed course"_ a reference to how many Sunni tribesmen have switched sides to fight alongside the Americans, Smith said.
No thanks to Harry or Nancy. This is a real problem for the press. There may not be enough foreign fighters left to create the new Tet that they're dying to report.
[Update early afternoon]
The WaPo has more detailed account. Apparently the diary was from the October time period.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:29 AMGeorge Bush says that John McCain is a true conservative. This, from the guy who said "when people hurt, the government has to move," and who teamed up with (and got rolled by) Ted Kennedy to dramatically expand the federal government's role in education.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:11 AMMatthew Franck liked Jonah's book
Edmund Burke in 1775, in what seems to be the first defense of partisanship in Western political thinking, argued that party loyalty and striving for victory over one's opponents is a good thing, so long as loyalty to one's own did not lead each party to attempt the "proscription" of the other. My second and last question prompted by Jonah's Liberal Fascism is, how real is the prospect that one of our parties may try to proscribe the other. And which is more likely to try it?
It is a standard charge of left-wingers who claim to see "fascists" on the right that conservatives want to crack down on dissent and stifle freedom of political speech. But if, as Jonah powerfully argues, our fascists are liberals and many of our liberals are fascists--while fascism is much more weakly present (if at all) on the right--then it should not be surprising that we find the left to be the maker of speech codes, hate crimes laws, political correctness, indoctrination programs in all levels of education, campaign finance "reform," and so on. Can anyone recall any similar campaigns by conservatives for the repression of dissent in the last several generations? (And no, efforts to revive now-lost prohibitions on obscenity and pornography don't count.) Proscription of its opponents' views--a classic great-party gambit by those who wish to unmake and remake regime-question settlements--seems to be the agenda of the American left, not of the right.
It's not just fascism that is redefined by the book, but the words "left" and "right" as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:34 AMTest your knowledge of collectivists.
It's just as much of a challenge as trying to distinguish between passages of the Unibomber's manifesto and Earth In The Balance
...what is it?
Toward the end of his speech, Dr. Suzuki said that "we can no longer tolerate what's going on in Ottawa and Edmonton" and then encouraged attendees to hold politicians to a greater green standard."What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act," said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
[Afternoon update]
Apparently, such is the threat from global warming that we'll have to sacrifice democracy on its altar:
[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.
Well, that's a relief.
Actually, there's a bunch of good stuff like this over at Jonah's Liberal Fascism blog today. Just keep a scrollin.' Including Joshua Lederberg's thoughts on letting scientists run things.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:12 AMHere's a very interesting thought for McCain to partially neutralize Obama's appeal: Michael Steele. I heard him speak a year ago at the Conservative Summit in DC. He's a very impressive guy. It's a shame he didn't win that Senate race in '06. He came pretty close, for a Republican in Maryland.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 AMMickey Kaus is on the job:
McCain said he had "respect" for opponents of his immigration plan (which he didn't renounce) "for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law." Not like those others who base their opposition on bigoted yahoo nativism! McCain's semi-conciliatory words aren't what you say when you really respect your opposition--then you say "I know we have honest disagreements." Not "I know most of you aren't really racists." Even his suckup betrayed how he really feels. Which I suspect is sneering contempt!
He doesn't quite have that faking sincerity thing down.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:11 AMT. M. Lutas has some observations on the concern among the military for the modern political class in the west"
...we've always had the best military toys. But that technological line ended with the invention of the nuclear weapon. Once you can destroy the planet, where else is there to go in terms of outright destructiveness? We're trying to continue to improve by enhancing the precision of our violence but in the face of a force that wants terror, imprecision is a feature, not a bug.
Read the whole thing.
The danger we are confronting now is that mass destruction is coming into the hands of individuals, and it's going to continue to get worse. A policy of "non-interventionism" is not just futile, but suicidal, in such a world.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:12 PMLooks like Romney is pulling out, with a speech at CPAC today. It's probably looking pretty futile to him about now, and he probably doesn't want to squander any more of the family fortune, at least this cycle. I think that the party is going to have to come to terms with the fact that McCain is the candidate, and at least be thankful that it is settled this early, while the Dems may go fighting all the way to Denver.
I also wonder if part of Romney's thinking is that, if he gets out now, he can forestall a deal between McCain and Huckabee to put the latter on the ticket? If so, he is doing an immense favor to the Republican party and conservative movement. I would find it hard enough to vote for McCain. I'd find it impossible to vote for McCain-Huckabee. And I suspect that there are a lot of other people who would feel the same way. I think that McCain's only real hope of shoring up the base at this point is to balance the ticket ideologically (and to make the appropriate conciliatory gestures at CPAC today). I think that a Fred Thompson in the number two spot would be very appealing to a lot of people, and he'd tear up whoever the Dems have as veep candidate in a debate.
[Update at 1:30 PM EST]
It's official:
"This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters... many of you right here in this room... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country," Romney said.
No word about preempting Huckabee but, then, there's no reason to say anything about it. Let's just hope that it happens.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:27 AMLileks has some tart thoughts on those who believe that America sux:
You can picture the satisfied little grins on the authors' faces; you can imagine the whole tableau--the computer (which most people in the world will never touch, let alone use, let alone own) the TV in the corner connected to a network that has channels catering to every taste, the iPod stocked with music hoovered up free of charge without consequence, the fridge stocked with food--the light comes on when you open the door, too, unless it's burned out, and then you go to the store and get another one; they always have another one. The soft bed, the coffee machine, the well-fed pet, the vast panoply of free information and unfettered opinion flowing 24/7 from the internet. You can drink alcohol without being sentenced to death; you can be a girl alone in a room with a man without earning a public stoning; you can stand up in a room and argue for the candidate of your choice without being arrested; you stand in a society that allows for astonishing amounts of freedom, comfort and opportunity. But.
But. Someone somewhere is a practicing Baptist and someone somewhere else is eating a hamburger larger than you'd prefer, and other people are watching cars go around a track at high speed. As your skinny unhappy friend said the other night: people are just too fat and happy. He bites his nails and plays WoW six hours a night, but he has a point. It doesn't matter that these fascists-in-fetal-form never quite seem to accomplish anything; it's not like they drove the gay Teletubbies off the air or had Tony Kushner drawn and quartered in the public square. But they're preventing something. Something wonderful. And they're driving large cars to Wal-Mart and putting 18-roll packs of Charmin in the back and they have three kids. Earth has withstood a lot in its four billion years, but it cannot withstand them. And even if it does, who wants to live in a world where these people don't care that they're being mocked by small, underfunded theaters in honest, gritty neighborhoods? (Which are being gentrified by upwardly-mobile poseurs who have decided it's a great place to live because the theater is good and the restaurants are cheap. F*#*$ing interlopers. But we'll deal with them later.)
Hey, "Murkan Boob"? You're probably too stupid to realize it, but he's talking to you.
I'm tempted, actually, to institute a new comment policy. Anyone who leaves brainless comments anonymously using a "clever" (which is to say, stupid) nickname, off topic, will have posts deleted and the poster will be banned. I'm all for an interesting discussion, but these drive-by cowardly graffiti artists get very tiresome.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:24 AMWillie Nelson comes out as a Truther.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:18 PMJohn Kerry says that yesterday's tornadoes were caused by global warming.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:51 PMJerry Zeifman reminisces about Watergate:
After President Nixon's resignation a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel-as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said, "That came from Yale." I said, "You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, "Yes." His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition.At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.
And now she stands a good chance of becoming the next president.
I never fail to be amazed at how blind people can be to the corruption of these people. Read the whole thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:00 AM...how does a man of proclaimed "principle"--a proclamation bolstered by those who know him best and by a 16-year voting record--go so wrong on such consequential issues? Skeptics heap scorn on the notion that McCain has any principles. "His principle is that he should codify any prejudice he happens to have," scoffs Ed Crane, president of the Cato Institute.
McCain's friends, foes, and biography suggest a more complicated, but no less politically worrisome, explanation. For John McCain, principle is fundamentally about honor--personal honor: about keeping his word, about doing what is right and doing it well. "Principle" combines honesty, stubbornness, and loyalty. This notion of principle is very different from adhering to a consistent political philosophy. It explains McCain's popular appeal, especially in contrast to the exceptionally dishonorable Clinton administration, but also accounts for the distrust, even contempt, he inspires among the ideologically committed.
As Virginia notes, it's also worth reading Matt's book
And as Robert Bidinotto says, we don't need another Teddy Roosevelt--another "liberal fascist."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:25 AMChris Wallace on Fox News asked Huckabee how his campaign differed from others. His response was that he listened to "the little people."
How did that differ from an answer from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Or any Democrat candidate?
Some thoughts from Arnold Kling.
Someone has to be the hegemon. The goal should be to ensure that it is one that maximizes individual freedom and productivity.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:17 AMJonah's book
[Tuesday morning update]
Jonah says that "progressives" should be careful what they wish for, and understand their history a little better:
Today's progressives still share many of the core assumptions of the progressives of yore. It may be gauche to talk about patriotism too much in liberal circles, but what is Barack Obama's obsession with unity other than patriotism by another name? Indeed, he champions unity for its own sake, as a good in and of itself. But unity can be quite amoral. Mobs and gangs are dangerous because of their unblinking unity.Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, often insists that we must move "beyond" ideology, labels, partisanship, etc. The sentiment is a direct echo of the Pragmatists who felt that dogma needed to be jettisoned to give social planners a free hand. Of course, then as now, the "beyond ideology" refrain is itself an ideological position favoring whatever state intervention social planners prefer.
A key point of the book, that many on the left miss, is that Hitler gave fascism a bad name. Up until all the racism and the genocide and the war mongering, they were all on board with the Nazi project. When mindless and ignorant leftists mistakenly call classical liberals "fascists," they're not calling them as bad a name as they seem to believe. Which is a good thing, because it is their own beliefs that are truly fascistic.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:02 PMJohn McCain is no Ronald Reagan.
Someone once said that there are two political parties--the Evil Party (Dems), and the Stupid Party (GOP). Occasionally they will band together and do something both evil and stupid. This is called bi-partisanship.
And in many such instances, it goes by the name of "McCain-SomeDemocrat." As Levin notes, there would have been no "Reagan-Feingold," or "Reagan-Kennedy" bills on restricting free speech or abandoning the borders. And that is why, for many Republicans (or at least for many conservatives), they will need extra strength nose plugs to pull the lever for him this fall, if they can muster the will to do it at all.
[Update on Sunday night, during half time]
Bill Quick lays out the bill of particulars against John McCain.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 AMThomas Jefferson and the other major party candidates for the election of 1800. Washington didn't approve of political parties. At least according to my read of the census definition:
A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa....
My father, Professor Robert Dinkin, the presidential election historian thinks that Clinton will likely emerge the Democratic Party nominee due to her organization and ties to prominent Democratic Party leaders. This despite having recently voted for Obama in the Florida so-called--delegateless--primary. Here is where they stand as of your page load in trading for who will be nominee (security of winner pays $1) on Intrade:
Clinton:
Obama:
My pick for the Presidential race, Giuliani, has bowed out. I like his tax policies. Not that I thought that he could get them adopted, just that I thought that he could achieve what Bush achieved--slightly lower marginal and average taxes for 10 more years. Before you write me off as an elitist who doesn't like graduated income taxes (which I don't deny--but bear with me), I agree with Laffer on this point. Taxes are above the monopoly rate. This is expected since there are four (or more) toll takers: Federal income taxes, state income or sales taxes, county sales and/or property taxes, and city sales, income and/or property taxes. When you add up the various employer and employee taxes (federal only) on receiving the last dollar (ignoring the sales and capital gains taxes associated with saving or spending it), they add up in the top bracket to 35% federal + 2.9% Medicare including employer match. That is, if I get $100 in gross in the top tax bracket, I'll have to pay $36.45 in tax and my employer will have to pay $1.45. If we frame the percentage like sales tax, I am taking home $63.55 and together, my employer and I are paying $37.90. That is a equivalent to a 59.6% sales tax on everything I buy. In other words, to get a dollar, we have to pay 59.6 cents to the government. I assert that this portion of total taxation alone is above the monopoly rate. Tax cutters would have a very easy time getting tax rates cut (and, perhaps counter intuitively, taxes increased) if they could re-frame the tax code to show tax as a percentage of net income at the margin instead of gross.
Do we really despise envy so much that we would rather have the rich indulge in additional leisure than provide the maximum amount to the Treasury?
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 07:16 PMGlobal warming will lead to an increase in zombie attacks.
I blame George Bush.
Fortunately, some of us have been prepared for a while.
[Mid-afternoon update]
Saved by the sun:
The Canadian Space Agency's radio telescope has been reporting Flux Density Values so low they will mean a mini ice age if they continue.Like the number of sunspots, the Flux Density Values reflect the Sun's magnetic activity, which affects the rate at which the Sun radiates energy and warmth. CSA project director Ken Tapping calls the radio telescope that supplies NASA and the rest of the world with daily values of the Sun's magnetic activity a "stethoscope on the Sun." In this case, however, it is the "doctor" whose health is directly affected by the readings.
This is because when the magnetic activity is low, the Sun is dimmer, and puts out less radiant warmth. If the Sun goes into dim mode, as it has in the past, the Earth gets much colder.
Take that, undead!
Zombies and vampires. Is there any problem the sun can't fix?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:10 AMArmed Liberal writes about the anti-American left (if that's not redundant), and its inability to see anything through other an anti-western fun-house prism.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:18 AMAndrew Ferguson has an interesting history of presidential campaigning and the relatively recent (and to me, bizarre) phenomenon of the need for "fire in the belly."
I don't have to wait until spring to miss Fred Thomson. His absence was quite obvious, even glaring, in the last two debates.
Thompson didn't give off the usual political vibe: the gnawing need to please, the craving for the public's love. A few voters and journalists found this refreshing, many more found it insulting.
I think that this is one of the reasons that reporters and pundits often acted as though he didn't exist--they were trying to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy, and unfortunately, they succeeded. But I think that there were other reasons that the press didn't like Fred Thompson. For one thing, unlike John McCain, he was a true straight talker, and it wasn't the kind of centrist "liberal" "straight talk" that they liked to hear.
But I also think that they felt their livelihoods and stature threatened by him. After all, the conventional wisdom had become that the campaigns now had to start two years before the election, and if that's the case, it gives journalists a lot more to cover for a longer period of time. By his late entry, Fred stood to potentially upset that applecart. If he could enter late, and still win, it would not only show the pundits who proclaimed the need for early campaigning to be laughably wrong, but it would also make people think twice about wasting time and money campaigning for a year before New Hampshire in the next cycle, and then what would the political reporters have to do?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:54 AMNancy Cartwright gave ten megabucks to the Church of Scientology. P. T. Barnum had nothing on L. Ron Hubbard.
Like cocaine, this is life's way of telling you that you make too damn much money.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:27 AMSay something like this in a debate:
Will McCain, who finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and who lost five jets, return competence to the White House?
Heh. It's funny 'cuz it's true.
Can't see Romney doing it, though.
[Update in the afternoon]
Was that a cheap shot? Probably. Certainly the aircraft accident on the deck wasn't McCain's fault, nor was getting shot down when he ended up in the Hanoi Hilton. But as I note in comments, he's not a very nice guy, by all accounts, and it's the kind of thing that he'd do himself (after all, he insists on continuing to lie about Romney's "timetable" record) so it would be poetic justice if such a thing caused him to reveal his true nature.
[Another update about 3 PM EST]
This seems relevant: Mark Levin:
Let's get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain's record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate's record? That's par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney's ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain's comments about Romney.
Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a "manager for profit" and someone who has "laid-off" people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his "millions" or "fortune" to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney"s character doesn't let him cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain's does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?
As I said, better to get this out there now, rather than wait until the nominee has been chosen.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:15 AMA Clinton aide in a fund-raising scandal? Who would have ever imagined such a thing?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:08 AMJust out of curiosity, I decided to see if the domain writeinfred.com was taken. It was, and it was up before the Florida primary:
...we urge all conservatives to VOTE FOR FRED DALTON THOMPSON during your state's primpary [sic]. And if he isn't on the ballot, WRITE-IN FRED THOMPSON. It is imperative that we sent a message to our party and our nation, that it is time to return to ideals of our founders and our constitution. Its [sic] time we send a message to our party and the media that this should once again become a serious process among professionals who are serious about the task at hand and not just looking for power and prestige. Its [sic] time we return to citizen servants who seek to further the cause of democracy and not just their self interests.
They could use an editor, but I'm certainly sympathetic to the cause.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:34 AMBut not surprising.
I'm listening to Rudy Giuliani endorse John McCain. One RINO (or at least CINO) endorsing another. This makes the route uphill for Mitt (who I'm not thrilled with either, but at least he's not McCain) even steeper.
I think that Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave, that this is happening at his presidential library.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:18 PMLook who's thinking about getting into the race. Hey, I voted for him in 2000.
I hope that Bloomberg gets in, too. With Hillary!/Obama, McCain, Nader and Bloomberg in the race, the so-called liberal vote would be split four ways, perhaps leaving an opening for an actual conservative to run on an independent ticket.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:52 AMEuropeans are coming to the conclusion that Islam is dangerous:
"An overwhelming majority of the surveyed populations in Europe believe greater interaction between Islam and the West is a threat." Backbench Tory MP David Davies told the Sunday Express: "I am not surprised by these findings. People are fed up with multiculturalism and being told they have to give up their way of life."
"Most people in Britain expect anyone who comes here to be willing to learn our language and fit in with us."Mr Davies, who serves on the Commons Home Affairs Committee, added: "People do get annoyed when they see millions spent on translating documents and legal aid being given to people fighting for the right to wear a head-to-toe covering at school."
...But leading Muslim academic Haleh Afshar, of York University, blamed media "hysteria" for the findings. She said: "There is an absence of trust towards Muslims, but to my mind that is very much driven by an uninformed media."
An "uninformed media."
Yes. That must be it.
It couldn't have anything to do with riots over cartoons, or bombings in the tube.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:23 AMThat well-known right winger, Alexander Cockburn, confesses his sins on the climate change religion.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 AMI don't know where Iowahawk finds these things. I barely remember Makaniak myself.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:26 AMFrom Patricia:
I voted in the middle of the day, when lines were short at my polling location, in the assembly room of a neighborhood Catholic church. At the beginning of the sidewalk to the polling place, I was met by a woman who asked me if I wanted to participate in an exit poll. Being the suspicious person that I am, I declined, noting that she was sitting close to people with Obama and Clinton campaign signs. Not accepting my decline, she asked again, telling me in a serious tone that my participation would allow them to assure that the voting machines were working correctly. I laughed, and declined again and continued walking toward the polling place passing by the exit-poll table set up in the shade of the building, manned by three or four nicely dressed men. I was met just outside the door to the polling place by an official in a vest who asked to see my voter registration card, which I showed him. After looking at the card, he directed me to the table right inside the door.Once inside, I could see that other tables were set up for other precincts voting at this location. I went to my precinct table right inside the door as directed and found about five people in the line in front of me. The table was set up with signs designating alphabetical groupings and women in chairs on the other side of the table to look up voter names in printouts of registered voters matching the alphabetical groupings. Apparently, all the people in front of me had last names in the same alphabetical grouping as mine. There were no people in front of the other alphabetical groupings. And they were all problem voters. None of them had voter registration cards, or knew what precinct they were from, but nevertheless ended up at my precinct table. One by one their names were looked up in the one copy of S-Z and not found. After a few irrelevant questions from the women behind the tables: Are you married? Did your husband vote here? Did you move? Are you sure you are registered? These generally provoked irritated responses from them. After wasting time thusly, they were then sent to another table where a man with a computer would help them.
I finally got to the front of the line, but since the S-Z printout was in use, I had to wait a bit longer for my name to be found in it. Finally, my name was found in the S-Z printout. I signed on the appropriate line in the printout and, after the woman behind the desk scrutinized my sloppy signature for a match with my registration card, she gave me my ballot and sent me to the voting booths. Immediately available for my use were at least ten booths. Since the process of signing in created such a delay, getting a ballot and the amount of time to vote was short, due to only a couple of items on the ballot, and no lines had formed to use them. The bottleneck was clearly the sign-in process, not the number of machines.
Voting took me only a few seconds on the new touch-screen voting machine. I returned my ballot and received my "I Voted" stamp. Pleased with myself for exercising my voting rights in this wonderful democracy, wadding up my stamp, I walked past the exit-poll table where several poor schmucks who had agreed to take the exit poll were filling out paperwork, surrounded by three or four men ready to answer questions, or ask them, I really don't know.
Ah, democracy, how confusing for those who don't know what precinct they live in, or bother to change their address on their voter registration, or read their mail when they get their card, or believe campaign workers who assure them that voting machines are working correctly.
Remember, this is from the heart of "hanging chad country."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:20 PMSuch is the state of my disgust with the Bush administration that, it being my birthday, I probably won't bother to listen to his State of the Union speech tonight. But I recall another SOTU speech, exactly five years ago (on a previous birthday), that contained the sixteen words that the media continues to tell the Big Lie about, in their continuing attempt to maintain the conventional wisdom that it was wrong to remove Saddam Hussein.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:47 PMHere's another news item out of Britain this week: A new version of The Three Little Pigs was turned down for some "excellence in education" award on the grounds that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues" and, as a result, the judges "had concerns for the Asian community" — ie, Muslims. Non-Muslim Asians — Hindus and Buddhists — have no "concerns" about anthropomorphized pigs.This is now a recurring theme in British life. A while back, it was a local government council telling workers not to have knick-knacks on their desks representing Winnie-the-Pooh's porcine sidekick, Piglet. As Martin Niemöller famously said, first they came for Piglet and I did not speak out because I was not a Disney character and, if I was, I'm more of an Eeyore. So then they came for the Three Little Pigs, and Babe, and by the time I realized my country had turned into a 24/7 Looney Tunes it was too late, because there was no Porky Pig to stammer "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" and bring the nightmare to an end.
Just for the record, it's true that Muslims, like Jews, are not partial to bacon and sausages. But the Koran has nothing to say about cartoon pigs. Likewise, it is silent on the matter of whether one can name a teddy bear after Mohammed. What all these stories have in common is the excessive deference to Islam. If the Three Little Pigs are verboten when Muslims do not yet comprise ten per cent of the British population, what else will be on the blacklist by the time they're, say, 20 per cent?
And some related thoughts from Roger Kimball.
I am at the point where I think that we should say that no more mosques will be built in this country with Saudi money until there are churches and synagagues in Riyadh.
Charles Martel rolls in his grave.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:29 PMThe New York chapter of NOW is slamming Ted Kennedy. It is either going to be a very ugly campaign, or a very ugly convention in Denver. Maybe both.
I just wish that he'd offered Hillary! a ride home in his car.
[Update late afternoon]
I am loving this. Al "Race Baiter" Sharpton is telling the first black president to shut up."
Wish he'd said that sixteen years ago.
I'm going to have to order a couple more barrels of popcorn just to get me through to the convention in Denver.
[Update at 5 PM EST]
Read the comments at this post by Megan McCardle. One example:
I believe it is closer to a null set than Hillary is counting on. I am a southern, middleaged, working-class white guy who has voted for the Democrat in every election since I turned 18 and will not vote for Sen Clinton regardless of who her oponent is. She would hurt the Democratic party almost as much as Bush has hurt the GOP. I will not be a party to it.Posted by Larry Geater | January 24, 2008 8:57 AM
I'm a Dem and will never vote for Hillary in the general after the last few weeks. What she's doing to cling to power is simply nauseating.
I will be abstaining, or I will take a good look at the republican candidate to see if his character is better then hers.
I also think she'll find that she poisoned her chance, as I and many others Dems would have voted for her if she wasn't trying to tear the party apart.
She's going to have a hard time come next Nov
Posted by Donkey | January 24, 2008 9:00 AM
When we were over in Naples this weekend, someone told us that he hates George Bush, but that he's seriously thinking about voting Republican this year for the first time.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:46 AMOf either party.
"I fully support the president's Vision for Space Exploration. I believe that we should expand our presence beyond low earth orbit, and establish a human civilization into the solar system, going to the moon, the asteroids, Mars and points beyond, which is what the vision was in its essence. However, I'm extremely disappointed in the implementation of it to date by NASA, and if elected, I pledge to revisit the Aldridge Report, which required that the vision be fully integrated with the commercial sector and that it support national security goals, and restructure it in order to do so."
One could obviously expand on it in detail, but that's what's missing from the debate, in my opinion.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:13 AMMccain-Feingold essentially outlaws political discussion during campaigns by private groups (yes, really, and the Supreme Court had no problem with that), but it does have (fortunately) some limitations. It only applies to criticizing people actually running for office. It says nothing about ads attacking candidate's spice (spouses?). This could have delicious consequences this fall, unless John and Russ rush back to the Hill to amend the bill.
I can already see the 527s lining up to run ads against the Big He, reminding the country of everything that went on back in the nineties that they never heard about, or had forgotten, with the word CLINTON featured prominently, in big letters. Hillary's going to wish that she hadn't taken her husband's name. But of course, at the time, she did so for political reasons.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:08 AM[Welcome, Instapundit readers. My blog is undergoing refurbishment. You can comment, but they'll be moderated, and expect your submission to time out. Don't redo it. Just let it time out and then back up to the post with a couple clicks.]
This debate is only three or four miles from the house, but like the rest of you (if you're watching at all) I'm watching it on the tube. I can't get away from the NBC crew completely, but no reason I have to be in the same room with them. Plus, the booze is cheaper here, there's no competition for the bandwidth or power with the rest of the press, and I can wear my pajamas.
So, in a few minutes, they're off!
The announcer mispronounces "Boca Raton." It's not like baton, it's a Spanish word (it means "rat"). It's pronounced with a long "o." Good thing he's not after any local votes...
First question is to Romney, a softball right over the plate, about whether or not he agrees with the President's economic plan. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about, as would be expected from a businessman. Focusing on capital expenditures, etc. Not sure how it will sell to the general public, though. Wants to expand FHA and loosen requirements to help out homeowners.
Will McCain support the part of the economic stimulus plan that doesn't make tax cuts permanent? Yes he will, though disappointed. Wants to not only make cuts permanent, but also to cut corporate income taxes. Worried that pork will be added. Happy to allow faster expensing of capital investments.
McCain is definitely trying to sound like a conservative on tax and fiscal policy.
Giuliani supports package, but doesn't think it goes far enough. Wants a Dryer package that would be the biggest tax cut in American history. Wants to make America competitive with the rest of the world, reduce taxing, suing, etc. Major reductions in taxes, spending, regulations, specifically SOX. Doesn't want London to take over as world's financial capital from New York.
Now McCain is defending his economic knowledge, and citing Reagan, Feldstein, Kemp, etc. Still attempting to sound conservative economically.
Huckabee being asked if he trusts Romney as a tax cutter. Evading the issue, talking about budgets and surpluses. Talking about borrowing from the Chinese and worried that we'll be stimulating their economy more than ours. Proposing expanding I-95 with American labor and materials (Bangor to Miami). Playing to the Florida audience, who want more lanes on it.
Romney says worked with Democrats to solve problems in Massachussetts without tax increases. Doesn't take the bait on whether he trusts Huckabee and McCain on taxes.
McCain asked if he considers Romney's "fees" equivalent to taxes. "I'm sure that the people who paid them think the are." Still talking like a conservative on tax and spending. Wonder if anyone will bring up his rhetoric from 2001 about "tax cuts for the rich"?
Ron Paul worried about spending and printing too much money. Lower taxes, get rid of regulations, and devise monetary policy that "makes some sense." Doesn't think we should expect Fed to monetize more spending. Can't afford to "maintain empire," and says that every war has resulted in inflation.
Giuliani asked about turning down the Saudi check for the Twin Towers fund. Can't get away from 911, but not his fault, because Russert asked. Talking about mutuality of interest when countries invest in the US. Talking about the fact that Japan wasn't the danger we thought they were in the eighties. Have to be careful that there is no ulterior motive in investments but we need to think how much we can sell to the world.
Democrats have eighteen point advantage in confidence in dealing with economy according to Russert. Reads litany of statistics. Why should we trust Republicans.
McCain, says that Dems will increase spending, increase taxes, won't restore stability of entitlements which are becoming unfunded in the future. Talking about "outrageous" $35B pork that could have paid for tax credits for every child in America. Will regain confidence of American people in being careful stewards of their money.
Huckabee: same question. "I wasn't there in Washington at the time." Can't blame it all on Bush, was keeping America safe. He was the only one saying that the economy wasn't doing great early on in debate season. Playing populist and friend of the "little guy" again. Talking about "trickle up" impact on the economy of low-paid workers.
Romney running on his record of accomplishment in Massachusetts, and running against Washington. Don't live by high ethics, haven't solved illegal immigration, haven't solved oil problems, haven't solved spending. "When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses." Have to rein in entitlements costs.
Giuliani saying that he's got experience turning an economy around in New York.
Ron Paul says that he doesn't have to run from Washington, because he's been fighting it from within. He's never voted for a tax increase, and almost always votes against spending. Entering a new era with dollar and world economy.
Local questions coming up now.
McCain: Army on verge of breaking, and can't sustain present spending. We cannot sustain our presence in Iraq.
McCain knows of no military leader who says we can't sustain ourselves in Iraq, including Petraeus. Attacking Clinton and saying that if we withdraw, Al Qaeda will have won. Proud to say that we have to abandon Rumsfeld strategy and do what we're doing now. Proud of military, and don't want us to raise the white flag as Senator Clinton does.
Romney: How do you maintain military without a draft? Talks about enrollment and retention in Mass National Guard. Thinks that people in military need full ride when they get home. Points out that Democrats' answers in last debate indicated that getting out was more important than winning. He won't walk away from Iraq until successful. How audacious of Dems to claim that they are responsible for success in Iraq. "due to General Petraeus, not General Clinton."
Will they say that the war was a good idea, worth the price?
McCain says that it was worth getting rid of Saddam, and is attacking Rumsfeld. War is justified by threat of Saddam. Now on right track and if we withdraw Al Qaeda will be claiming victory and the world will believe them. Wants troops to return with honor.
Giuliani points out that when polls where in favor that Hillary was, and that when polls were against, she was against. He always supported it, and continues to.
Ron Paul has the expected answer.
Huckabee says that it's easy to second guess a president, but says he should be admired for not governing by polls.
Romney supported and continues to support, but war was undermanaged and understaffed. Now on the right track, and making sure that Al Qaeda has no safe haven there from which to launch attacks against us. Democrats are just run and retreat, regardless of the problems.
[A couple minutes later]
Back from commercial break. Brian Williams can't pronounce Boca Raton, either.
Question from Romney to Giuliani. China will be a tough competitor. How do we maintain jobs here and have trade done on a level playing field. Giulian says that China is a great opportunity and great caution for America. More we engage in trade more we get to know a country and less probability of military confrontation. Need to be careful about safety and security, but look at bringing millions of people out of poverty there every year as huge opportunity. They need energy and information processes more than we do. They need to buy what we have. We should increase the size of our military to repair the damage of Bill Clinton's peace dividend with the 25-30% cuts.
Senator McCain asks Huckabee about Fair Tax. It's a very popular idea with a groundswell. How to answer the criticism that a sales tax won't cause low-income Americans to bear more of the burden of the government, and where is the resonance.
Huckabee: people would love the IRS to be abolished. We are penalized for productivity. Fair tax says we want you to be productive and work and profit. On the bottom end, the poor come out best of all because of pre-pay. No taxes on basic necessities of life. No more underground economy. "No more pimps, drug dealers...non-Republicans" avoiding taxes. Wants to put the IRS out of business.
Russert follows up with question about how the people who are only paying fifteen percent now benefit from a thirty-percent sales tax. Huckabee says that it's only 23%, and that he's not considering SSI and other taxes.
Ron Paul asks McCain if there would be more sunshine on who he would rely on for economic advice. Sorry, I missed the full question. I suspect that it had to do with the Tri-Lateral Commission.
Huckabee asking Romney if he supports Brady and "assault weapon" ban. Good question.
Romney says that he supports 2nd Amendment and hopes that the SCOTUS will find it an individual right. He also said that he would sign an assault weapons ban renewal, but doesn't think it necessary. Doesn't support any new legislation, and supports the right to bear arms.
Giuliani asking Romney (after talking about McCain's position) if he supports National Catastrophic Fund for disaster insurance. Romney says that he does support a "back stop" for high-risk states, but doesn't support Iowan's subsidizing Massachusetts or Florida. Doesn't explain how to square the circle.
McCain wants to address the issue, by spreading insurance across state lines, increasing the risk pool. House wanted a bill of $200B with no reform whatsoever. Confident that we can work with the insurance companies and don't need a new federal bureaucracy.
Russert following up with a question about global warming and submerging Florida and why he opposes caps. Giuliani says that we need to go more nuclear, get hybrid vehicles, clean coal with carbon sequestration, incentives for new industries, biofuels. Project like putting a man on the moon to become energy independent. Caps will punish the American economy and let other countries off the hook.
McCain favors cap and trade (with Joe Lieberman--he's forgetting again that he's running for the Republican nomination, not the general election). Repeats one of the climate change canards: "Climate change is real, and can affect states like Florida because it has to do with violent weather as well." "Suppose we are wrong, and hand our children a cleaner world." There is no acknowledgement of the potential costs to the economy.
Russert asking Giuliani what happened to his race. Pretty blunt.
Giuliani compares himself to the Giants, and says he's going to come back from behind.
I have to note that this has been a very mild discussion, really no harsh criticism from anyone.
Williams asks about McCain's mother's quote that the party will have to "hold its nose" to vote for her son. How will he get the support of Republicans? Says that most Republicans are concerned about radical Islamic extremists and that he'll defend the nation. Conservative Republicans are as concerned about climate change as he is. What planet has he been living on? Talking about when he's willing to go after Republicans when he has to do so to put his country above his party.
Romney: how will you run against the team of Hillary and Bill Clinton? Want to elect a president on the basis of the candidate, not her husband. She wants to raise taxes, give everyone health insurance by the government, get out of Iraq as fast as we can. She is Washington to the core, and has been there too long, as has Bill Clinton. Going to do it the Ronald Reagan way of pulling social, economic and national security conservatives. The first time that Reagan's name came up in this debate. Won't report how much of his wealth he's spending until he's legally required to do so. Claims he's raised more money than any other Republican in this race, and he feels obligated to put in his own to match his donors. Though he didn't raise as much as Jon Corzine.
Will a Mormon president have trouble raising support in the country? Romney doesn't believe that the American people are going to base their vote on a man's church. Believes that the Founders didn't intend a religious test, and believes that Americans agree. Hillary takes her inspiration from old Europe, he takes his from a young and vibrant America.
Ron Paul thinks that Social Security should be abolished. Is he still in favor? Yes, but not overnight. Need to get the young people out. He'll take care of all the elderly, but save money by stopping all the expenditure overseas. Doesn't want taxes on their benefits, wants to secure the trust fund, protecting it from general revenues. It's a failure, doesn't work, is going to bankrupt the country. Government should have never been involved, and there's not way that benefits are going to keep up. His plan has a better chance than any other one.
Huckabee: what will he do to save Social Security: Wants to comment on Mitt's money in his own campaign. Offers a solution that if he's president, Mitt can have more money to pass on to his sons. In response to the SS question, talking up Fair Tax. Taking a "can do" attitude in response to Russert's question about how unlikely the Fair Tax is.
Will Romney do for Social Security what Reagan did in 1983? "No, I don't want to raise taxes." It has a double whammy. You slow down the economy and more people lose work. Three other ways to solve the problem. Personal accounts for something that does better than government bonds. Calculate the benefits based on the price index rather than wage index. And change age of eligibility. Need to work to come up with a compromise. But doesn't want to scare anyone--nothing will change for anyone in or near retirement, but we have to do something about the thirty and forty year olds.
Why is Giuliani's campaign airing an ad in Spanish. Core of his plan is to stop immigration at the border, regardless of language of ads. Have to teach new behavior, which means identify yourself, like other countries. At the end of the day, to be a citizen, you have to speak English.
Why a special policy for "dry-foot" Cubans? Presumption in immigration law that Cubans are fleeing political persecution. Exception has been around for decades, and is justified by Castro's history.
Question for Huckabee. Does he agree with Chuck Norris that McCain is too old? Only agreed with Norris because he was standing next to him. He doesn't think that Senator McCain lacks the vigor and capacity to be president, uses McCain's mother as a vibrant example. Not an issue for him, even if it is for Chuck, but he's far enough away from him he disagrees. McCain threatens (jokingly) to send Sly Stallone after Chuck.
New York Times has endorsed McCain in the New York primary. How will he defend himself? Says that he never did anything that the New York Times suggested, which is why he's a conservative, and shows true compassion.
Romney changes positions with the wind the NYT opposes him. Romney says that he's not in politics to please the New York Times. Defending his record on pro-life positions, taxes, and Second Amendment.
Is McCain's temper an issue? This was one from the LA Times. He doesn't think that he would have the support of his colleagues if that was the case. Saying that he's proud of Giuliani, and that all of the people on the stage with him are great Americans.
In response to someone's comment that Huckabee's faith "gives him a queasy feeling." Huckabee's response is that that's his problem, not Huck's. Have to respect people of all faiths, including no faith.
Concern that Ron Paul won't stick to his party and will run with another party. His concern is that his opponents aren't sticking by their party and its principles. Dances around the question, saying that he doesn't intend to run independently, but he wants them to worry that he will. Not a matter of him leaving the party, they need to welcome people to a party that's becoming smaller. Can't be "too strict with the Constitution." Need a big tent of people who believe in the Constitution. He gets the last word.
I'll be gathering my overall thoughts, but they'll probably be over at Pajamas Media a little later.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:18 PMHe's going to be #3 on the NYT book list, and he's been nominated for a Pulitzer:
It would be great, not to mention amazing, if he wins one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:32 PMSo says Robert Bidinotto. Not to mention Sixty Minutes.
But as he notes, too many people are politically and emotionally invested in the myth that the administration lied for reality to have any impact on them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:30 PMLileks has some commentary on the latest display of dhimmitude in the formerly great nation of the United Kingdom.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:15 AMThe judges criticised the stereotyping in the story of the unfortunate pigs: "Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?"These are judgments and decisions made by people who, one suspects, have never poked their heads out of the bubble that extends over the entire professional caretaker class. You really have to have multiple years in higher education to craft a statement so packed with radiant stupidity. Is it true that all builders are cowboys? No. The likelihood that 100% of the British construction trades are populated by laconic men wearing chaps, a Stetson and a sidearm is small, and the paucity of actual cowboys in England will probably mitigate against an impressionable child making this inference. Is it true that builders get their work blown down? No. It is also not true that Winnie-The-Pooh is a bear who walks erect and has a kangaroo as a neighbor. It’s called a story. This may come as a grim revelation to people who only read their kids bedtime stories about a Bangladesh seamstress who successfully repays a microloan, but kids like made-up stuff, and can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Which makes them eminently unqualified for a position in a government book-award granting organization. Is it true that all builders are like pigs?”
No. On the other hand, some builders are like pigs, specifically the third pig who chose brick. The story of the Three Little Pigs was a famous Depression-era Disney cartoon that hit a sweet spot in the national mood. Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? In retrospect, that wasn’t really the lesson, since the pigs who sang the song had reason to fear the wolf, due to substandard construction techniques. Does this mean all cowboy pig builders use straw? No. But the third pig, who planned ahead and built for the storm, was able to shelter his feckless brothers when the wolf came, and afterwards everyone could scoff at the wolf. Lesson learned.
With Jonah Goldberg, about his new book
This provides a big opening for Huckabee in the south. He may pull votes that would have otherwise gone to Thompson because they don't want to vote for a northeasterner or McCain.
Let's hope it's not enough to give him enough delegates to make a difference. That's one of the reasons I wanted Thompson to stay in, at least through super Tuesday.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:54 PMBob Krumm is doing one final fund raiser to keep Thompson in the race.
[Update at 2:30 PM Eastern]
He's out:
"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."
Not a surprise, but disappointing nonetheless.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:39 AMHere are some thoughts from someone who is thinking like me:
Fred Thompson would appear to still have an opening, however small, in this race. McCain is on the rise in this race but he has not sewn it up by any means.Romney has the money, the delegates and now the poll numbers in Florida to make a race of this. If Fred Thompson leaves the race now, in its still very fluid form, not only does he embolden McCains challengers, he robs himself of the opportunity to be power broker or possibly a consensus candidate at a Republican National Convention.
With the exceptions of Huckabee and McCain, I want to see everyone stay in the race as long as possible, if Thompson can't get enough momentum to win it before the convention. In the hypothetical, I think that Huckabee's voters go to Thompson, and McCain's go to Giuliani, but Thompson will get his share as well. Particularly if he gets McCain's endorsement.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:52 PMHe can't get votes other than from evangelicals. Good.
The question is, how long will he carry on? Unfortunately, it looks like he will go on for a while, because he seems to be having a good time, and he'll probably continue to get funding from his own base.
One of the reasons that Thompson should stay in the race is that so many others are. As long as he persists (and if he can continue the momentum that he was starting to build out of South Carolina) he may be able to pick up enough delegates to have a seat at the table in Minneapolis (and an outside shot at becoming a consensus nominee). And he has to continue to pull conservative votes from Huckabee.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:02 AMWise words that many have forgotten. I'm sure that the anti-Zionist left will just think he's an uppity negro, though.
[Update a few minutes later]
To commemorate the holiday, Alan Boyle has some useful links on the scientific bases (or not) of race. I agree that it's much more a social construct than a scientific one.
[Mid-morning update]
An apt thought, that applies to fans of Mike Huckabee as well:
Identity politics is bad news. Today seems like a perfect day to reflect on that.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 AM
The Federalist Party is not currently in use.
[Update on Monday night]
Link seems to be broken, and Bill Quick's site seems to have problems in general. anyway, here's a new related follow-up post. I'll try to update with more at a new post as things develop, but basically, the idea was to found a new party based on small government, since the Republicans no longer seem interested in it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:22 PMRegardless of the outcome of today's primary, Fred Thompson says that he's going on to Florida.
Why not? Unless he seriously underperforms the polls tonight, he's still got a significant amount of support, given that the winner is unlikely to even get a third of the vote. When people drop out for various reasons, their votes have to go somewhere. Where will Huckabee's voters go? Where will McCain's, if the only reason to vote for him is his Vietnam record and the war and they ignore his other positions? Not Huck. Probably not Romney. Though Rudy is a possibility. I don't think that this race will be anywhere close to settled this weekend.
There are a lot of people who will continue to send money to Fred as long as they think he has a chance. And there's still a non-zero possibility that this thing could go all the way to Minneapolis with no clear winner, which means that in a brokered convention, Thompson could have an edge. If this is true, and he remains in, I might even put up a Thompson sign on my lawn in Boca Raton.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:06 PM...by identity politics:
The union's rank and file, the panelist explained, features a very large Hispanic contingent and there was simply no way this bloc was going to support a black candidate, no matter what the union's leadership urged.I remember thinking at the time how extraordinary this admission was, and how nuts the media would have gone if it had been uttered by a Republican voter. Instead, one black member of the focus group made what seemed a pretty half-hearted retort (really, a mild press for more of an explanation from the Hispanic panelist, if I'm remembering this right) before Luntz, looking uncomfortable (though maybe I'm projecting) cut the discussion off quickly and threw the coverage back to the Fox studio, where no one seemed anxious to wade into the matter.
It was remarkable to see members of the Party that lives and breaths racial and ethnic bean-counting slough this off as if it were just a fact of life. And maybe it is.
I continue to find the ongoing crack-up of the race/gender-obsessed Democrats fascinating. And I confess to no little amount of schadenfreude.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:48 PMI didn't want to leave California, which I consider my real home state, though I was raised and spent the first quarter century of my life in Michigan. But I also have mixed feelings about moving back. Victor Davis Hanson, a true native, explains why:
At some point we Californians should ask ourselves, how we inherited a state with near perfect weather, the world's richest agriculture, plentiful timber, minerals, and oil, two great ports at Los Angeles and Oakland, a natural tourist industry from Carmel to Yosemite, industries such as Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and aerospaceand serially managed to turn all of that into the nation's largest penal system, periodic near bankruptcy, and sky-high taxes.
He understates the tourist industry, or at least the beauty of the place. There's a lot more than Carmel to Yosemite.
I weep.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:01 PMThe Wikipedia entry on the title of this post is pretty minimal. I think that it could be usefully expanded and improved by pointing out this creature as a prominent example.
I expect too-frequent commenter "Jim Harris" to be along to defend him any minute.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:33 PMHe spooged on their dress? He suborned perjury from them? He got Vernon Jordan to offer them a job with Revlon? What?
Obama's racist black minister says that Bill Clinton (the first black president) gave blacks the Monica treatment:
Man should not put limits on what God can do, but that's what people always do, he told the crowd. Just as God made five loaves and two fishes feed thousands, God has provided liberators for blacks in the past - from Nat Turner to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and now Barack Obama. But, Wright said, there were always reasons not to follow them.Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued.
"That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."
I eagerly await further elaboration.
I'm going to run out of popcorn, watching the so-called "progressives" finally immolating themselves in their vile identity politics.
Hard to say what the effect will be, but reportedly, the day before the election, Rush Limbaugh has broken with precedent and, to all extents and purposes, endorsed a candidate in a Republican Primary:
Right after Rush finished the football segment, he popped in, out of reference or context, and read the best parts of the Human Events endorsement of Fred! I was sick in bed and heard it. He ended with asking the South Carolinians to seriously consider voting Fred Thompson if they believe in conservatism, and then went for the commercial.
Will it help? Hard to see how it can hurt.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:55 PMBecause he didn't get rid of people like this a lot sooner. I hope that the next president, if a Republican, does a better job of controlling his own bureaucracy. If a Democrat, they won't need to.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:34 PMLileks has thoughts on the continuing slide of the Brits into a multi-culti PC hell:
"Pc Mahmood believes it was 'not meant in a malicious way, just a bit of banter'. He told a sergeant, who was 'really disgusted', that he knew it was meant as a joke and did not want to make a formal complaint.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:54 AM'I just took it on the chin. But someone else in the room must have thought it was a racist incident, and reported it,' the officer said."
So the officer who got the gift wasnt offended. Everyone else in the room thought it was below the belt as well, and didnt hoot at the Mooselman and shout porky porky porky, whos got the porky now, wot? But the people who had nothing to do with the event were offended on the fellows behalf, and that was it.
Orwell was slightly mistaken: the future is a boot, stomping on a joke.
I have often been accused of being "lazy." Even by people who I know and love. Even, on occasion, by myself.
But what was the basis for the accusation?
Apparently, that I am not continually busy. That I often indulge in the very effective technique of "management by procrastination." That I often do what needs to be done without breaking a sweat, and while waiting until the last minute to do it.
Once, in college (in the dark ages prior to word processors), I wrote a term paper, that I had known was due for many weeks, due the next day at the end of the semester, in an all-nighter, on a manual typewriter, with no notes, no citations, no...nothing. I had just been thinking about the subject for weeks, and the night before it was due, I sat down, and knocked out a twelve-page typewritten paper, with minor erasures, in a night. I got an A minus.
So I have mixed feelings when I hear that Fred Thompson is "lazy."
Now, I don't think that Fred Thompson is lazy. I just think that, despite the southern drawl, which many (mistakenly, as anyone who has worked with smart NASA employees and contractors in Houston, Huntsville and the Cape would know) think is a mark of a slow mentality, that he works smart, and cheap. Robert Heinlein once wrote that: "Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things."
I believe that.
I don't want a president, or a presidential candidate, who is frenetically scurrying around, appearing to be doing something, particularly two years before the swearing in. If he's really a conservative (as he claims to be, though I'm not necessarily), I'm perfectly happy with a president who, when demanded to do something, just stands there. And as a libertarian, opposed to big government, I'm happy to have a president who will think before acting, and who believes that the first instinct should not be to pass yet another federal law.
I'm actually quite pleased with Fred Thompson's campaign style to date. It saddens me that so many others, who would be otherwise disposed to vote for him, are not. I'm saddened that they think that he needs to stoke a "fire in the belly," rather than simply employ the minimum resources needed to win the election. You would think that the warm-mongers would be pleased at Fred's lack of energy and want to vote for him, to help save the planet. As an engineer, I'm extremely impressed with his efficiency. As a result, it's very frustrating to know that, if everyone who would vote for him "if he only had a chance" would actually vote for him, that he'd have a chance. It's kind of the reverse of Yogi Berra's old saying that "no one goes downtown any more; it's too crowded."
So here's where the mixed feelings come in. As an engineer, one needs margins. I'm concerned that he cut it a little too close. I'm afraid that in waiting just a little too long to get in, and in waiting just a little too long to finally go after the Elmer Gantrys and other pretenders to Republicanism and conservatism, that he's just missed the boat.
Despite this fear, I will continue to support him, and hope that I'm wrong, into South Carolina and beyond. Because if so, he will prove to be the most parsimonious president in American history. And I think we could use not just a little, but a lot of that right now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:16 PMFrom Tim Noah:
It was 10 years ago on Jan. 12 that Linda Tripp notified Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's office that she had audiotapes of Monica Lewinsky telling her that she'd had an affair with President Bill Clinton, and that he'd urged her to lie if asked about it under oath.
Hint for the terminally clueless. This wasn't "getting a BJ." It wasn't "lying about getting a BJ." As clearly stated by Noah, it's called suborning perjury, in order to prevent a vulnerable young woman from getting a fair trial in a civil suit under a law that the suborner had signed with his own pen. Not to mention bribing and/or intimidating a witness to perjure herself, which is a more egregious instance of same.
Maybe I'm weird, but it seems very hard to reconcile that with upholding an oath to see the nation's laws faithfully obeyed. King William didn't think that the law should apply to him, either when in Arkansas when he allegedly raped a woman as the state Attorney General, or as President of the United States.
That was what the Lewinsky scandal was about.
And when considering whether or not to elect his wife, who helped orchestrate the attacks on the women that he wronged, to the highest office in the land, that is something to be considered. Particularly if one considers oneself to be a feminist.
I would also point out to Mr. Noah that, there is one person who, throughout, told the truth in this affair, and was never caught out in a lie, or lack of probity, despite all the attacks on her weight, her looks, or her "infidelity" to the "friend" who asked her to commit perjury. Her name was Linda Tripp.
And his comments about Jonah Goldberg are pathetic. If he doesn't like the idea of the book
To paraphrase Euripides, those whom the modern-day gods would destroy, they first give too much oil and power.
We have today two stories of oil-fueled despots in alliance. First, Iran's Ahmadinejad's economic illiteracy is coming home to roost:
Ahmadinejad, with his peculiar and literal belief that he has divine backing, was not inhibited by this record of prudence. With a total oil revenue in the first two years of his presidency of $120 billion (61billion) more than Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani had in his eight years as President the administration still found it necessary to deplete the emergency oil reserve fund set up by Ahmadinejad's presidential predecessor, Mohammed Khatami. According to the Iranian central bank he took $35.3 billion from the fund in his first year and $43 billion in his second year, as a new book, Ahmadinejad, by Kasra Naji, records.Nor is it easy to work out what Ahmadinejad has spent it on, because he has channelled much of it through religious foundations and to contracts of his own nomination rather than leaving it under the control of ministers and elected parliamentarians. But the predictable result of the spending was inflation, rising from 12 to 19 per cent. Many were put out of work by his sudden decision to raise the minimum wage by nearly half. The climax of this spectacle was the petrol rationing announced so suddenly on June 27, 2007, that motorists could not complete their journeys. For the fourth-largest exporter of oil in the world, that is a humiliation. In the run-up to the March elections to the parliament, the Majlis, there have been signs of a rift between Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme religious leader. The President's critics, once silenced, are now allowed full voice. MPs say openly that the real jobless figure is near 20, not 10, per cent.
Emphasis mine. Presumably, this is earmarking, Tehran style. In any event, divine will or not, he may be on his way out. Meanwhile, over in the western hemisphere, Hugo is losing his support among the poor, his key constituency, as a result of high crime rates and potholes:
Ninety percent of Venezuelans believe Chavez is doing too little to catch criminals, according to a report by pollster Datanalisis in the El Nacional newspaper this month.Half the population was a victim of crime between 2006 and 2007, making Venezuela the most crime-ridden nation in the Americas, the Latinobarometro survey group says.
"The government is in a severely tight spot," said Edgardo Lander, a sociologist at the Venezuelan Central University. "It could face an electoral catastrophe if there aren't signs of change by the middle of the year."
The common denominator is the black gold that provides far too much wealth and power to those unfit for it. The dictators may go away, but there's no guarantee that those who replace them will be any better as long as this moral hazard continues to exist. Ideally, nation's oil wealth and revenue would be privatized, perhaps by distributing stock to the citizenry. But that would require a real revolution, which is the last thing that these faux revolutionaries want.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:02 AMSince Drudge broke the story of Clinton's intern, that Newsweek had been sitting on.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:24 AMI'd love to get a transcript. I hope that Team Thompson was listening to Elmer GantryMike Huckabee's Michigan concession speech in South Carolina, because the mendacity in it will be fodder for several campaign commercials this week. The man who wants a federal smoking ban wants government to leave us alone?
Please.
[Update]
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has reversed his position on a federal ban aimed at workplace smoking and now believes the issue should be addressed by state and local governments.The about-face is apparent in a Huckabee campaign statement, sent to The Hill Tuesday evening in response to questions about the smoking ban proposal. It clashes with the stance Huckabee has taken during his race for the White House and with his record as governor of Arkansas, when he signed into law a measure prohibiting smoking in most indoor public places.
Must be pre-emptive against the inevitable ads in SC. Maybe they should just be pictures of flip flops...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 PMThis would seem to be an indicator of the civil war that is brewing in the Democrat Party, and it's not just the long-overdue (and delicious) class identity war between blacks and women. It's about a lot of Democrats finally, at long last, getting fed up and frustrated with the Clintons.
What happened in Michigan is not very different from what used to happen in the old Soviet Union, Riegle said. The Clinton machine manipulated the ballot. They dont care how they win, only that they do. Its wrong and people need to know that.Riegle said the Democratic candidates had an understanding, after Michigan defied the party and tried to become the first state to hold a primary, that none of them would compete in Michigan. Obama and Edwards honored the agreement, but Clinton did not and put her name on the ballot, he said.
People should not permit the Clintonsboth Bill and Hillaryto have an unfair advantage in Michigan, said Riegle.
Full disclosure: I used to deliver Don Riegle's Detroit Free Press (he lived a block away from me) and occasionally even collected payment from him at the door, and some of my grammar-school classmates worked on his first congressional campaign. But I gave up on him politically within a term or three of his congressional career (when he switched from Republican to Dem, and I was becoming a libertarian). He later (thankfully and appropriately) resigned as one of the five Senators in the Keating scandal that caused John McCain (one of the others) to go to war with the First Amendment. I agree with him on very little, politically, but if he's finally trying to flush the Clintons from his party, I'll cheer him on.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:37 PMFirst it was Ezra Levant in the Great White North (not a permalink--for readers from the future, go search the archives of early January, 2008), and now it's Janet Albrechtsen, Down Under:
This is not simply a defence of Levant because he is a conservative columnist. Far from it. If a bleeding heart on the Left was dragged before a human rights commission for thinking and saying unpalatable things, even stupid things, the defence would remain the same. Defending the right to say the right things is easy. Defending the right to say the wrong things, even offensive things, is what counts if we are serious about free speech.That's why, some years ago, I wrote in defence of my colleague Phillip Adams when he was accused of racial vilification by an American who was offended by Adams's assertion that the US was one of the most violent nations on earth and was largely to blame for the events of September 11. The comments were daft but Adams has a right to be wrong and so it was important to stand up for his right to say it.
Allowing a state body to investigate it as a speech crime sends a chill down the spine of Western progress. As Levant argued, "Freedom of expression is only meaningful when it trumps other values, such as political sensibilities, or religious dogma, or personal sensitivities. Indeed, Western civilisation's progress in all realms, ranging from science to art, to religion, to feminism, to civil rights for racial minorities and gays, has come about from the free expression of ideas that necessarily offended some earlier order." In short, self-criticism is at the core of the West's progress. The battle of ideas may be no place for the faint-hearted, but it produces exceptional results by thrusting forward the better ideas.
Indeed.
We can tolerate intolerance (as long as the intolerance is peaceful), but the Islamist enemy seemingly cannot. That is one of the (many) irreconcilable differences that make this such a difficult war. And it's a war that's made all the more difficult because they use our own tolerance and freedom against us.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:50 PMHarder. Thompson is finally going after McCain. I've been thinking that he was going to hold off on this until after the Michigan primary, but maybe he thinks that's pretty much over now, so he's finally softening him up for the election in South Carolina on Saturday.
And as he says, the notion that he'd go through all this just to be a stalking horse for McCain is indeed "ludicrous."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:18 AMChristopher Hitchens wonders why anyone would want to once again place the ongoing and corrupt soap opera that is the Clintons back at the center of our national politics.
What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book >No One Left To Lie To
Poor Bill. All those people always lying about him.
[Update a few minutes later]
Is Obama the new Bill Clinton?
In some of the most unfortunate ways, the Barack Obama phenomenon that swell of adoration that lifted him up in Iowa to practically deposit him in the still-occupied White House is cut frighteningly close to the Clinton mold. In particular, the fetishization of image and lack of conviction are all too familiar. Forget the talk of Bill Clinton having been the first black president. If Barack Obama wins in November we may best understand the coming age by thinking of him as the second President Clinton.I first became suspicious of Obamas charms when I found myself praising the Illinois junior senator without so much as a data points worth of evidence. Unlike Hillary, I heard myself say, Obama at least believes in something. It occurred to me, at once, that I had no sound reason for uttering this. And I was disturbed. The effortless oratory; the vast, glassy smile; the whole kinetic promise of the boy wonder rising Id been suckered.
Not me. Of course, I was always immune to Bill Clinton's supposed charisma as well.
Also pointed out are two key vulnerabilities that a smart Republican (if there is such a thing) could attack:
In this Wednesdays New York Sun, Robert Samuelson singles out Barack Obama for failing to address the coming income transfer from young to old that will leave todays American children overtaxed and underserved. Obama is not alone in having no plan of attack, but as Samuelson observers, The hypocrisy is especially striking in Mr. Obama. He courts the young, promises straight talk, and offers himself as the agent of change. But his conspicuous omissions constitute crooked talk and silently endorse the status quo.But theres much worse. On July 20, 2007, the Associated Press reported Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isnt a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there. Forget the immediate depravity of such a pronouncement. The most disturbing and, not coincidentally, most Clintonesque aspect of the story is that Obamas statement came a week after the New York Times landmark editorial calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, genocide notwithstanding. This deference to popular opinion over humanity represents Clintonian moral calculus of a chilling potency.
I continue to believe that a Democrat in the White House next year is by no means a lock, regardless of who the nominee is. People forget that Clinton himself would never have been elected in 1992 without the help of Ross Perot. And he never got a majority of the popular vote.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AMI wish I'd thought of this. He tells Hillary that it took men to give women the vote.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:44 PMWould this have happened in a Thompson administration?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:11 AMIs Ron Paul going to have anything to say about this latest incident by his brown shirts?
The assault picked up after lunch. Paul supporters phoning Call claimed to be from the media. Others just yelled, saying she had committed treason, fraud. One person said she should be shot. She received as many as 40 calls that day."One person said he was on a nationally syndicated radio station," Call said, "and he has given out my phone number and they need to call the town of Sutton to find out why there's voter fraud."
The voices came from everywhere. California. Ohio. Florida. Michigan. Very few were from New Hampshire.
He can say that he has no control over his supporters all he wants, but as long as he continues fail to to do a Sister Souljah and denounce this kind of thing, we will continue to conclude that money and political support is more important to him than integrity.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:29 PMA leading proponent of action against global warming says that many of his "green" "allies" are hurting the cause:
He says: "There is a suspicion, and I have that suspicion myself, that a large number of people who label themselves 'green' are actually keen to take us back to the 18th or even the 17th century."He characterises their argument as "let's get away from all the technological gizmos and developments of the 20th century".
"People say 'well, we'll just use less energy.' Come on," he says. "And then there's the real world, where everyone is aspiring to the sort of standard of living that we have, which is based on a large energy consumption."
King calls global warming the biggest challenge our civilisation has ever faced, and famously, in a 2004 article in the journal Science, berated the US for its inaction, describing climate change as "more serious even than the threat of terrorism". But his vocal support for nuclear power and genetically modified foods has led to tensions with environmental campaigners.
No kidding.
They're called "watermelons"--green on the outside, red on the inside. Socialism lost its luster with the fall of the Soviet Union, so they're simply latching on to this latest ideological fad to try to keep it going under a different name.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:45 AMOne would have thought that Canada wouldn't have needed such, but apparently it does, in the form of Ezra Levant.
I wouldn't call it a kangaroo court. Given the locale, more like a moose court. Here's his opening statement. Here is the transcript. Read it and weep (for different reasons, depending on whether you are a proponent, or opponent, of freedom of expression).
I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats the commission or the hrc, since to call the commission a human rights commission is to destroy the meaning of those words.I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and state.
Could this be the beginning of the end for the Canadian Human RightsWrongs Commission? Let us hope so.
Mark Steyn has further thoughts, more eloquent (as usual) than mine:
Shirlene McGovern quizzes him on his intent in publishing the cartoons, and another in which she raises the fear that his publishing them could lead to violence against Muslims particularly in todays world post-9/ 11 that has made a number of Muslims more vulnerable to hatred and contempt. Ezra's answer speaks for itself, but Ms McGovern's question reminds me of a passage from Melanie Phillips' book LondonistanMinority-rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a 'victim' group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the 'oppressive' majority.Ms McGovern, a blandly unexceptional bureaucrat, is a classic example of the syndrome. No "vulnerable" Canadian Muslim has been attacked over the cartoons, but the cartoonists had to go into hiding, and a gang of Muslim youths turned up at their children's grade schools, and Muslim rioters around the world threatened death to anyone who published them, and even managed to kill a few folks who had nothing to do with them. Nonetheless, upon receiving a complaint from a Saudi imam trained at an explicitly infidelophobic academy and who's publicly called for the introduction of sharia in Canada, Shirlene McGovern decides that the purely hypothetical backlash to Muslims takes precedence over any actual backlash against anybody else.
Indeed. More discussion over at Samizdata.
[Update a few minutes later]
I smiled at this: "I hope this goes all the way because the good guys need some high profile wins right now. A little bit of marching in the street wouldn't hurt either, but I don't know if Canadians can overcome their empassioned apathy."
Followed up by, "It is important to note that no one person ever actually "tried" by these "courts" has ever been found innocent.
Canadians...why do you tolerate this?"
C'mon, you hosers. Stand up for freedom, eh?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 PMFor those who can't get enough of Fred Thompson, here's the blog for you.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:14 PM...different flakes. I'm assuming that the exclusion of Fred Thompson (who just got an endorsement from Human Events this morning) was deliberate.
I wonder how much the endorsement will help? I'm sure that it won't hurt, but (though I'm not a regular reader) I suspect that most people who read Human Events in South Carolina were probably going to vote for him anyway.
[Update late morning]
Here's an interesting analysis of why Thompson focused on Huckabee last night, and didn't go after McCain. Hint: it's not because he's trying to help McCain win the nomination.
Meanwhile, Matt Welch, incoming editor of Reason, is making up for lost time in dissecting Dr. No's past.
[Update mid afternoon]
It just occurs to me that we'll know whether or not Krumm's Thompson/McCain theory is valid after the Michigan primary. If he starts to go after McCain in addition to Huckabee after the primary, and before South Carolina, then it will all make sense.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:31 AM...with which I wholeheartedly agree, from Lileks:
On the Hewitt show tonight I was talking about the end result of the administrations overall rhetorical failure, its inability to assert and explain ideas near and/or dear to many who elected him. I think people gave up expecting high fine oratorical flourishes about matters other than the war and the ancillary issues long ago, but it does gall; like the squandered Congressional majority, it was a sign that the thick institutional inertia had filled the vacant crevasses in the domestic agenda. So we get campaign finance reform, and we get an energy bill that will require everyone to switch to bulbs that cost ten times more and require an EPA HAZMAT team to ninja their way through your skylights if you drop a bulb. (Yes, I know, it mandates efficiencies, and if old-style bulbs meet the standards, theyll pass, but given the higher cost of fluorescents and the general planet-friendly rep they have, I expect that a combination of foot-dragging, ad campaigns, somewhat lower prices and improved quality will move people away from incandescents.) I dont think the administration is in the pocket of Big Flourescent; I just think they dont care.Either they figured the logic of their case was self-evident, or saw no short-term gain to making arguments that polled low.
The Middle East? Dont get me started. At the end of the Bush term Syria will run Lebanon, Israel will pressured to concede, Iran will unsanctioned and unbowed. Iraq will work in the end if we care and try and stay, and thats no small thing; thats the big thing, in the end. History wont give a fig about the fluorescent-bulb bill. You could say that second terms always end like this. Clinton, however, would probably have gotten a third term. You could say he was an anomaly, since his appeal was more personal than ideological, and you could say that he didnt spend his time making speeches in his second term defining liberalism for the 21st century. But he didnt have to explain his ideas; they were part of the free-floating cloud of Unexamined Good Things instinctively accepted by the overclass, so he wasnt exactly fighting an uphill battle. Bush had an opportunity to redefine certain ideas as progressive, not retrograde. Really: if the public school paradigm is the status quo, then attempts to upend the Etch-A-Sketch and find new solutions are progressive unless youre one of those blunt-headed types who believe that conservatives (a meaningless term, here) want to destroy unions and punish inner-city schools and funnel public bucks to nuns who prowl the aisles with a ruler, whapping knuckles when anyone mentions Darwin. Rethinking Social Security is progressive, especially if it means giving young people more control over how their forced contributions are invested. Nuclear power is progressive; the status quo, in place for twenty years, still thinks The China Syndrome is a documentary. I know its a different definition of progressive, but heck: redefining progressive is progressive.
As is redefining "liberal
Talk about optimal ad placement.
The ad may have changed by the time you view the AP story (hmmm...checking after posting this...yup, it has), but that was what was there when I grabbed the screen shot. I did not photoshop it, I swear.
And RIP, Sir Edmund. I'm sure that there will be more tears from Hill over the person for whom she was named.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 PMWhatever else you think of Ron Paul, it is entertaining to hear the phrase "Austrian theory of the business cycle" in a Republican debate (though it almost sounded like he said "Australian"--"tie me von Mises down, boys..."?)
[Update at 9:26]
Fred takes off the gloves and finally goes after Huckabee for his NEA endorsement and opposition to vouchers. "That's not the position of the Reagan coalition. That's the position of the Democratic Party."
Huckabee's response (paraphrased) boils down to, "well, people reelected me."
Pretty weak tea to make your credentials as a conservative. Lots of Democrats, even very "liberal" ones, get reelected. Fred's job is to draw a distinction between himself and the Huckster as the only true conservative in South Carolina, and so far, I think he's doing well. We'll see if he hits him again.
[Update at 9:42]
Ron Paul is really coming off as the crazy uncle at the holiday dinner, ranting about things that aren't even relevant to the question. Brit Hume: "Congressman, all your fellow candidates agreed with the passive response to the Iranian provocation. Who or what are you responding to?"
[Update afterward]
A memorable phrase from the consensus winner tonight, Fred Thompson, on immigration: "High fences and wide gates."
If anyone is inspired by his performance to send him some money in the wake of his performance, he's looking for it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 PMRick Moran is organizing a blogburst for Fred Thompson, who is putting all his chips on the South Carolina table. He makes a pretty good case as to why his chances may be good for a win there, but he needs money.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:39 PMYou've got to love these latest attacks on Jonah's book
Ezra...credits David Neiwert whose review is exactly the sort of shallow, cliche-ridden, attack-the-messenger stuff that I would expect Ezra to find so persuasive. More on that in a moment. But I find it hilarious that the part Ezra thought sufficiently profound to highlight was, in part, the bit where Neiwert insists that the fascist threat remains on the right and in particular that there's a threat of "totalitarianism" from "dogmatic individualists."
Apparently, to these people, words don't mean things at all.
[Early evening update]
Jonah corrects the record, via an email by Niewert (and per a comment by Duncan Young in comments). Those were Ezra's words, not his. The point remains.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:24 PMA panel of judges of rules that it's against campaign finance laws to advertise a film:
Attorney James Bopp argued that they should be considered "issue- oriented" speech because viewers aren't urged to vote for or against the Democrat."What's the issue?" asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a federal appeals judge sitting on a mixed panel to review the case.
"That Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,' aren't you saying vote against her?"
Bopp disagreed because the movie did not use the word "vote."
"Oh, that's ridic...," Lamberth said, trailing off and ending the line of questioning.
Hey, some people (too darned many, in my opinion) like European socialists. Maybe it was a pro-Hillary ad.
It gets better (or worse, depending on your point of view).
The movie is scheduled for two screenings in theaters, once each in California and Washington. It is also being sold on DVD. Neither of those methods are regulated under campaign laws. The advertisements, however, are scheduled to run during the peak presidential primary season and would be regulated.Bopp, who successfully led a challenge to one aspect of the campaign finance system last year, compared the film to television news programs "Frontline," "Nova," and "60 Minutes." That prompted Lamberth to laugh out loud from the bench.
"You can't compare this to '60 Minutes,'" the judge said. "Did you read this transcript?"
Apparently, the judge missed the "Sixty Minutes" episode in which Dan Rather used fake documents to do a hit job on George Bush six weeks before an election.
The Supreme Court should have thrown the law out in toto. But it looks to me, at a minimum, like they're going to have to at least interpret this (un)Constitutional abomination.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AMEmmett Tyrrell has some thoughts:
The reason for the dramatic decline in Hillary's front-runner status is that Democratic voters increasingly are alarmed about a large hairy monster that has been roaming through their consciences for years, probably since they first heard of Gennifer Flowers and of Bill Clinton's diplomatic negotiations with his draft board. The monster is the Clintons' record of lawlessness and scandal. Already in this campaign cycle, Democratic voters have reminders of the Clintons' unsavory practices, felons among their contributors, even shadowy Asians bundling checks, as in 1996, and, of course, the politics of personal destruction practiced against their opponents.My guess is that a sizable number of Democrats have had enough of it. Obama represents a clean break with a troubled and mediocre past. As Hillary leaves New Hampshire, she challenges Obama on the question of experience. The junior senator from Illinois should take up her challenge. Hillary can chide him for his lack of experience, and he can remind us all of Hillary's unique experiences, beginning with the Clintons' "holiday from history," and Travelgate, Filegate, missing billing records, lying under oath, her cattle-futures bonanza, the Riady family, Johnny Chung, John Huang, Charlie Trie -- and suddenly, you see it, too, the large hairy monster that is the Clinton legacy.
Also, long-time cartoonist nemesis of Bill and Hill, Sean Delonas, is in high form in the wake of New Hampshire. (Note to visitors from the future, not a permalink. Select January 10th, 2008 in the pulldown boxes).
[Update a couple minutes later]
Dr. Sanity has some additional thoughts on the Democrats denial and anger:
Just as Hillary had a neurotic and "forgetful" moment regarding the antics of her husband; what we are witnessing is a supremely neurotic moment on the part of the left, who willy-nilly have jumped the Clinton ship and climbed aboard the Obama "vessel of hope". They are astounded that the antics of the Clintons (which for years they have rationalized and excused) are being used against them. Their idealization of the Clintons had worn thin and, just in the nick of time, along comes a younger, prettier face that can help them shore up those tired, old "progressive" ideas, and delude them into believing they actually are supporting something fresh and innovative.I hate to tell them, but Obama is just another socialist hack. For sure, he's fresh and young and articulate. But his ideas are no fresher than Hillary's and quite a bit more rigid and uncompromising. Hillary and Bill never believed in anything but themselves. Obama comes across as selfless as Mother Theresa, promising to lead us to his utopian wonderland.
What we are witnessing is the neurosis and fickleness of the political left, who just a short time ago adored the Clintons and could bear nothing bad be said about their legacy in the White House.
I still see a lot of potential for a very ugly August in Denver.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Oh, man. I didn't pop the corn soon enough. I didn't expect this until March, at least. They're eating their own:
Obama's national campaign co-chairman, Jesse Jackson Jr., slammed Clinton's now-famous misty-eyed moment by wondering aloud why she didn't shed public tears for victims of Hurricane Katrina, for example."They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for," Jackson told MSNBC.
And they think that Huckabee is going to split the Republicans? This could be the crackup that finally drives the blacks off the Democrats' liberal plantation. The slave revolt may be finally beginning. The big tent may be falling down around their ears. And the destruction of that coalition that the Clintons started back in the nineties may be finally coming to completion. If so, let's just hope that some new, and better parties arise from the ashes.
[Update a while later]
Dennis Wingo in comments links to Camille psychoanalyzing Hillary today. This may not be just a night, but a year of the long knives.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AMChris Matthews says that Obama lost New Hampshire because they're racists up there in the Granite State.
I expected this, but not quite so soon.
If Obama isn't the next president, it will be because of America's inherent racism. And if Hillary! isn't, it will be because of America's inherent sexism. It won't, it goes without saying, be because of any inherent deficiencies in them as candidates that are independent of their melanin content or genital configuration.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 AMAnd it's guaranteed to be one or the other, because only one of them (if either) can win. And of course, if neither of them do, and another Rethuglican steals the election, it will be because we're both racist and sexist. Because, you know, it's always America's fault.
Cynical Christian has a post about Huckappeal. But he misses (or at least doesn't elaborate upon) a key point:
What grabbed me were some of Carter's defenses of Mike Huckabee as the real full-spectrum conservative in the race.A prime example of how "economic conservatives" are out of touch with the Reagan conservatives is the issue of executive compensation for poorly managed companies. On CNBC Governor Mike Huckabee expressed his disgust for corporate boards that award CEOs with $200 million bonuses while the workers are taking 40% pay cuts. As the Governor made clear he didnt think the federal government should take action. His only point was merely that as a conservative he would use the bully pulpit to speak out against such outrageous behavior.I think that one thing you have to assume about political candidates is that if that say something is disgusting, they're liable to do something about it. If you're not going to judge what a president will do based on what he says, then stop making me listen to those flippin' state of the union addresses every year. And if a politician tries--or threatens--to mess with how people get paid in the private sector, you can no longer call that politician conservative.
While I agree that that is not a conservative position, it's also misleading. There is a slippery implication here that is extremely non-conservative (or libertarian).
If there really were a corporate governance problem that was resulting in CEOs regularly being overpaid for poor performance, then it might in fact be worthwhile to look into it and see if the government was interfering somehow with the market to allow this to happen (that is, after all, the usual reason for apparent "market failures"). But this isn't even obviously a market failure. Note the insidious assumption: to Huckabee (and Carter), the problem is "corporate boards that award CEOs with $200 million bonuses while the workers are taking 40% pay cuts."
The implication here is that if a company is giving workers 40% pay cuts, it is failing at its job. But it could be that the workers had been overpaid for years, and that the only way to make the company successful at its real purpose (returning value to the shareholders), is to reduce their pay. The assumption is that the purpose of a corporation is not to reward its owners (a base foundation of capitalism), but to provide well-paid jobs for employees. Now one can argue (though not convincingly, at least to me) that that should be the purpose of a corporation, but to do so is one of the farthest things from economic conservatism. It's a ludicrous quote to defend the notion that Huckabee is a conservative. That is classical "liberal" (i.e., non-liberal "progressive") dogma. Democrats say those sorts of things, not Republicans trying to pass as conservative.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 PMAll the one-stars at Amazon by people who haven't read Jonah's book
Plus the oftnever-told story of Teddy Roosevelt and Big Meat. You never heard this when you had to read The Jungle
[Update Thursday night]
Since Glenn keeps bumping this link up to the top of Instapundit, some of the newcomers might want to look around at the rest of the blog. Lots of others fun stuff posted over the last couple days.
http://www.transterrestrial.com
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:41 PMVirginia Postrel, on Michael Barone, and "change":
I was born in 1960 but remember well the "economic disasters and foreign policy reverses of the 1970s." On my pessimistic days, it worries me that not only voters in general but the young pundit class don't understand how much worse things can be. On my optimistic days, I think the lessons of that period have been largely internalized. After all, you don't hear people proposing wage and price controls. Except on doctors and medicine.
Unfortunately, while I'm generally an optimist about the future, I am a pessimist on the ability of the electorate to be aware of, let alone remember, history. And just as in the nineties, the Obamagasms would indicate that they are clamoring for another vacation from it. Unfortunately, the world often has other plans.
And speaking of remembering history, she also has some thoughts on Ron Paul:
The disclosures are not news to me, nor is the Paul campaign's dismissive reaction a surprise. When you give your political heart to a guy who spends so much time worrying about international bankers, you're not going to get a tolerant cosmopolitan.
Nope.
[Wednesday evening follow up]
Virginia does something rare (if not previously unheard of). She says that her former magazine fell down on the job:
...I was never particularly interested in the Paul campaign, which I considered a fringe effort in both its chances (nil) and much of its rhetoric (too many conspiracies). Rightly or wrongly, I didn't consider Paul "one of the biggest mainstream representatives of libertarian thought." I'm not sure whether I would have written about him if I had. Life is short, I don't make my living as a professional libertarian any more, and I don't feel responsible for commenting on every libertarian-related development that comes along. These days, I am more interested in understanding culture and economics than focusing on policy, much less policing the libertarian movement. Plus, as the Paulites will be quick to note, I disagree with Paul on his sexiest issue, the Iraq war (and on his second sexiest issue, opposition to immigration).I do fault my friends at Reason, who are much cooler than I'll ever be and who, scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn't do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. For starters, they might have asked Bob Poole about Ron Paul; I remember a board member complaining about Paul's newsletters back in the early '90s. Besides, people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul's populist appeals.
I agree on the differences that she has with the doctor (in addition to his weird hangers on, which include not just racists and anti-semites, but with his opposition to the war, radical leftists, all the way out to International ANSWER). I just happened to get my dead-tree issue of the magazine a couple days ago, and Ron Paul was the cover story, by Brian Doherty (who, for the record, I generally like both personally and as a writer). I didn't read the whole thing (which I have a tendency to do lately with Reason--I'd prefer more, shorter articles, rather than fewer, in-more-turgid-depth-than-necessary ones--maybe that's something that will change in the incoming Welch era), but I skimmed it, and it did seem to me to gloss over many of the serious issues with him. It also seemed timed to try to boost him in the primaries. I'm assuming that, given the lead time, this was Nick Gillespie's issue, perhaps his last for dead tree before taking over the Reason multi-media gig.
While I complain about living in south Florida a lot, one of the (few, to me) benefits is that Bob Poole and his wife moved out here from LA about the same time we did, and live about half an hour away, so we have the occasional pleasure of an opportunity to get together for dinner. I recall a conversation we had a year or so ago, in which we noted that the war really seems to have split the libertarians (though not necessarily the Libertarians). You could see this in 2004, when there was a roundup of libertarian(ish) viewpoints on who they were going to vote for, and Bob went on record as favoring Bush, contrary to many of his Reason colleagues. Bob, Glenn Reynolds, Virginia (and lowly me) seem to have come down on one side of the divide, and many of our friends (and they really are, as Virginia says) at Reason on the other. But I agree with her that they should have been warning off the younger libertarians who aren't familiar with the history, rather than encouraging them.
It is going to be very interesting to see how this unfolds, and what Ron Paul will do when (despite the fanatical fervor of his supporters) he realizes that he's not going to get the nomination. Will he run as a Libertarian again (as he did in 1988, when I voted for him)? This is problematic, because I think that there are several states that wouldn't allow him to do so after having run as a Republican. And no other party really offers him the prospect of being on a large number of state ballots. Will there be a write-in campaign? Heck, as bizarre as the coalition he's gathered is, he could even run as a member of the Green Party at this point. The thing is, such is the nature of the broad (albeit extreme and eclectic) range of his appeal now that I think he'd likely take more votes from the Dems (particularly if Hillary is the nominee) than the Republicans (depending on who their nominee is, but not that much).
I just think that this is more proof of Jonah's thesis
[Update in the late evening]
Tim Cavanaugh, former Reasonite (and the editor for my dust up with Homer Hickam in October), has some thoughts over at the LA Times. And of course, I should have checked out Hit'n'Run, Reason's group blog, to see what they've been saying about it. Matt Welch, incoming editor of the magazine (and erstwhile LA blogger buddy when I lived there) has a lot of linkage.
[Update a few minutes later]
Following links from Cavanaugh's piece, I found this one to Matt, with more links to a lot more commentary from yesterday, including some of mine (though not this post).
[Update once more]
Nick Gillespie professes shock.
And I don't mean to imply that he's not sincere--I'm sure he is. Virginia's point (and mine) is that if he'd asked some of the older hands around, they probably could have warned him about this, months (or even years) ago.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:23 AMA ninety-year-old woman took down a mountain lion with a twenty two. If she'd been out for a walk, it might have been her own life she was defending, and not just her dog's.
Of course, she did it with one of those evil guns, which some, who think that gun control would work if only we were sufficiently draconian about it, would want to make sure that she doesn't have.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:50 PMJames Carville says that "...I'm not getting back into domestic political consulting. If I do go back, it would be safe to say that I'm the biggest liar in America."
So what else would be new?
Oh. Maybe he means that he'll finally exceed Bill Clinton?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:39 PMAt least for Democrats:
We scanned the transcripts of Saturday's debates hosted by ABC News and tallied up the references to Islamic terrorism. The rhetorical divide between Democrats and Republicans on that score alone ignoring the yawning gaps in policy is stunning.None of the four Democrat presidential candidates despite running for an office that demands they lead the ongoing global war against Islamic extremists could bring himself or herself to define the enemy we face as Islamic.
Their combined references to "Islam" or "Islamic" totaled zero even though moderator Charles Gibson prompted them with a question about "Islamic radicals" threatening the U.S. with nuclear terrorism.
But Democrats refused to go there. Out of respect for their constituency, there was a complete blackout regarding Islamic jihad.
If this continues into the general election, I don't think it's going to help them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:20 PMJames Kirchik has been digging through some of Ron Paul's old newsletters. It's not a pretty sight.
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first-person, implying that Paul was the author.But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
I voted for Paul for President in 1988, primarily because I tended to vote Libertarian in the eighties. If these existed at the time, and I'd read some of them, I might not have. Of course, I've never been a big fan of the Von Mises Institute, either.
[Update a few minutes later]
Having read in more detail, let me amend the above from "might not have" to "certainly would not have."
[Update a couple minutes later]
A Ron Paul supporter in deep denial. And as Glenn asks, "Did Paul write this? Was it ghostwritten under his name? Is it better if the answer is the latter?"
[Update late afternoon]
Here's the campaign's response.
I'm willing to believe that he wasn't the author, and even that he didn't endorse the newsletter, but I find it troubling that he let this stuff go out under his own name for so long. The fact that he takes "moral responsibility" for it now is nice, I guess, but it really makes one question his judgment. And his campaign continues to attract many unsavory elements of American politics, including 911 "Truthers," who he seems to be unwilling to denounce.
[Update on Wednesday evening, after an Instalanche]
There was more discussion on this in a post this morning, from Virginia Postrel. There's an update from her there as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:11 PMSt. Charles, MO, is considering banning cussing in bars.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:35 AMIf Obama gets into the White House, will it be due to Jeri Ryan? Just an interesting example of how contingent life can be.
[Update a few minutes later]
In other Obama news, Christopher Hitchens has some thoughts on Obama and race.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:09 AM...of Jonah's book
To understand fascism in its full expression requires putting aside Stalin's misrepresentation of the term and also look beyond the Holocaust, and instead return to the period Goldberg terms the "fascist moment," roughly 1910-35. A statist ideology, fascism uses politics as the tool to transform society from atomized individuals into an organic whole. It does so by exalting the state over the individual, expert knowledge over democracy, enforced consensus over debate, and socialism over capitalism. It is totalitarian in Mussolini's original meaning of the term, of "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." Fascism's message boils down to "Enough talk, more action!" Its lasting appeal is getting things done.In contrast, conservatism calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone.
I've been arguing with people for decades that there is little useful difference between fascism and socialism/communism. Certainly what difference there was was pretty transparent to the user. I think that nine out of ten (if not ninety nine out of a hundred) times that the word "fascist" is used (particularly as an epithet) it is utterly mindless. As Pipes notes, "Already in 1946, George Orwell noted that fascism had degenerated to signify 'something not desirable.'"
Classical liberalism is as far as it's possible to be from both fascism and socialism. While the notion of a one-dimensional scale to describe political views is ludicrous enough in its own right, the notion that, on such a scale, libertarians and fascists would be on the same side is demented, but many people (particularly ignorant leftists) continue to maintain this delusion.
I'd like to think that Jonah's book will provide a corrective to this decades-long calumny, but sadly, as is often the case, the people who need to read it the most probably won't. They'll just continue to ignorantly fulminate about the cover.
[Late morning update]
Jonah writes in USA Today today about Putin's role model:
While Time saw fit to linger on "the Russian president's pale blue eyes," they left out a fascinating rationale for Putin's power grab. For much of the last year, the Russian government has been lionizing an American president who roughly seized the reins of power, dealt briskly with civil liberties, had a harsh view of constitutional niceties and crafted a media strategy, which critics derided as "propaganda," that went "over the heads" of the Washington press corps.George W. Bush? Nope. Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Putin has routinely invoked FDR as his role model. "Roosevelt laid out his plan for the country's development for decades in advance," he gushed at a news conference last fall. "At the end of the day, it turned out that the implementation of that plan benefited ordinary citizens and the elites and eventually brought the United States to the position it is in today."
"Roosevelt was our military ally in the 20th century, and he is becoming our ideological ally in the 21st," Putin's chief "ideologist," Vladislav Surkov, explained at a state-sponsored conference commemorating the 125th anniversary of FDR's birth.
There's a rich irony here. For years, liberals have wailed about the moral hazard of Bush's supposedly crypto- (or not-so-crypto) fascist presidency. And yet it's FDR, Lion of American Liberalism, who, some seven decades after his death, endures as the role model for Russia's lurch toward authoritarianism, if not fascism.
An inconvenient truth.
So, class, is Vlad a communist? A fascist? Both? Neither?
And if you don't want to take Putin's word for it, Hitler and Mussolini are involved, too.
Also, he notes the Bush derangement:
Back in the here and now, GWB has done nothing remotely like what FDR did (for good or for ill, some might say). Despite the constant bleating about his hostility to the rule of law and civil liberties, he hasn't tried to, say, pack the Supreme Court, or round up hundreds of thousands of Japanese (or Muslim) people.Bush's critics certainly have a point that our leaders need to think about the example we set. It's advice liberals should have heeded long ago.
Indeed, though I disagree that they're liberals.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AMSecurities pay $1 if candidate nominated for respective party. Go to Intrade to trade these. The images are deep linked so should reflect the most recent trades whenever you load the page.
McCain:
Giuliani:
Huckabee:
Thompson:
Obama:
Clinton:
It's now six years into Michigan's CCW law, and the rate of gun deaths in the state is in decline, while registrations are up. Here's what I had to say about this about five years ago, a year or so into the program. As Glenn notes, this should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with both the theory and available empirical evidence. Of course, the irrational clueless will always be with us:
Other opponents remain convinced that it has contributed to an ongoing epidemic of firearms-related death and destruction.Shikha Hamilton of Grosse Pointe, president of the Michigan chapter of the anti-gun group Million Moms March, said she believes overall gun violence (including suicide and accidental shootings) is up in Michigan since 2001. Many incidents involving CCW permit holders have not been widely reported, she said.
The most publicized recent case came early in 2007, when a 40-year-old Macomb County woman fired from her vehicle toward the driver of a truck she claimed had cut her off on I-94. Bernadette Headd was convicted of assault and sentenced to two years in prison.
Hamilton said that even if gun violence has ebbed, it remains pervasive, tragic and unnecessary. At the least, a more liberal concealed weapons law means there are more guns in homes and cars and on the street, she said, and more potential for disaster.
Note: "she believes." This is a faith-based religion. These people will never be swayed by reality.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 AMIf there's any chance to head off a Huckabee disaster, it may be that Rush is the answer.
RUSH: All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take the gloves off here for just a second. Welcome back, by the way, to the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB Network. We're getting a lot of people calling here, claiming to speak for all evangelicals. Even Huckabee himself said on Fox yesterday that he did not get all of the evangelical vote in Iowa. It is not true to say that the evangelical vote in this country is monolithic and in total support of Mike Huckabee. If you want to call and speak for yourself, feel free to do so. Most of the pro-life groups out there, by the way, not groups of religious people, but most of the pro-life groups happen to be supporting Fred Thompson. In another thing, we had a guy, Eric from North Carolina, who called and said and that the Home School Legal Defense Association endorsed Huckabee. That's not true. One of their top dogs did, a guy named Michael Farris, but the association did not. You can go through their website and you will find a lot of critical articles on Huckabee, re: home schooling. They had a press release saying that Farris' endorsement is not an endorsement from them. This is a guy that accused me of deceiving people. You can call here, you can say what you want, but be very careful, because I am an encyclopedia. If you're going to start making claims here, we're going to find out about it.
He then proceeds to take them to school.
There's still time to educate the evangelical (true) conservative voters in South Carolina, and here's hoping that a combination of Rush and an energized Fred can head him off at the pass in the next few days.
[Late evening update]
Fred is South Carolina bound. Send some money, if you believe in the cause, and can afford it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:17 PMThat's the siren on Drudge (no permalink, as usual):
Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!"She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."
It seems a little premature to me. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a Clinton pulled out early.
[Update late morning]
Wow. Dana Milbank sure isn't a Hillary fan.
[Another update before noon]
Looks like Bill Richardson has put all his chips on Obama:
"The preternaturally jolly McAuliffe is a good man to have spinning for you in a pinch. But his good cheer dimmed when I asked him about Bill Richardson, who appears to have made an 11th-hour deal to throw his supporters to Obama. "How many times did [Clinton] appoint him?" McAuliffe marveled. "Two? U.N. Ambassador and Energy Secretary?" He looked at me, half-glaring, awaiting confirmation. "I don't know," I joked, "but who's counting?" "I am," McAuliffe said firmly"Joe Monahan this morning also cites current ABC newsman (and former Clintonista) George Stephanopolous to the same effect -- that Richardson has burned whatever bridge he may have had with the Clintons -- and Monahan suggests that, for Richardson, New Mexico may end up being the Land of Entrapment.
He might want to start wearing a helmet that can handle flying ashtrays.
[Afternoon update]
Brian Cherry has some pretty tart comments about the situation:
Iowa Democrat voters discarded Hillary like a healthy body rejecting a kidney transplant from a baboon. This was in a microcosm what can happen when Hillary is running in the general election against whoever the Republicans choose as their nominee.During the 2006 mid-term elections Republicans stayed home for a number of reasons. They were depressed by Congressional Republicans spending money like a Kennedy at the Mustang Ranch; they were weighed down by a President who acted more and more like the leader of Mexico then the United States, and many were simply fooled by the Conservative talking candidates that the Democrats found to run for House and Senate seats. With Hillary on the ballot though, apathy will simply not be possible, and even many of the Republican voters who take issue with candidates like Giuliani over his opinions on abortion will come out to proudly put a nail in Hillarys coffin. In short, the Clintons will have to find a way to deal with a Republican and Conservative voter turnout that will probably happen in unprecedented numbers. No wonder Hillary is all for importing the entire population of Mexico and giving each of them a drivers license. That way they can also get a voters card combat the avalanche of opposition voters she will be contending with.
There will be those who take issue with what I am saying based on the idea that Hillary may not be the Democrat nominee. Despite her loss in Iowa she will probably bounce back and may very well be saved by the coasts and by states like Michigan where Obama and Edwards pulled themselves off the ballot because the mitten state moved their primary up against the wishes of the DNC. If she is still behind after Super Tuesday, there is always the possibility that Barack will be found face down in his morning bowl of Count Chocula with six bullet holes in his back and a suicide note written in same handwriting that was found on the Vince Foster suicide/resignation letter. She becomes the nominee by default in the case of this unfortunate accident.
By the way, for those in comments who tell me not to count her out yet, I don't. I'll believe it's over when Dorothy brings me the broom. And I think that it's going to get very nasty before then.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 AMDaniel Pipes writes that he was too raised (sort of) as a Muslim. And that means that his life is at risk not just because he's a presidential candidate, but also because he's a high-profile heretic, with a death sentence over his head, based on the teachings of his former religion. Not that it's a reason not to vote for him in itself, but this strikes me as a much more interesting religious problem than either Romney or Huckabee have.
Of course, it's also interesting that, in all its Obama worship, the MSM continues to try to whitewash this away, accusing Pipes of spreading "falsehoods."
[Update a few minutes later]
Heh: "...isn't it a bit odd that the leading candidate for 'change' is a Chicago Democrat?"
Speaking of Chicago, if it is perceived that Hillary steals the nomination from him now, via super delegates and the like, expect Denver to make the events from four decades ago in that city look like a matronly tea party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:40 AMHas any southern candidate done well in New Hampshire? Bill Clinton came in second, despite his spin at the time about the "comeback kid."
I ask because I'm a little surprised at the antipathy expressed by Frank Luntz' focus group to Fred Thompson.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 PM...that I wish that the media would ask, but probably won't. It would separate the wheat from the chafe.
"Senator, Governor, whatever... Do you believe that we are at war with an enemy with whom no negotiation is possible?"
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:42 PMJohn Hood makes an excellent point:
There is also a longer, truly heart-felt affection by center-left journalists for McCain, who mirrors their sentiments on the issue they (wrongly) believe is central to American politics: campaign-finance reform....in this matter Iowa is inconvenient for the McCain/Left argument. Huckabee had little money and won. Romney spent lots of money and came in second.
This is one of the biggest reasons that I do not want to see John McCain as president. Of course, it's also one of my many unhappinesses with George W. Bush, who signed a law that he stated himself he believed to be unconstitutional, thus betraying his oath of office.
As of 7:20 EST Friday, on Intrade, Obama has moved up to $0.48 on the dollar vs. $0.50 on the dollar for Clinton. Clinton is showing as a close third to Edwards in Iowa dropped her from a high of $0.70 last week.
On the Republican side, McCain is trading at about $0.31 on the dollar for Republican nomination now ahead of Giuliani at about $0.27 with Huckabee at $0.17 and Romney at $0.14. Giuliani was trading at $0.45 at the beginning of December.
A political stock market, a class of info markets, is the best known device for aggregating poll data and all other available data, public and private about the chances of the candidates.
Obama-NH last trade at $0.65 out of $1.00 vs. $0.44 for Clinton. For SC, it's Obama $0.62 with Clinton's last trade at $0.42. Some arbitrage opportunities here to lock in more than $1 by selling short each candidate. McCain is trading at $0.75 for NH and in SC, The Rest of the Field (There's no Huckabee security here for some odd reason) is trading at $0.40 vs. McCain's $0.30.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 05:46 AMNo better place to hang out tonight for the Iowa Caucus (Cauci?) than Iowahawk's place.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:33 PMEveryone (well, not everyone, but the conventional wisdom) is writing off Fred Thompson.
But this prognostication raises a question that (as far as I know) has never been asked. Everyone assumes that if Fred drops out, he throws his support to his old bud McCain. But what if Thompson does much better than expected, and after South Carolina, McCain drops out? Where does his support go? Will he explicitly endorse Thompson? And even if not, will his voters go there anyway?
It's hard to see them going to Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani. What do they have to offer the conservatives and hawks who were with McCain (assuming that's why they were with him). Neither Huck or Mitt has been very strong on the war (that's a vast understatement with respect to Huckabee, who seems to be a Republican version of Jimmy Carter). And Rudy seems too socially liberal to attract McCain voters (many of whom are presumably attracted by his pro-life position).
If Fred comes in third (and two positions above McCain) in Iowa, as predicted above, he will probably have enough momentum to ignore New Hampshire and raise money for South Carolina. Particularly since he will have shown that he didn't "enter too late" (the other candidates entered too early, as he continually points out) and that he can do well when he focuses on a needed state.
The key point is that with all of these polls, no one has a majority. The real question is: where will people go when their favorite flames out? People should be asking that about every candidate, not just Fred. This is still anyone's (well, OK, not Ron Paul's, or the other minor candidates') race, in that if one can pick off the votes of the others, they can rapidly raise their percentage to a majority. This seems like good news for Fred to me, if he can do well tonight. This is a result of the fact that there's no Republican incumbent.
And if no one can, then things will be very interesting at the convention. It seems to me that if it ends up brokered, that ends up being good for the most genuine heir to Ronald Reagan as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:44 PMThe Lakota are declaring their independence.
"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.
They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.
Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.
The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Means said.
They have really gotten a raw deal, having had socialism imposed on them by the Great White Father back east for all these decades.
It will be interesting to see how many countries recognize them (Venezuela and other America haters are a sure bet).
It also will be interesting to see what they actually do, and what Washington's response will be. Will they implement border controls?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 AM...from 2007. A roundup by John Hawkins. He's got them from both sides of the aisle, but the vast majority are clear products of Bush derangement.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:51 AMBill Whittle has a long ode to John Boyd.
A lot of this theory applies to NASA as well. Unfortunately, space isn't important enough to compel the government to do it well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:39 AMSuch is the low esteem of George Bush's America in the rest of the world that Britain and France are fighting over which of them is our closest ally.
After decades of Anglo-French rivalry, in which France has vehemently deplored the global influence America and Britain have attained and what every president of France since Charles de Gaulle has described as "Anglo-Saxon culture," Mr. Sarkozy claimed during his visit to Washington last week that France, not Britain, is now America's best friend and partner.Mr. Brown, who has been portrayed on both sides of the Atlantic as having distanced himself from America to avoid the charge against his predecessor, Tony Blair, that he was Mr. Bush's "poodle," fought back last night, claiming in a speech at a banquet thrown by the lord mayor of the city of London that the French president's bid to usurp Britain's traditional place alongside America would not succeed.
I hear the Democrat candidates bloviate on the campaign trail about how they're going to "repair our relations" with the rest of the world, and wonder on what planet they're living. Hilarious.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:34 AM...and I'll tell you no...well, you know the old saying...
Hillary! doesn't seem to be on a listening tour this time around:
Iowa Falls resident Alene Rickels, 51, when asked her thoughts about the event, said: Her speech was really good, but it wouldve been interesting to see how she reacted to questions.I really thought she would take questions, said Rickels, a middle school teacher. Its late in the day, so Im assuming that thats the reason. I dont know what she did the rest of the day.
Clinton took no questions from audiences at any of her stops earlier Sunday, in Vinton, Traer and Cedar Falls.
Sure. It was just late in the day.
It may be getting "late in the day" in a more figurative sense as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 AMDid Mike Huckabee, aspiring to be the Nanny-In-Chief, have gastric bypass surgery?
It wouldn't shock me. I see him as a Republican version of Bill Clinton, minus the womanizing (including the involuntary relations with women).
[Update on New Year's Eve]
This seems to be a pretty good refutation of the speculation. Not that it makes me any more inclined to vote for a nanny, even one who follows his own advice.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:35 PMFred Thompson bypasses the MSM:
I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I dont do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have.When this talk first originated from people around the country both directly and through polls, liked the idea of me stepping up and of course, you always look better from a distance.
But most of those people are still there. I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage really has to be talked into the marriage, it probably aint going to be a good deal. But if you mutually decide its going to be a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then we have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.
Im offering myself up. Im saying that I have the background, the capability and concern to do this and do it for the right reasons. Im not particularly interested in running for president, but I think Id make a good president.
Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.
I dont know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I dont know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, its all about fire in the belly.
One of the reasons that Washington was an excellent example as the first president was that he was a reluctant president. He could have been an American king, but wanted nothing more than to serve his country and, like Cincinnatus, return to his plow, setting the precedent for two terms.
I've never been a big fan of the "fire in the belly" theory myself. I don't trust a man (or woman) who has wanted to be president since they were a child (e.g., Bill Clinton, John Kerry--there are almost certainly Republican examples as well, but none come immediately to mind). I think that there is something wrong, almost pathologically so, with such people, and that they cannot be trusted with power.
There is an old saying that some people want to be something, and others want to do something. Ronald Reagan wanted to accomplish things that he could only do as president, whereas George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton wanted to be president, and had no particular goals in mind other than that, as far as I could ever tell. One of the reasons that I like Thompson is that I have a sense that he sees real problems with the country that he thinks he knows how to fix, or at least make a start at it, but he's not consumed with the ambition of being a president.
Unfortunately, our system (particularly in modern times) is set up such that the qualities required to be a good and winning candidate aren't necessarily those required to be a good president (as Bill Clinton proved decidedly). I hope that Thompson can overcome that intrinsic hurdle of a modern democracy.
[Sunday evening update]
In a Reaganesque manner, Fred Thompson is appealing to Democrats:
You know, when I'm asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn't matterThese days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. Theyre all NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats. Theyve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It's time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.
So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other partythe millions of Democrats who haven't left the Democratic party so much as their party's national leadership has left them.
The other interesting thing is that he's doing it not in soundbites, but a seventeen-minute video. He's respecting the intelligence of the Iowa voter. You can hear it here.
What's interesting is that this is a primary message--in which the Democrats can't vote for him. It's really a message to Republicans that he's gong to try to reunite the country, and that it makes him the most electable of all Republican candidates that continue to maintain conservative principles. We'll see how it plays.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:02 PMIntrade shows Clinton trading at about $0.67 on the dollar for winning the democratic nomination despite trailing Obama for winning Iowa and South Carolina primaries. Giuliani is leading trading at about $0.30 on the dollar for winning the republican nomination despite being behind in NH, IA, MI and SC.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 03:27 PMMichael Young is wondering:
...maybe it's time to stop referring to the neocon policies of the Bush administration. The neocons are gone, many for so long that no one seems to remember their leaving. What we now have in Washington is a mishmash of old political realism and improvisation, topped with increasingly empty oratory on freedom and democracy. That should please quite a few of Bush's domestic critics. He's returned to the futile routine in the Middle East that they always urged him to.
Well, the anti-war folks are always fighting the last anti-war.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:16 PMTodd Seavey has the effrontery to thoughtfully review Jonah Goldberg's book
I always thought H.G. Wellss stories smacked of his arrogant Fabian Society-style socialism, but even when he depicted things like a human race that suddenly gains super-intelligence and thus (naturally) decides to hold massive book burnings to destroy now-obsolete works of bourgeois art, I never thought Wells was consciously fascist just naively socialist. Thanks to Goldberg, I now know that Wells and others took inspiration interchangeably from both socialism and fascism and why not? Both (closely related) movements were efforts to end the fragmentation caused by capitalism, individual freedom, and industrial modernity, drawing everyone together into a single, tribe-like collective. If socialism and fascism seem like opposites now, its only because weve allowed the left to claim for decades that they are.But if we drop the partisan allegiances and look with fresh eyes at, say, FDR interning tens of thousands based on their race or denouncing as traitors any businesses that failed to display his Blue Eagle symbol and follow his industrial-planning orders, how vast are the differences between Italian, Russian, German, and American collectivism, really, at their philosophical bases (different by far though their body counts may have been America and Italy being relatively benign and Germany and Russia each killing tens of millions)?
And of course, no good deed going unpunished, he is attacked for it by the usual suspects.
Im sure it all seems like productive, funny activity on the commenters end, but to use that imagination thing I mentioned earlier how would the results of the weeks comment-fest have been substantially different if, say, I had posted an entry asking leftists to weigh in with evidence that theyre a bunch of spiteful assholes who find it inherently amusing to gang up on people, and they had responded with frank confessionals affirming that hypothesis?Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:49 PMKeeping in mind that what I did to get them started was write a book review, note that theyve so far, among other things, (a) bandied about outdated financial information about me, (b) called me clinically insane, (c) used various obscenities, and (d) suggested that Im gay or some sort of ill-defined sexual deviant (which seems to be a favorite and almost inevitable tactic of online leftist commenters, which youd think would raise questions about their qualifications to be the great defenders of diversity and tolerance and all that). As sociologists have observed time and again, a mob, not the most imaginative of beasts, tends to do exactly the same things wherever it manifests and regardless of its cause such as go for the genitals. Clever move, mob. Keep up the innovative work.
On the Constitution Party ticket?
The story isn't well sourced, but it certainly wouldn't shock me if true. Despite the fervent hopes of his followers, his chances of getting the Republican nomination are nil, and I can easily imagine them continuing to support him as an independent or another party.
The conventional wisdom would be that this would be bad news for Republicans, but I disagree. When you look at where most of his support is coming from (mostly anti-war), and the fact that none of the Democrat candidates will surrender as fast as the anti-war left wants them to (plus all his support from Soros & Co.) I think that he'd pull more from the Democrats than from the Republicans.
But that depends a lot on who the Republican nominee is. In the unlikely event that it were Huckabee, I can actually imagine a four-way race with another independent run by someone, so that there would be at least one candidate for those who want to actually win the war. And I think that it would fracture both major parties along libertarian/collectivist lines (something that is long overdue).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:40 AMFred Thompson is doing a fundraiser.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:22 PMRoger Kimball, on political correctness, good intentions, and moral accountability:
In The Social Contract, Rousseau warned that Those who dare to undertake the institution of a people must feel themselves capable of changing human nature, of altering the constitution of man for the purpose of strengthening it. Robespierre & Co. thought themselves just the chaps for the job. The fact that they measured the extent of their success by the frequency that the guillotines around Paris operated highlights the connection between the imperatives of political correctness and tyrannybetween what Robespierre candidly described as virtue and its emanation, terror.That is the conjunction that should give us pause, especially when we contemplate the good intentions of the politically correct bureaucrats who preside over more and more of life in Western societies today. They mean well. They seek to boost all mankind up to their own plane of enlightenment. Inequality outrages their sense of justice. They regard conventional habits of behavior as so many obstacles to be overcome on the path to perfection. They see tradition as the enemy of innovation, which they embrace as a lifeline to moral progress. They cannot encounter a wrong without seeking to right it. The idea that some evils may be ineradicable is anathema to them. Likewise the traditional notion that the best is the enemy of the good, that many choices we face are to some extent choices among evilssuch proverbial wisdom outrages their sense of moral perfectibility.
Will Smith is (unjustly) involved.
One of the dangerous (and false) assumptions underlying the "progressive" project is the notion that there is no human nature, and that human beings are almost infinitely malleable and mutable. All that is needed is to pass the proper laws, and to punish those who refuse to bend to the dictates of the superior morality. Such notions lie at the heart of most of the human catastrophes of the last couple centuries, from Robespierre, to Lenin and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And of course, it is at the heart of the war in which we're now engaged, with the new totalitarians who would, if they could, bend us to their extreme Islamic will.
[Update a few minutes later]
I don't think so, and neither do most of the commenters. This is just the old "poverty causes terrorism" myth gussied up a bit. The problems with the Arab and Muslim world go far beyond that, as noted. It doesn't explain why Hindus don't do these things.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:27 AMFrom Fred Thompson. Compare it to Huck and Hill's.
[Evening update]
Per comments, I'll be amazed to see Jim Harris' panicked response to this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:35 AMThere's a new blog devoted to freeing Mark Steyn. That's in addition to the post that created the button on the left, which I wrote about here. I think that I'll redirect that button to this post, and use it for updates from now on.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:30 AMI've added a new button over to the left on my sidebar, supporting Mark Steyn and Macleans against the Canadian Human RightsWrongs Commission. Here's the latest in the saga.
If someone sets up a legal fund to support a counter suit by Mark, I'll link the button to it, instead of to the web site that came up with it, as it is now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:13 AMLileks says that Time Magazine is too easily impressed:
...gosh, convincing the Russian general population to accept illiberal strong-man autocracy; that's hard work. What do you do with your afternoon?
I don't know if Petraeus should have been the pick, but he should have been ranked above Vlad. I was kind of disappointed that they didn't pick me again. Not that it did much for my hits this year.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 AMA few days ago, Bill Whittle responded to a mindless minion of the BushitlerCheneyChimpyMcHalliburton crowd in my comments section. Some of you may have seen it at the time. He took it and made it into a blog post, with comments.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:42 AM...the 2008 edition of Al Gore?
There are a lot of similarities.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 AMThe numbers that indicate that Congress has record low approval ratings historically, is sort of like a political Rorschach test. People (and particularly the media) tend to project their own feelings about it on the rest of the population, and assume that others are unhappy for the same reasons they are, but in fact, the upset comes from two entirely different directions.
Democrats are unhappy with the Congress because it has failed to do many of the things that they thought they were promised when they elected them in 2006 (e.g., surrender in Iraq, raise taxes, socialize medicine, impeach Bush, etc.) The rest of us are unhappy because they're attempting to do so (well, OK, only the loons are actually trying to impeach Bush). Their incompetence and inability to do the wrong things has gotten everyone angry at them.
They're really in a no-win situation. And it couldn't happen to a more mendacious bunch.
But having said that, this is just cruel. But in a funny way.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:59 AMI think that Harry Reid is living in an alternate universe:
"Who's winning?" Reid asked a group of reporters. "Big Oil, Big Tobacco. ... Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. ... The American people are losing."
I'm pretty sure that he's the most incompetent and idiotic Senate Majority Leader in my lifetime, and that's saying something. And I thought that Tom Daschle was bad. If I were a Democrat, I'd be embarrassed.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:26 PMPejman has a long endorsement of Fred Thompson. I agree with most of it. If I were a Republican, he'd get my vote.
[Update in the evening]
Matt Lewis says don't write off Fred Thompson..
[Late night update]
OK, call me crazy [raucous chorus of Transterrestrial readers: "You're crazy!"], but I think that this could be a winning campaign ad for Fred.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:59 AMStephen Bainbridge (no fan of the Iraq war) makes the case against Ron Paul.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:38 AMI don't think that there's a single federal agency that wouldn't be improved greatly by simply razing it to the ground and starting over. The CIA should have been disbanded years ago, and replaced with something else.
It should still be. My biggest disappointment (among many) with the Bush administration is that, while it talked tough on the war, it was never willing to refocus the government on fighting and winning it, instead increasing and consolidating bureaucracies, and continuing the war on US citizens (e.g, drugs). That's the problem with having a "compassionate conservative" and a big-government Republican in charge. It's why I pine for a Fred Thompson, who at least talks like a federalist.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:36 PMAre political campaigns unfair to women? Probably. There are many, many reasons why electing Hillary Clinton president would be a bad idea, but the fact that she looks her age isn't one of them.
[Update a few minutes later]
I guess other people have to be wondering, though, if this haggard look is the result of a campaign (and one that is still in a primary, having not even gotten to the general), what would she look like after four years of the presidency? Will she even survive a general campaign? I recall being shocked in 1980 at how much Jimmy Carter appeared to have aged in his term.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:01 PMIs Hillary! building up to one? She's always struck me as pretty tightly wound.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:23 AMThis upcoming "bi-partisan" (if you really believe that Ahhhnuld is a Republican) disaster of a health-care plan.
Apparently Sacramento has never learned the story of the goose that laid the golden eggs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:51 AMHuckabee on foreign policy.
I can't believe that this guy could really get the Republican nomination. And of course, just because he's in the lead doesn't mean that he has a good chance, since he only has a plurality, not a majority, and seems unlikely to get one. And if he does somehow get the nomination, I can't see the party rallying behind him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:22 AMOK, this isn't what I had in mind as an alternative.
Though I have to say, if all you care about is the war, there would be a lot worse tickets...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:01 PMThis is for "Hillary Supporter." Glenn Reynolds disputes someone who still fantasizes that it's about the national guard.
[Late Sunday update]
For those who have already read Glenn's post, you might want to do so again--he has an update:
...it's important to understand that to the Framers the "militia" wasn't some specialist unit of government employees, but a group consisting of the armed populace; one that, though in some ways organized by the government, was also in some ways set against the government, as a check. As Akhil Amar says, think jurors, but with guns. Thus, any reading of the Second Amendment that would allow the government to extinguish that militia is impermissible, since it would lead to a state that is insecure, or unfree.
Also, on his comment that "...the 'militia' was said to consist of 'the body of the people') was essential as a check on government power, the government couldn't be allowed to disarm it by neglect."
Doesn't that imply that we should have federal subsidies for firearms for US citizens?
You know, an affirmative action program for gun purchasers? Wouldn't anything less be neglect? The more firepower, the bigger the check you get from Washington?
Leave no gun owner behind? ;-)
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:26 PMI'm reminded by a commenter that today is the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. I had never really thought about the date before--it hadn't occurred to me that it took place in the winter in Boston. What did Narragansetts wear in that clime?
Anyway, sometimes, particularly given how little difference there is between the two parties, I think we're overdue for another one.
This little counterfactual (for people who came here via Instapundit) is one of the reasons.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:02 PMAs Mark Steyn notes, here's a good example of "liberal" fascism.
[Update about 5 PM]
Heh:
They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected, fearmongering would be the end of democracy. And they were right!Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:12 PM
...by Fred Thompson. I don't really care that much about pro-life issues, myself, but I suspect that will leave a mark for a lot of people.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 AMThis bad. Glenn Reynolds:
I think I'd vote for Edwards over Huckabee, though I'd feel dirty the next morning. And I'd be even more likely to vote for Hillary or Obama.
Of course, Glenn was a Democrat for a long time (and even worked on Gore's campaign in 1988, about the time I first met him). He apparently wasn't as put off by the party in the nineties as I was.
I think I'd just write someone in.
[Evening update]
In response to a commenter here, Glenn expands on his reasoning:
Basically, I believe that both would have similar socialist/populist programs, but that Republicans would combine against Edwards' programs, producing useful gridlock. On the other hand, Dems would be only too happy to go along with Huckabee's programs, and too many Republicans might do so too, out of party loyalty. The main thing Huckabee has, policy wise, that Edwards doesn't is that he favors Second Amendment rights, but I wonder if he wouldn't jettison them in some sort of "for the children" compromise at a crucial point, knowing that he'd get media adulation for doing so. Plus, the more I watch him [in] operation, the more Clintonian his campaign seems. Edwards', on the other hand, is just inept, which suggests that he wouldn't be very scary in office. And both would probably be equally Carteresque in foreign policy.
Do we really want another Arkansas governor "from Hope"?
Of course, this argument assumes that the Democrats will retain Congress...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:06 AMI don't always agree with Dick Morris, but I think he's right here, and he knows the Clintons very well:
The conclusion is obvious: neither Hillary nor her staff know how to campaign. After the Clinton re-election in 1996, they have never been tested in a competitive race. When Giuliani dropped out of the New York State Senate race and the young Congressman Rick Lazio had to enter at the last minute to try to stop Hillarys bid, the conclusion was pre-ordained. Hillarys re-election was a cakewalk against a totally under funded opponent. She doesnt know how to win.Hillarys experience has been limited to the insider back biting of Washington where she is an expert at using her secret police a small army of private detectives to unearth negatives about her or Bills opponents. (Even former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young recently admitted that Hillary ran the effort to discredit women who might come forward and accuse Clinton of misconduct.) But, when it comes to campaigning, advertising and winning an election, these folks and this candidate dont have a clue.
I'm a little disappointed, actually. As much as I don't want another president Clinton, I would have preferred the gamble of having her be the Democrat candidate, because I don't think that she can win a national election.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:14 AMThat's what Freeman Hunt thinks that Mike Huckabee would be. Sounds about right to me. I think that if the choice is another big-government Republican against a big-government Democrat, it opens up a huge opportunity for a new party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:11 PMI'm not doin' hand shows today.
Running for President is serious business. We're facing pressing issues like national security, bankrupt entitlements, a broken tax code, and out-of-control judges. So what did the liberal moderator want at Wednesday's debate? A show of hands. We deserve serious discussion not kindergarten antics.Don't you want a conservative leader who won't grovel to the liberal media?
I'm not a conservative, but it's sure as hell what I want. One more reason to hope that he's the nominee.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:00 PM"Let me refer you to everything I've said in the past."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:24 PMFrom Ron Silver.
Since 2001 it has become apparent to me that many people are indeed afraid. It has also become apparent to me that the people who are most afraid are behaving hypocritically and cowardly. I do not make these assertions lightly. Its a horrible thing to call a person or persons cowardly. A little less so with hypocrisy, a little bit of which attaches to all of us. Cowards, in that the fear of confronting the real enemy who wishes us harm is displaced by ranting against a liberal democracy where they know no harm will come to them. Is it so heroic to make a film or a speech that has the support of everyone in your community? What kind of courage does it take to go after the Bush administration if youre a member of the Hollywood community, and most everyone agrees with your position and will reward you for it or youre part of the political class in Washington, D.C. or in New York or in parts of California? Forget the tenured and not so tenured academics, who while not being able to change the world in 1968 have devoted their lives to teaching future generations about the evils of the one, seemingly dispensable sovereign nation that evidently makes the world unlivable. Our country.When a novelist has a death sentence on his head, when a filmmaker is shot in the street and then stabbed through the heart for making a film that the murderers found offensive, when newspaper editors and publishers, as well as network executives, refuse to show us the cartoons that created havoc and mass protests around the world, I think something more than good taste is involved. The reason we havent seen the cartoons in the New York Times (apparently this was news that wasnt fit to print) or Newsweek, or on our TV screens, is fear. Of what? Pissing them off? From my perspective they are apparently quite pissed off already.
RTWT
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:10 PMI believed, with a lot of other conservatives, that the Clintons were really good at destroying people. Judging from the last three weeks, they are really bad at destroying people. Maybe all those people they destroyed in the 1990's were just easily destroyed? This is very disorienting...
I think that there are several factors here. First, when they were successfully destroying people, they had political power, either as Arkansas governor, or as co-president. I don't think that being an ex-President and senator give them as much clout or ability to hurt their enemies. Also, most people weren't aware of their record in that regard in the 80s and 90s. Now, it's their most famous feature. Now, when they attempt to smear someone (as they did with Obama), the press calls them on it, instead of simply being stenographers for the smear. Of course, it helps a lot that the people they're trying to destroy are fellow Democrats, so even those in the media who want to help them are conflicted in a way they wouldn't be in the general election.
And, finally, I think that a lot of their former allies and toadies are tired of them, had enough, and starting to turn on them (watch this trend accelerate once people decide that she's not "inevitable" and they don't have to worry about being on the wrong end of the wrath of another president Clinton). Without the help of all these others, they are more powerless as well.
Plus, is Hillary Ed Muskie?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:23 AMThe basic problem liberals have a hard time grasping: Murray is a soaked-to-the-bone libertarian. He doesn't think the government is qualified or entitled to do much of anything. But whenever liberals hear conservatives or libertarians talk about race they automatically leap to images of Nazism or Fascism when virtually all serious or mainstream rightwing thinkers endorse, at most, benign neglect AKA colorblindness. You can take exception to such arguments, even passionate exception, but it is outrageous to suggest that Murray or Bill Bennett (remember his Freakonomics hypothetical?) or pretty much any other conservative or libertarian worthy of the label wants to use state power to oppress or eliminate minorities. It is a slanderous projection of liberal biases onto conservatives and it has been with us since the days when Herbert Spencer was demonized for being a radical liberal.
This is the same mindless jumping to conclusions that causes some people to call me a Republican, or "right winger" or "conservative," or "neo-con."
By the way, Jonah's new book looks pretty interesting.
I love the cover.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:08 AMFrom Mike Potemra:
To the readers..who have written me about how I should be worried about the (in the words of one) "extremely strange" and "Scientology-level strange" beliefs of Mormons, here's my response: In my own faith, we believe that the cause of all evil was a single mistake by human beings many millennia agobut that the situation was set right . . . because we murdered an innocent man 2,000 years ago. Therefore: I'm not about to throw stones about beliefs that sound weird to people who don't share them.
I saw a signature on the Internet once, that went roughly like this: You are almost as much an atheist as I am. I only believe in one less god than you do. When you tell me why you don't believe in all the others, you'll know why I don't believe in yours.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 AMThe more I learn about Huckabee, the less appealing he becomes:
Huckabee doesnt just embrace big government in the form of big taxes. He truly appears to believe that if something is a good idea it should be a federal government program.For example, having become health conscious while losing more than 120 pounds (a remarkable feat), he now calls for a national smoking ban. Because he believes that "art and music are as important as math and science" in public schools, he wants these programs funded -- and thus, directed and administered -- federally.
Huckabee is, incidentally, the only Republican candidate for president who opposes school choice.
And he was endorsed by the NEA in New Hampshire. Appalling.
I can't figure out why he even calls himself a Republican.
Well, actually, replace "sincere" with disingenuous. Nonetheless, this is one of the reasons that, if I were a Republican, I'd be voting for Fred Thompson.
And I should add that I don't actually agree with the Cuba embargo, but it's not a huge issue for me either way.
And speaking of Huckabee, one can see why the Dems would think him the most beatable candidate. I pretty much agree with everything here. I can't stand Huckabee, either. My nightmare is a Hillary!/Huckabee choice.
Oh, one more comment. I was listening to Dennis Miller this morning in the car on the way to the dentists, and they said "Hey, he misspoke about Mormons thinking that Jesus and the devil were brothers. He meant to say Jews."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:08 PMLee Harris points out the fatal flaw in the argument of the "non-interventionists":
We may agree with Ron Paul that our interventionist policy in the Middle East has led to unintended negative consequences, including even 9/11, but this admission offers us absolutely no insight into what unintended consequences his preferred policy of non-intervention would have exposed us to. It is simply a myth to believe that only interventionism yields unintended consequence, since doing nothing at all may produce the same unexpected results. If American foreign policy had followed a course of strict non-interventionism, the world would certainly be different from what it is today; but there is no obvious reason to think that it would have been better.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:51 AM
Joe Gandelman thinks that the Hillary! campaign shot itself in the foot. But I find this comment kind of naive:
After this episode, it will be difficult for Ms. Clinton or her husband Bill Clinton to ever denounce the politics of personal destruction that occurred during Bill Clintons term as president, or any other instances in the future. How can the campaign condemn Karl Rovian tactics when it is practicing them?
Is this a joke? They're the Clintons. These aren't "Rovian" tactics. They were indulging in this kind of hypocrisy all throughout the nineties. They (with Carville and Blumenthal) invented the "politics of personal destruction," all the while rubbing the crocodile tears out of their eyes and decrying it. Why does he think that they will stop now, or even find it "difficult" to do?
[Update a few minutes later]
Gerard Vanderleun reminisces about the summers of love.
In the late night, stoned streets of Berkeley in 1971 whenever you heard that Light My Fire you knew somebody was getting laid.... maybe even three or four somebodies. Ensemble. I don't know about Bill, but by 1971 I was on my second copy of The Doors album.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AMNow, I am sure that you will never, ever have the ghost of a chance of getting either Hillary or Bill to, as we used to say, cop to any of this. But it happened that way, a long, long time ago, in a stoner's universe far, far away.
Believe me, the last thing Hillary Clinton wants is for anyone on her campaign or any other campaign to start looking into drug use. Especially for Candidates shacking up in Berkeley, just down from Telegraph Avenue, in the lovin' summer of 1971.
That's Huckabee's new campaign slogan. The comments are great: "In this election, we obey the laws of thermodynamics."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:44 AMRadley Balko has a long, but interesting (and sad) report on the ongoing injustice in the Cory Maye case:
One of the people I spoke to during my visit two years ago is Linda Shoemaker, who runs the Prentiss tobacco shop. Shoemakers a white woman, middle-aged, and was described by many to me as the towns unofficial historian. She knows everything that happensjudging from my time there, likely because nearly everyone in town stops by her shop to buy tobacco. Shoemaker knew Ron Jones well, for most of his life, and was quite fond of him. But shes also one of the few white people in the area who doesnt believe Cory ought to be in prison. I still have a quote from her in my notes from two years ago. If somebody every broke in on me and my grandbabies She then paused. Her eyes filled with tears and she glanced upward. Forgive me for saying this, Ron, she said. You know I love you. But if anybody broke in on me and my grandbabies at night, Id have done the same thing Cory Maye did.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 AMYou have one man taken from his family, in the prime of his life. You have another man, also taken from his family, now losing the prime of his life. You have a son taken from his mother and father. And you have a loving father being taken from his son and daughter.
Thank this war. The goddamned drug war. It is so incredibly senseless and stupid. And itll continue to claim and ruin lives, because too few politicians have the backbone to stand up and say after 30 years, $500 billion, a horrifyingly high prison population, and countless dead innocents, cops, kids, nonviolent offenders, decimated neighborhoods, wasted lives, corrupted cops, and eviscerations of the core freedoms this country was allegedly founded upon, the shit isnt working. Itll never work. It never has. Its a testament to the facade of truth that is politics that no leaders from the two majors parties have in thirty years been able to say this. That maybe, just maybe, were doing it wrong. Maybe, just maybe, kicking down doors in the middle of the night and storming in with guns in order to stop people from getting high.isnt such a good idea. Maybe, just maybe, the idea getting tips from racist, illiterate, drug-addicted informants about which doors, if you kick them down, will lead to drugs? Well maybe that isnt such a sound policy, either. We cant even get one of the leading candidates for president to say that. The safe position is always to advocate for more money, more government power, more militarismand less freedom, less common sense, and less worry about collateral damage. Sensibility, honesty, or compassion? Too risky.
Ramesh Ponnuru has a great question, that occurred to me as well, when I read this. This discussion is in the context of whether or not earmarks are a winning issue for Republicans. Well, they certainly aren't unless they're willing to embrace it. Which apparently they aren't...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 PMIn Jones Road Runner cartoons, starting with Fast and Furry-ous (1948), nothing happens to Wile E. that Wile E. does not initiate. The Road Runner can only harm him after the chase has already begun by suddenly beep-beeping (the Road Runners one characteristic sound) and startling Wile E. into falling off of a cliff, jumping upward and hitting his head on a rock formation, etc..
It is an apt analogy. Particularly for Reid and Pelosi.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:02 AMIs it possible that the Steyn imbroglio could be used to shut down the Canadian Human RightsWrongs Commission? It's something else that's long overdue.
[Afternoon update]
More thoughts from Damian Penny.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AMProposed legislation to make liable entities that create "gun-free zones."
All this does is make clear that whoever creates an obviously dangerous situation, by forcing the disarmament of innocent people entering, ("legitimate" coercion by the property owner) -- which they're fully entitled to do under the bill -- there's a consequence for that risky action. As there should be for creating such a self-evidently unsafe situation. And it only matters if the danger manifests, and some psychopath turns the hair parlor into a victim zone. If there's no assault, then there's no problem. Gun-o-phobes can sleep tight thinking the rest of us are just a bunch of paranoids. The bill merely addresses criminally misguided notions of safety...Try thinking of this as the Luby's Massacre Act. Maybe that will help emphasize the blatant and profound fraud of proposing gun-free zones as safety nets. The heartless, insensitive, thoughtless perpetrators of defenseless victim zones should be ashamed of themselves.
This kind of thing should have been done after 911. If Virginia had had such a law, the death and injury toll at VTech probably would have been a lot lower.
Of course, Sarkozy won't like it, but fortunately, this is America, not France.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here's a profile of the woman who stopped the killing in the Colorado church. Good thing it wasn't a "gun-free zone."
[Afternoon update]
Here's someone else of whom Sarkozy would disapprove.
Heres the thing. Gun control advocates love to say that actual defensive shootings are rare. True. The statistic they always leave out is how many violent crimes are prevented without a shot being fired as was the case here.Clearly these were gang members a group known for violence who decided not to continue their thuggery when the store owner showed he was capable of fighting back. So, the punks moved on no doubt to find an unarmed victim.
No doubt.
[One more update]
Apparently, the Colorado church shooting was a "hate crime."
Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don't care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you ... as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world."
But it was against Christians, so that's OK.
[Update a couple minutes later]
This from the story above is kind of appalling:
After that final posting, one of the other Web site users realizes what's happened and wrote, "Oh no. I just saw this on the news."Another wrote, "Yes, please don't do it. You'd only make them into martyrs and yourself into a fanatical, hateful zealot, in the public opinion."
Yes, stupid public. It would be so unfair to think that.
[Early evening update]
How many lives did Jeanne Assam save?
...this is the folly of "gun-free zones". Lunatics looking to kill people either will attack at places for which they have some animus (as in the case of the church) or where they can find a lot of unarmed people (as in Omaha). They don't stop because someone puts up a sign designating a site as gun-free, any more than people stop taking drugs because a city puts up a sign that designates a neighborhood as a "drug-free zone", as in my own neighborhood.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:53 AMAll that sign does is prevent the Jeanne Assams from being able to defend the defenseless. That's all it does. It doesn't make anyone more secure or safe, and it has the potential to make a lot of people into victims.
After the Virginia Tech shooting, people asked whether a CCL holder could have made a difference once the shooting started. Jeanne Assam answered that question on Sunday.
Cynthia! is in the race:
The former six-term Democrat Congresswoman was ousted in 2006 from Georgias 4th Congressional district for the second time. In 2002, she spoke to the Black Congressional caucus claiming that President Bush had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. She also openly solicited $10 million from the Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal; New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani rejected the check after the prince suggested U.S. foreign policy had brought on 9/11. McKinneys actions resulted in her first electoral defeat in the 2002 Democratic primary, after serving five terms in office. On the night of her 2002 primary defeat, McKinneys father told media, Jews have bought everybody...J-E-W-S. She came back in 2004, and promptly signed a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.
Whatever else this election season will be, it won't be boring.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:05 AMFor those who weren't paying attention during the 90s, Stuart Taylor has a reminder:
I will not excavate Clinton's own kindergarten confessions. Nor will I compare the honesty quotient of her campaign-trail spin with the dreadful drivel dutifully uttered by Obama and other candidates to pander to their fevered primary electorates.Instead, let's take a trip down memory lane -- from the tawdriness of the 1992 presidential campaign through the mendacity of the ensuing years -- to revisit a sampling of why so many of us came to think that Hillary's first instinct when in an embarrassing spot is to lie.
He doesn't mention that she not only had the Travel Office employees fired, but had the FBI prosecute them, with such flimsy evidence that the jurors acquitted almost immediately.
Unfortunately, it's not a permalink. But it's a useful read right now for "Hillary Supporter" (and Hillary! supporters in general). And as Ann Althouse asks, "How smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?"
Gee, maybe she's not the smartest woman in the world?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AM...but he's still idiotic on some issues:
Last year, Mr. Sarkozy told French radio: "Security is the responsibility of the state. I am against the private ownership of firearms. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he will use his weapon more effectively than you anyway, so you are risking your life."
But of course, there is no risk to your life if you're unarmed...
[Update on Monday morning]
As noted in comments, this thread got hijacked by the usual suspects, but here are some interesting thoughts on another Frenchman, Tocqueville, who was a lot smarter than Sarkozy on these issues. Also, on what happens when mass killers meet armed citizens, as was demonstrated over the weekend in Colorado.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:18 PM...not universal health care. An essay by Lin Zinser and (Dr.) Paul Hsieh (of Geek Press).
Contrary to claims that government-imposed universal health care would solve Americas health care problems, it would in fact destroy American medicine and countless lives along with it. The goal of universal health care (a euphemism for socialized medicine) is both immoral and impractical; it violates the rights of businessmen, doctors, and patients to act on their own judgmentwhich, in turn, throttles their ability to produce, administer, or purchase the goods and services in question. To show this, we will first examine the nature and history of government involvement in health insurance and medicine. Then we will consider attempts in other countries and various U.S. states to solve these problems through further government programs. Finally, we will show that the only viable long-term solution to the problems in question is to convert to a fully free market in health care and health insurance.
What a concept...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:12 AM"...it's worth it."
I haven't said much about the Omaha mall shooting, either, but I agree completely with Glenn. No more "gun-free" zones. I, too, would like to see some lawsuits against those who (pathetically) attempt to establish them.
Because they're a chimera, and a fantasy, and only enable the murderers and muckers.
[Friday update]
Scott Ott (in an uncharacteristically unfunny piece) has an alternate history:
As the would-be famous mass killer raised the rifle to his shoulder, the unnamed shopper commanded him to stop. Mr. Hawkins turned the muzzle of the AK-47 toward the commanding voice, a single shot rang out and Mr. Hawkins staggered, dropped his weapon and fell against the railing.By this time, two other shoppers were aiming their pistols at Mr. Hawkins a young, single woman pulled a .40 caliber Glock 27 from her purse, and a retired farmer drew his 9mm Ruger SR9 (an early Christmas gift from his wife). Together with the first man they moved in to separate Mr. Hawkins from his gun, search him for other weapons and restrain him until law enforcement arrived.
You know, there used to be an agreement among the press not to publicize the name of a rape victim, to spare her the embarrassment. Why not do the same thing for these people? There should be some way to shame them into not reporting this the way they do. The public doesn't have a need to know the names of these would-be fame seekers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 PMA monument to Che Guevara, put up by the Chavez government, has been destroyed in Venezuela:
"We do not want a monument to Che, he is not an example for our children," said a note left at the scene of the monument shattered by six gunshots, according to El Universal newspaper.
Can't say that I blame them. I wonder if the people who did this were emboldened by Hugo's poll defeat? And if and how the government will punish them?
Given Che's methods, taking it down with six gunshots seems appropriate.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AMAce says not to nominate another liberal"compassionate conservative" Republican for president.
And do we really want a man who was completely unaware of some of the biggest foreign policy news of the week?
I really think that a Huckabee nomination would result in some kind of third-party or independent run, by someone.
[Update in the early evening]
But not by Mike Bloomberg. By someone who actually has some sense of libertarian/conservative principles.
In fact, it strikes me that most viable third-party candidates are "centrists" (assuming for the sake of the argument that political positions really are simple enough to put on a one-dimensional left/right scale) who attempt to appeal to the so-called moderates (John Anderson, a liberal Republican in 1980, being a representative example).
In this case the cause for a new entrant wouldn't be a perception of polarization, but from a sense that there was little choice between the two candidates. I mean, if you're a Democrat, what's not to like about Huckabee, other than his position on abortion and guns? I can imagine that in a Clinton/Huckabee race, he might very well pull a lot of the Democrat vote. Most Republicans would vote for him purely out of an antipathy to Hillary!, albeit while holding both nostrils tightly shut. He may, in that sense, be the most electable "Republican."
The question is, if a true conservative ran, how much would he take from Huckabee? Would it be like Perot (who wasn't really a conservative--he didn't have any coherent beliefs whatsoever), who took enough votes from Bush to give the election to Clinton? Or would a charismatic conservative candidate manage to get a majority, and split the Dems between the two liberal candidates?
I don't know, but this promises to be one of the most interesting (and probably depressing, for a classical liberal) elections in my lifetime. My guess is that Huckabee won't get the nomination, for many reasons, like the ones that started off this post.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:16 AMSo sayeth Robert Reich. Actually, I think that it's true in more than one sense of the word...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:09 AMBruce Bawer hasn't caught Obama fever:
...on whom does Baracks memoir focus? On his father whom Barack, against all evidence (which suggests that Dr. Obama was colossally selfish and narcissistic), seeks to portray as heroic, sympathetic, indeed near-mythic. Obama pre was a polygamist (and a lousy husband to all his wives), but Barack gives no indication that he finds this morally problematic; on the contrary, he seems determined to excuse his fathers many failings as consequences of imperialism, colonialism, and/or racism. One can, of course, well understand why a small boy or even a young man might idealize out of all proportion the father he never met. But Obama shows few signs in this book of recognizing that hes doing this. Meanwhile, perversely, he treats his mother and grandparents, who by his own account raised him with extraordinary devotion, all but dismissively. At one point he even suggests that Gramps and Toot were really racists and that all white people, in fact, are racists, and that black people have been so deformed by this racism that black individuals can hardly be held responsible for their own moral lapses.Forget the content of our character; this is a work preoccupied with skin color. Its drenched with the legacy of Malcolm X (whom Obama, at least in this book, openly idolizes). At times its as if there were no historical injustices in the world other than those visited upon blacks by whites. Obama routinely refers to other black men (but never white men) as brothers; he exhibits considerably more concern for the dignity of black men than for that of women or non-black men; and hes acutely sensitive to perceived racial slights (yet even as he deplores the subordination of blacks in America, curiously enough, he appears to accept as his due his familys lofty position in Kenya). While occasionally gesturing toward an ideal of colorblindness la Dr. King, in his heart of hearts hes anything but colorblind, fervently endorsing black solidarity while repeatedly expressing distrust of, and even contempt for, whites. When, lamenting Kenyas intertribal rivalries, he tells a relative that Were part of one tribe. The black tribe. The human tribe, the last three words feel like an afterthought as does his attempt, in the books closing pages, to move beyond strict racial line-drawing and to articulate broader sympathies. As if all this werent enough, it seems clear by books end that his hearts home is not America but Kenya.
Maybe he's just a "citizen of the world."
I suspect that I have a natural immunity to Obama fever myself.
I really don't think that any of the Democrat candidates can win the presidency. I also think that the first black president, and first woman president, is likely to be a Republican.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AMI suspect that the impulse to bring all these untidy unhelpful examples of flagrant individualism under the steady hand of the Ministry of Rational Allocation has something to do with that fretful busybody insistence that people are simply not living right. If we had Star Trek replicators in every house that would conjure goods and meals out of boundless energy produced by antimatter teased from a three-micron fissure that opened into a universe populated entirely by unicorns who crapped antimatter in such abundance they were happy we used it up, and used their shiny pointy horns to poke more of it through the aperture into our dimension, columnists would bemoan the disconnect between labor and goods, and the soul-corrupting influence of endless ersatz vegetables. You cant win. Because you shouldnt.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AM
Hillary seems to be quite confident that she will be the next president:
Couric asked, "How disappointed will you be" if she doesn't win; Clinton replied: "Well, it will be me." "Clearly," the CBS anchor persisted, "you have considered" the "possibility of losing"? "No, I haven't," said Clinton. "So you never even consider the possibility?" "I don't. I don't."
Really?
In that case, why not give up your Senate seat? You'll have to quit next year, anyway, and you'd be able to devote full time to your campaign, and not short change the good people of New York of one of their Senator's services. And the governor (at least until he's indicted and has to resign) is a Democrat who would nominate another to replace you, so there'd be no change in the Senate party alignment.
What are you waiting for?
Or is it just an act?
The amusing thing is that it isn't clear that such arrogant statements even help her. Novak, after all, calls it a gaffe (though I don't know why he thinks it's her first). I think that it will reinforce the negative feelings that a lot of people already have about her.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:10 AMI have to say that, while I disagree with Mike Huckabee about almost everything, he is a good debater. He's witty, and quick on his feet.
Unfortunately (and I don't have a solution to this problem--it's endemic to a republic) the qualities that are necessary to win the presidency are not necessarily those necessary to be an effective or good president. Bill Clinton is one of the most notable examples of this. Sadly, and conversely, Fred Thompson may be as well, though ironically, if he never becomes president, we'll never get a chance to find out...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:27 PMAre you sitting down?
Bill Clinton wasn't completely truthful yesterday.
Unlike Jonah, I won't go so far as to say he lied. I think that he manages to persuade himself at the time that whatever he is saying is true. It's a trait of an effective sociopath.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:10 PMI don't know if this will help or hurt, but apparently, Rush Limbaugh said today that the only conservative on the stage last night was Fred Thompson.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:58 PMFred Thompson wants to have some serious debates. I doubt if anyone will take him up on it, though.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Mark Steyn is frustrated with Fred:
Every time I see a Fred policy plan, he seems to have by far the best ideas, and the necessary zeal for reform, on taxes, Social Security and much else. But every time you see him in these TV debates he has the listless air of a bored grandparent at a dreary school play.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:31 AM...What's the strategy here? Why does he have great ideas but no campaign?
Similar to my own, from Joshua Zader:
As a libertarian-minded person, Ive got plenty to be mad at Bush about. But disagreeing with someones beliefs and actions is not the same as hating them, and I think thats a distinction held in place only by our own allegiance to integrity.I dont believe for a minute that the rampant Bush hatred going around is the direct result of his actions. There has been a very deliberate and sustained campaign, by liberal partisans, to stir up Bush hatred since the contested 2000 elections.
Yup.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:35 AMFrom Instapundit, about last night's "debate":
He's just terrible, even when -- which is often, once he's off the subject of the war -- I agree with him. His voice is too high, he can't remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station.But that's good news, in a way. Paul's doing better than anyone expected. It's abundantly clear that he's not doing it on charisma and rhetorical skill. Which means that libertarian ideas are actually appealing, since Ron Paul isn't. Paul's flaws as a vessel for those ideas prove the ideas' appeal. If they sell with him as the pitchman, they must be really resonating. I suspect Paul himself would agree with this analysis. Er, except maybe the bus station part.
I'm glad that someone else listens to this stuff, so I don't have to.
Oh, and speaking of Ron Paul, check out the video over at Lileks' place:
The likelihood of a candidates victory is inversely proportional to his followers resemblance to religious cultists. The last time I saw someone this blissed out he wanted to tell me about Landru.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:21 AM
In this post yesterday, commenter Paul Breed attempted to get me to support Ron Paul. Individualist Robert Bidinotto explains why I cannot support blame-America-firsters like him:
For a detailed look at Paul's warped foreign-policy perspective, sample his commentary "The Blame Game," where he declares, "There was no downside when we left Vietnam." No downside? Here he blithely evades the wholesale butchery and the enslavement of millions that transpired after our ignominious retreat from Southeast Asia -- and the consequent, devastating loss of America's credibility, both as a military power and as a reliable ally. Add to this Paul's infuriating use, in the same commentary, of the word "empire" to describe U.S. foreign policy aims -- which claim, contrary to all historic facts, rationalizes the bogus charges raised against America by communists and Islamists, giving aid and comfort to these enemies of the U.S. Add to this also Paul's indiscriminately declared hostility to "war" as such, which (regardless of his protestations) can only translate into a de facto pacifism and isolationism.Is this foreign-policy outlook realistic? Not since about 1789.
The relentless advance of communication, transportation, satellite, and weapons technology has simply obliterated the geographic "isolationism" that was still largely possible at the time of America's founding.
When a plot hatched in remote mountains in a backward nation like Afghanistan, with conspirators drawn from places like Saudi Arabia, can bring down iconic buildings in New York and Washington, DC --
-- when Chinese rockets can "blind" in outer space the U.S. intelligence satellites that we depend on for our nation's defense --
-- when Iranian rockets and subs can threaten to shut down international shipping lanes, thereby interfering with free trade --
-- when Islamist terrorists and despots can shut down at whim international traffic in a commodity as basic as oil, etc., etc.
-- it is no longer possible to pretend we can draw any meaningful national-defense line at the water's edge. Those days are long gone.
National defense today requires the ability and willingness to project credible power globally, in direct protection of the very trade, travel, communications, and contacts among peoples that Ron Paul and many other libertarians declare to be the pillars of international relations and peace.
Without the forward projection of U.S. military power -- through foreign bases (which implies alliances), naval-carrier battle groups, special ops forces, advanced military aircraft, and first-rate intelligence agencies (which means an effective CIA, NSA, etc.) -- the "foreign-trade-and-travel" model of foreign policy prescribed by Dr. Paul and many libertarians would be revealed for the ridiculous fantasy it is.
Well, then, is this foreign-policy outlook principled?
What "principle" does it cite? A vacuous "noninterventionism" that clashes with the proper defense of U.S. interests and the individual rights of Americans? As his coercive positions on abortion and immigration underscore, Ron Paul doesn't even grasp what the principle of individual rights is all about. His is the traditional, platonic view of "natural rights" shared by many other libertarians, which tacitly equates anti-government positions with pro-liberty positions -- as if they are the same.
They aren't.
Read the whole thing.
[Update mid morning]
This seems related. Evan Coyne Maloney writes about the surrender impulse that is intrinsic to multi-culturalism:
The dogma of multiculturalism holds that all cultures are equal, except Western culture, which (unlike every other society on the planet) has a history of oppression and war is therefore worse. All religions are equal, except Christianity, which informed the beliefs of the capitalist bloodsuckers who founded America and is therefore worse. All races are equal, except Caucasians, who long ago went into business with black slave traders in Africa, and therefore they are worse. The genders, too, are equal, except for those paternalistic males, who with their testosterone and aggression have made this planet a polluted living hell, and therefore they are worse.Once you understand this, the Multicultural Pyramid of Oppression, you can begin to understand how to turn to your advantage certain circumstances that are beyond your control: such as where you were born, the type of genitalia you were born with, into what race you were born, and the religion of your parents. You see, the fewer things you have in common with The Oppressors, the more you can cast yourself as The Victim. And as The Victim, you are virtuous, so there are certain things you can get away with that others cant: like actually oppressing people.
This reminds me of the Global Test:
Will the people you'll be oppressing be of your own race, or another? (Note: Arab nations are exempt from this question--select fourth option)Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 AMOwn race (100 points)
Other race (-300 points)
Palestinians (-500 points)
We are an Arab nation (300 bonus points)
Trent Lott is resigning from the Senate.
What a shame.
This is a tragic day for diversity. We're going to lose our first black Senate Majority Leader.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:42 PMGosh, it seems like the good old days of the nineties:
Several obvious questions for Hillary Clinton arise from these many, varied relationships.
- Why would you and your husband sell the Clinton Library Donor List to InfoUSA but not disclose the list to the public?
- Will you describe all of your family's financial ties to Vinod Gupta and InfoUSA, such as your husband's true compensation?
- Should we trust any poll coming from CNN/Opinion Research Corporation given various financial ties -- not all of which have been disclosed -- between Vinod Gupta and your family as well as other key Democrats?
I won't hold my breath waiting for the mainstream media (especially CNN) to ask these questions. But perhaps one day during a debate, some real -- not scripted -- questioners will ask the tough questions that can and must be asked.
Apparently Gupta is the new James Riadi. I wonder if there's a twenty-first century version of the Lippo Group?
Do people really want to go through another eight years of this?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:29 AMA lot of pundits are wondering if there will be a third-party or independent run by someone this year. The usual scenario is that it if Giuliani is nominated, then a lot of the evangelicals will abandon the Republican Party. But in the previous post, I thought this an interesting comment:
I really don't like him either. What the hell am I supposed to do if the contest ends up between Clinton and Huckabee?
It would be a pretty depressing prospect for conservatives and libertarians, to have no candidate in either major party with either a conservative or libertarian bone in their bodies. To my mind, this would be the most likely scenario to cause a revolt of the Republicans (and some Democrats). There would be an opportunity for someone to run on platform of individual and market freedom (particularly if they combined a tough stance on the war). I'm not sure who that would be, though, or how it would happen. Thompson would fit the bill, but I'm don't know if he'd abandon the party, or be able to pull it off, given his seemingly lackadaisical campaign style to date.
[5 PM EST update]
Here's an evangelical who thinks that Fred is the man, despite his secularism. He's a "leave-me-the-heck-alone conservative":
We Jesus Freaks (I'll embrace the term) can mostly accomplish what we want to accomplish with a "leave me the heck alone" conservative like Fred (heck, or even McCain). We can live and let live. And Fred's a likable guy. So I'm with him. And the nice thing about it for me is that I'm not with Fred because the others suck. I'm with Fred because I want to be. In a small bit of irony, back in February I was attending an event in Kansas at the Dole Institute. I told the Director that I was supporting Mitt Romney, but that I really wished someone like Fred Thompson would get in the race. The Director agreed. His name is Bill Lacy. You might have heard of him.A good bit of me loves Huckabee and Rudy really excites me as a candidate against Hillary. But I want an across the board pro-life, pro-defense, small goverment, pro-entrepreneur conservative. And of the three men who fit the bill, I think Fred offers the most with the least baggage. He'll make sure the government leaves me the heck alone.
Though I'm not a theist, let alone a Christian, that works for me, too. I think that's a good sign, if he can survive Iowa and New Hampshire.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:21 AMThis article has the headline, "McCain Pounds Clinton On Iraq" (which he does, and she is more than deserving of the pounding), but what caught my eye was this comment from Mike Huckabee:
Huckabee responded to Romneys charge that he was soft on illegal immigration, specifically for supporting tuition breaks for the children of illegal immigrants, stating that it was not his policy to punish the children of those who break the law.
It is not a "punishment" to refuse to provide a handout. If I don't give a bum my change, am I "punishing" him? If we were to end all tuition breaks, would we be "punishing" everyone? This is through-the-looking-glass stuff.
I'm accustomed to such rhetorical dishonesty from so-called liberals, but it's a little shocking coming from a supposed Republican.
But then, I shouldn't be so shocked. As Robert Novak points out, Huckabee is no conservative. He's a big-government populist. He wants to manage all aspects of your life. In the world's smallest political quiz, he'd probably end up in the opposite corner from me. From his nannyism, and taxes, and advocacy of government programs, and extreme pro-life position, he seems to favor less liberty in all aspects of life, and more hostile to the market than many Democrats. His "punishing by not giving handouts" words are just one example of his big-government/anti-corporate/anti-capitalist mindset:
Huckabee clearly departs from the mainstream of the conservative movement in his confusion of "growth" with "greed." Such ad hominem attacks are part of his intuitive response to criticism from the Club for Growth and the libertarian Cato Institute about his record as governor. On "Fox News Sunday" on Nov. 18, he called the "tactics" of the Club for Growth "some of the most despicable in politics today. It's why I love to call them the Club for Greed, because they won't tell you who gave their money." In fact, all contributors to the organization's political action committee (which produces campaign ads) are publicly revealed, as are most donors financing issue ads.
I could easily imagine John Edwards, with his class warfare strategy, saying exactly the same mendacious thing.
He is the Republican candidate that I fear the most. I don't know who I'm for in the contest (though Thompson still looks the best to me), but I sure know who I'm against. If it weren't for the antipathy of the party to pro-lifers, he could just as easily run as a Democrat. I hope that he doesn't get the nomination of either party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:44 AMFrom a comment at this post about the JFK assassination, which has drifted far off topic because an anonymous moron came in and asked if I thought that Clinton was involved with it (for the record, as far as I know, JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, unassisted).
Rand, it was clear from even a quick google search that everything you said about Newsweek, Isakoff, and Drudge were true, and I'm not disputing them. What I couldn't figure out, from admittedly just a quick search, was _why_ Newsweek "spiked" the story, I assume by "spiked" you mean "suppressed".I saw lots of sources that suggested that they did because they were still building the story.
The bigger more interesting picture: I'm just a vanilla Hillary-Supporter, and my support Hillary is probably only of interest to you in that I'm similar to the vast majority of voters who simply aren't knowledgeable about this stuff. Maybe unlike most voters, I read the NYT every day, and lately I've been reading politico.com obsessively. But I never hear about this stuff. I respect your opinion (this blog isn't in the rat's nest), and when you have time and interest, I would like to hear more about a) the worst things you suspect eithor of the Clintons did and why, and b) why in the world the NYT and the Washington Post (and Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, etc), don't cover the evidence for these deeds. No hurry, although I hope you write about it (or link to it) before I vote on Feb 5th.
That was suggested by many (lots of things were always suggested by many to deny the press bias in favor of the Clintons in the nineties), but my understanding is that Isikoff thought it was ready to go, and expected it to, and it was spiked at the last minute.
As to why they did it, the media was always reluctant to print negative things about the Clintons, and when they did, they always gave prominence to their spinmasters to minimize the damage. Don Hewitt claimed credit for saving Clinton's candidacy with the Sixty-Minutes puff piece on the "problems with their marriage" after the Gennifer Flowers audio tapes surfaced. In one particularly shameful episode, when Gary Aldrich came out with a damaging book about them
My explanation for why Matthews/Russert et al don't cover them now is that they consider them old news, and if they did, they'd have to explain why they didn't cover them then. They didn't cover them then because they didn't want to. As I said, they're Democrats, and they (inexplicably, to me) loved the Clintons.
Among the worst things that I suspect (but can't prove) the Clintons of are selling technology to the Chinese for campaign donations, and having associates who were willing to kill people that they found inconvenient to them, even if they themselves maintained plausible deniability.
For example, I don't believe that Vince Foster died in Fort Marcy Park, and if he killed himself, that's not where it happened. But if it didn't happen there, there's no reason to believe that he killed himself at all. Vince Foster was convicted of murdering Vince Foster with a botched investigation, and no trial. There's an abundance of evidence that he didn't die in Fort Marcy Park, in the Starr Report itself, particularly the Knowlton appendix, which no one in the press mentions, or read. I have no idea who killed him, or why he was killed, but I think that the Clintons know, particularly given all their suspicious behavior in the aftermath, moving files out of his office, the mysterious "finding" of the torn-up "suicide" note, etc.
I also believe them both guilty of multiple cases of obstruction of justice, in Whitewater and other matters. This was proven in the Lewinsky case, in which Bill himself intimidated and bribed witnesses, and suborned perjury. I believe them guilty of having the FBI prosecute innocent people simply so that they could give their own cronies their jobs (Travelgate). I suspect that they had the IRS go after their political enemies, as Nixon was accused of attempting to do. I don't think that the FBI files were simply a mistake.
I believe that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick (and suspect that he has raped others), and that Hillary knows that, and helped to intimidate her from coming forward at the time, just as she was behind the "nuts and sluts" attacks on Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Dollie Kyle Browning, and Monica Lewinsky, and any other woman who potentially had damaging information about him.
There has been a lot written about this, both in dead tree, and on the web, but most people simply dismiss it as "Clinton hatred."
Oh, and before the usual idiots chime in saying that they are "innocent until proven guilty," that is a standard that applies only in a court of law, not the court of public opinion. I have much more than adequate evidence (though no "proof," partly because they were so good at destroying evidence and intimidating/bribing witnesses) for all of my suspicions. If they are never held to account for them, that will be an injustice, but it won't change my opinion.
And for "Hillary Supporter," who asked the question, I don't have time to go over all this again, but there are excellent books out there on the subject, by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
If you think that having information like this is important as to how you vote in the Democratic primary, then I suggest that you check it out. One of the reasons that I am not a Democrat is that most Democrats don't want to know, and if they do know, they don't care.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:25 AMLet's hope there are a lot of traitors there:
Brandishing a little red book listing his desired 69 revisions to Venezuela's charter, Chavez exhorted his backers to redouble their efforts toward a victorious "yes" vote in the Dec. 2 ballot."He who says he supports Chavez but votes 'no' is a traitor, a true traitor," the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. "He's against me, against the revolution and against the people."
People here who support this budding despot, like Jimmy Carter, should be ashamed of themselves. But I think they have no shame.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here are some of the potential traitors standing in food lines, waiting for milk.
[Another update a couple minutes later]
I wonder if the leche lines are why he's lost his lead?
...the survey was the latest blow to Chavez. He has suffered a series of defections over his plan, including an ex-defense minister who had restored him to power after a brief 2002 putsch but who called Chavez's reforms a new "coup.""The debate over voting 'yes' or 'no' has burst into the very heart of Chavez's support base," Leon said in an interview. "We can see moderate Chavez backers ready to vote 'no' even though they like him."
The question is, what will he do if he loses? Have the "traitors" shot?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:11 AMThis seems a worthy cause to me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:25 PMJonah Goldberg writes:
It is, for example, absurd that we've decided the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of morality in this country and it is even more cockeyed that, having arrived at this absurd place, we continue to appoint lawyers to the court on the assumption they are the experts best qualified to adjudicate not merely the law (which is fine, of course) but right and wrong and all of the mysteries of metaphysics and meaning. Why lawyers? Why not priests, doctors and philosophers too that is if they're going to be deciding when life begins and when it can be ended?
When did we decide that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of morality in this country? Did I miss the memo? If so, that's a pretty frightening thought. Maybe many people have, but I never did. I retain the quaint, and perhaps archaic notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional, not what is moral. Sometimes, as the man once said, the law is a ass. And while I think that a priest might be capable of judging the constitutionality of a given law, given sufficient study, there's nothing particular in his background that would render him more fit to the task than a trained lawyer.
I'd like the Supremes to stick to their knitting, myself, and if they do so, people with training in constitutional law (and argumentation and logic) are probably the best candidates for the job. If we believe that a law ruled constitutional is immoral, then we should either fight to change the law, or work to change the Constitution. But I don't think that we should draw any conclusions whatsoever about morality from a SCOTUS opinion.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:12 AMGlenn Reynolds has a column on DC v Heller at the New York Post today, and a podcast with the lawyer behind the lawsuit. He makes a pretty good case for why the court will have difficulty doing anything but upholding the appellate court decision, and the original meaning of the Second Amendment.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:15 AMThe SCOTUS is going to grant cert in DC v. Heller.
This is another huge story (two in one day, with the stem cell breakthrough). They are finally going to resolve, one way or the other, if the purpose clause can allow a government to deprive people of their civil rights. It will be a sad day for liberty if they overrule the appeals court, and essentially eviscerate the Bill of Rights of one of its most powerful one.
The pen is mightier than the sword, so they say, which may be why they made freedom of speech the first amendment, but the fact that the right to bear arms is number two is probably a good indication of the degree of importance attached to it by the Founders. Without that one, all the rest are ultimately at risk to a new tyranny.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:12 PMThe audio of the king of Spain telling Hugo Chavez to shut his pie hole is being downloaded as a ringtone:
In Venezuela, a group of students who oppose Mr Chavez's government have also been downloading the ringtone, a US newspaper reported."It's a form of protest," a 21-year-old student in Caracas told the Miami Herald. "It's something that a lot of people would like to tell the president."
As that great philosopher, Nelson Muntz (more than) once said, "Ha ha!"
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:38 PMHere's a cross-dressing "artist" with Islamaphobia:
Speaking at a meeting organised by the Art Fund, Perry said that it was simple fear which stopped him from addressing Islam in his work. 'I don't want my throat cut', he said.
I'll bet that dress he's wearing won't pass muster with the fashion police, let alone under Sharia law.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:54 PMMark Steyn writes that the world should be thankful for America:
...Americans aren't novelty junkies on the important things. The New World is one of the oldest settled constitutional democracies on Earth, to a degree the Old World can barely comprehend. Where it counts, Americans are traditionalists.We know Eastern Europe was a totalitarian prison until the Nineties, but we forget that Mediterranean Europe (Greece, Spain, Portugal) has democratic roots going all the way back until, oh, the mid-Seventies; France and Germany's constitutions date back barely half a century, Italy's only to the 1940s, and Belgium's goes back about 20 minutes, and currently it's not clear whether even that latest rewrite remains operative. The U.S. Constitution is not only older than France's, Germany's, Italy's or Spain's constitution, it's older than all of them put together.
Americans think of Europe as Goethe and Mozart and 12th century castles and 6th century churches, but the Continent's governing mechanisms are no more ancient than the Partridge Family. Aside from the Anglophone democracies, most of the nation-states in the West have been conspicuous failures at sustaining peaceful political evolution from one generation to the next, which is why they're so susceptible to the siren song of Big Ideas communism, fascism, European Union.
If you're going to be novelty-crazed, better the zebra-mussel cappuccino than the Third Reich.
...So Americans should be thankful they have one of the last functioning nation-states. Europeans, because they've been so inept at exercising it, no longer believe in national sovereignty, whereas it would never occur to Americans not to. This profoundly different attitude to the nation-state underpins, in turn, Euro-American attitudes to transnational institutions such as the United Nations.
But on this Thanksgiving the rest of the world ought to give thanks to American national sovereignty, too. When something terrible and destructive happens a tsunami hits Indonesia, an earthquake devastates Pakistan the United States can project itself anywhere on the planet within hours and start saving lives, setting up hospitals and restoring the water supply.
Aside from Britain and France, the Europeans cannot project power in any meaningful way anywhere. When they sign on to an enterprise they claim to believe in shoring up Afghanistan's fledgling post-Taliban democracy most of them send token forces under constrained rules of engagement that prevent them doing anything more than manning the photocopier back at the base.
RTWT.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:35 AMLook at the support that Thompson is getting from some very notable lawyers (and law professors). He definitely seems to be the candidate of the Volokh Conspiracy, with the support of at least three of the conspirators (Eugene himself, Jonathan Adler, and Orrin Kerr). Interesting, considering the libertarian bent of the site.
[Update a few minutes later]
I've never been to Thompson's web site before. I was just looking over his policy positions. A lot of it is motherhood (the devil's always in the details) but I find very little there with which I disagree. I have to say that I particularly liked this one: "I am committed to...dissolution of the IRS as we know it."
I was hoping that he would outright advocate eliminating the Department of Education as well, but that might be seen as too extreme a position in a general election campaign.
No space policy, though, or even a general science and technology policy, other than energy. Wonder if he'd like some suggestions?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:12 PMWalter Russell Meade, on the Jews and the WASPs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:55 AMLarry Kudlow apparently interviewed Fred Thompson today for his CNBC show. I didn't see it, but he has provided what he thinks is a summary of the results.
If it is an accurate assessment of his positions, there is absolutely nothing on which I disagree with him related there. Which is pretty amazing to me, because that's unusual, if not a first, for a major party politician with me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:51 PMI think that Megan McArdle (and Tyler Cowen) has a good explanation for one of the reasons that space policy, and NASA is such a mess. It has too much money:
In an altogether excellent piece on medical innovation, Tyler Cowen notes:The NIH works as well as it does because the money is mostly protected from Congress. It is not a success which can easily be replicated. The more money is at stake, the more Congress wants to influence allocation. We should guard this feature of the system jealously and try to learn from it. If we can.This is a seriously, seriously underrated factor in public policy analysis, and I include the libertarian variety. The fact that you can do something awesome with $15 million does not mean that you could do something super-awesome with $150 million. It may simply not be possible to broaden what you are doing very much before countervailing forces--such as congressional interference (Exhibit A: the goddamn Acela)--kick in.
This is a fundamental problem of bureaucracies, and one that won't be fixed with regard to space until private activities are much larger than government ones. Or actual space accomplishments become politically important. They certainly aren't currently, and haven't been since the sixties.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of Megan, she's spending some time in Hanoi, and has a lot of interesting posts about Vietnam. Check out this one, on the state of the economy and human productivity:
The sight of people carrying goods in traditional ways, selling produce off the backs of bicycles, looks terribly romantic. I walked past two tourists today who were agreeably chatting about how beautiful and sustainable it all is. But it's hard to find anything romantic about human beings using themselves as mules.
As one commenter notes, wealth doesn't just happen on its own (or rather, it does if not prevented by poor governance), and unfortunately, collectivist economic theories tend to destroy, rather than create it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AMSo, Kathleen Willey writes a book
A commenter (anonymous, other than a first name) shows up and implies that she's lying about her book manuscript being stolen (i.e., slandering her and besmirching her character). I challenged the commenter to go actually follow the link, and read the interview. (S)he said that (s)he had done both.
Funny thing, though. It turns out that when I initially put up the post, I pasted in the wrong link, linking to this instead, a piece by Stuart Taylor on the academic rot of political correctness.
In other words, the commenter lied--if (s)he had actually followed the link and read it, as (s)he claimed, (s)he would have complained about it not being the Willey interview, as Tom (who was apparently the first person to actually follow the link) did.
In other words, a Clinton defender shows up, slanders a Clinton accuser, and prevaricates in the process (while ironically complaining about my lack of "courteous discourse"). Just like the book says. Maybe she can add a new chapter in the next printing.
[Update at 4 PM EST]
This seems pertinent. Brent Bozell talks about the media's whitewash of Hillary.
[Update about 5 PM EST]
If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will certainly vote for her. But I continue to find it hard to believe that my party truly craves that long nightmare of dj vu -- with scandal after scandal disgorged and an endless train of abused women returning from Bill Clinton's sordid, anti-feminist past.
Apparently, they don't have a problem with it (though they may have other problems with her). Bill and Hillary Clinton destroyed a lot of the bedrock tenets of feminism.
[Update after 9 PM EST]
You know, somehow, this seems relevant too...
Did Clinton know what her staff was doing? She says she didn't. Can that be so? She answered only a handful of questions at the event, and she somehow found her way to the person in the crowd who'd been put up to the task. Either her luck is smashing, or she's fibbing. Any staffer who prints up audience questions and carries them in a neat little binder doesn't then leave it to chance whether the candidate finds the one plant in a room of 300. Campaign aides insist that this moment was an act of pure happenstance. That still means that staffers feel it's OK to freelance at confecting artifice. Shouldn't someone have hesitated and thought, yikes, this is the kind of campaign where if I get caught doing this, I'm going to get fired? Even if it never winds up on the Jumbo-Tron in Times Square?
Did Hillary know what her staff was doing with respect to Kathleen Willey? Of course, if asked, she'll no doubt say "no."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:34 AMPeter Berkowitz writes about Bush hatred, and so-called progressives stated pride in it:
Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims--who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance--to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.
Some people, based on posts like the previous one, have mindlessly called me a "Clinton hater." Not just me, but anyone who points out that they are both corrupt liars. But there's no passion in such a statement--it's just a clinical factual description. If I state that Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson, or (for that matter) OJ Simpson are murderers, does it mean that I hate them? I don't. I'm simply making a factual statement.
I've noted in the past that I'm often foolishly accused by people of being a Bush lover, simply because I'm not a Bush hater. And I'm also often accused of being a Clinton hater, simply because I (unlike, generally, the accusers) am not someone who loves him beyond all reason. From my perspective, I'm simply rationally evaluating both men based on the record. George W. Bush has many flaws, but doesn't deserve the vituperation that is heaped on him. Bill Clinton isn't evil, but he is a profoundly corrupt, narcissistic man.
I don't hate the Clintons--I just don't want them to regain political power. Of course, I'm just not that into hate, period, for the reasons that Berkowitz describes--it's an emotion that clouds reason and judgment. I don't even hate Osama bin Laden. I wish him dead, but not because I hate him. I simply, dispassionately think the world better off without him, and those like him.
But of course, the word "hate," like "racist," has lost most of its intellectual currency as a result of overuse and abuse by the left. So it's all the more interesting that the same people take such pride in their admitted (and irrational) hatred of George Bush.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:43 AMJohn Hawkins has an interview with one of the Slick Grope Vets For Truth, Kathleen Willey, who has a new book out
I finally was emotionally able to look at my husband's autopsy report while writing the book and there were some things in there that got my attention. I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be, but I did take the autopsy report and show it to an expert, a criminology and forensic expert, and she saw some pretty compelling inconsistencies in that report and she suggested that I pursue it, that I get further opinions, which I am doing. I feel like I owe that to his memory, I owe that to my children, and for my own piece of mind. I want to know what happened. That's what I talked about briefly in my book.
It had always been a given at the time that Ed Willey had committed suicide--I don't recall anyone questioning it. But there's ample reason to always question when associates of the Clintons supposedly "commit suicide" or meet some other untimely end. They seem to have a lot more such associates than most people.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 AMFor gems like this:
It is interesting that the movie [Transformers] made 403492 grillion dollars, whereas the Cruise / Redford / Streep oration about War Being Bad averaged thirty-seven cents per theater. As many have noted elsewhere at great length, anti-war movies are unpopular. The theories vary: the public is tired of the war, the movies are lousy, the public doesnt want to see Uncle Sam portrayed as the sort of guy who cant wait to hook up a Diehard to the harbls of an innocent exchange student rounded up in the Bushilter Mandatory Scoop-Up-The-Dusky Initiative. Both sides will probably come to rest on the last answer, but for different reasons. One side takes cruel comfort in the fact that Americans CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH, as another Cruise movie so memorably accused, and the other side is convinced that Hollywood is so besotted by the vapors in its ideological pleasure-dome it cannot conceive of making a war movie that isnt a glass of warm spinach juice or, if its slam-bang rah-rah in concept, is laden down with hints and tics and cues designed to insulate the producers from the inevitable protests from all corners. You can almost hear the sighs of a producer looking at an incredible script about the drive to Baghdad, a straight-forward story that complete with straight-ahead, matter-of-fact drama: its a great script, but my wifes all hooked up with Code Pink. Not that I care; theyre a bunch of nuts. But I cant stand the people who think theyre a bunch of nuts for reasons different than mine. Also Im going to get CAIR writing letters to the editor, and my kid reads that paper. Well, she reads it online. Maybe. I dont know. It would probably show up on MySpacebook or something. But no ones going to get hard looks if Tom Cruise comes out against torture, right? I mean, whos gonna boo that at Cannes?Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:09 AM
My father the presidential election historian thinks that 9/11 is your best head-to-head issue against Clinton. Play this up. In general, hit the main themes of your campaign. View space policy as a highly scrutinized metaphor for the other 99% of your domestic and international policies. Here are some 9/11 talking points.
Fred Thompson mops up the floor with Hillary (and other Dems) in Tennessee. Giuliani and Romney don't fare so well (and I suspect that this will be true in the south in general).
This seems like an interesting harbinger to me. Does it mean that as the rest of the country gets to know him as well as Volunteers do, that his polls will improve similarly?
[Update a few minutes later]
In further Thompson news, here are some reported excerpts from a speech on the war that he just gave at The Citadel.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:14 AMPatrick Ruffini writes that the Clinton administration would have been much less effective in its perfidy and corruption had blogs existed at the time. I'd go (and have gone) further than that. Had the blogosphere existed in anything resembling its current form in 1992, he couldn't have been elected. But the web didn't exist in any useful form fifteen years ago.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:46 AMThere's no way countries that are growing their economies the most will agree to stringent caps on carbon dioxide emissions based on historical levels. This historical-cap framework rewards the countries that have shrinking populations and manufacturing. Instead Canada (as also noted in today's WSJ) and others are focusing on CO2 intensity. E.g., how much CO2 is produced per kwh of electricity generated or per barrel of oil pumped? These are measures that don't hurt production and labor mobility. Some say they don't have bite. But if a CO2 reduction policy bites too much (pun intended)--especially in a way that caps economic growth--then the growing polluting countries will ignore it.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 02:06 PMThe Dems are not just stuck on stupid, but apparently stuck in 2006, or earlier, a world in which (at least in their minds) the war was lost, and in which the world hates America.
Well, the war isn't lost, and it turns out that if one looks at the reality, all the supposed America-hating is yesterday's story as well:
The Democratic Party talking point is that Bush turned the world against us. The Democratic Party world now consists of Venezuela, Iran, Uzbekistan and Cuba, Cuba, Cuba.In the real world, nation after nation is electing the pro-American candidates. And they are visiting the United States.
On Wednesday, it was tuxes with Sarkozy.
On Friday, it was Merkel at the ranch.
But continue to expect the Democrat candidates to mindlessly talk about how they're going to "heal" our international relations.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:48 AMHeh:
...Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elliethee told Fox News: On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clintons energy plan at a forum. However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:00 PMMy gosh. They are slipping. They used to be better at lying.
How can we entrust our presidency in a third-rate politician who cannot pull off fake questions?
From John Leo:
"Hundreds of pages, without exception, are about how to indoctrinate students," school of education professor Jan Blits told the campus student paper, the Review. "What's surprising is how open they are about it." Blits acquired the papers from the residence life program by simply asking for them. Kathleen Kerr, the director of residential life for the university "was so proud of the program she just handed them over," he said. Blits, head of the university's chapter of the National Association of Scholars, and another professor at the school of education, Linda Gottfredson, have been cooperating with FIRE to get the story out. Gottfredson said: "Residential Life has the whole person and they try to change beliefs - the heart and soul of a person - which is exactly what totalitarian institutions do. This is a national issue and FIRE is not finished."
Yes, of course they're proud of the program. They're just upset that anyone else sees anything wrong with it. After all, why should they have any shame in teaching students "correct" thoughts? Isn't that their job as educators?
Such self righteousness is how totalitarians get to be totalitarians.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:35 AM...whom I've met and, despite our many political differences, usually seems a sensible individual.
What is a "wingnut"? Everyone at his site seems to toss the term around as though it's obvious that some is and some ain't, and who they are (sort of like "neocon").
And what criteria were used to relegate the blogger nominees in this post to that category? For instance, how does Glenn Reynolds make the cut?
Am I one? If so, why?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:50 PMBy a New Jersey Democrat Senator?
I'm shocked, shocked. Who could even imagine such a thing?
I mean, Nancy Pelosi told me herself that the "Culture of Corruption" would end once the Democrats were in charge. Or did I mishear her?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:23 PM"One caller from Oklahoma City said that 'the questions were designed to incite a brawl,' and that Russerts and Brian Williamss moderating was 'an abdication of journalistic responsibility.'
Another said Russert 'should be shot,' before quickly adding that she shouldnt say that on a conference call."
Wonder where she thinks it would be appropriate to say it? Only in a campaign planning session?
C'mon people, give peace a chance.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:36 AMNoted whack-job Dennis Kucinich questioning George Bush's mental health.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:41 AMI stopped voting Libertarian for local candidates, leaving lots of blanks on my ballot. Next year, Im not sure which party Ill support for President, much less which candidate. From here, it looks as if the Republicans have become wrong and corrupt, the Democrats are stupid and corrupt, and the Libertarians have gone plain crazy.
I feel his pain.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:17 AMGee, maybe they need giant paper mache puppets. That always gets press coverage:
A group of 12 students chose to wear empty holsters to class this week at the University of Idaho as part of the nationwide protest.Aled Baker, a junior, said he loses his constitutional right to protect himself and others when he steps on campus.
"It's null and void when you go on campus," the mechanical engineering student said.
Baker, a sportsman and hunter, has a license to carry a concealed handgun and hopes the protest will get people talking about the issue.
The Second Amendment continues to be the one that dare not speak its name.
And the Brady bunch stands in for Bull Connor and George Wallace.
"You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Disarming law-abiding citizens today, disarming law-abiding citizens tomorrow, disarming law-abiding citizens forever.
Michael Barone says that it's not 2006 any more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:31 AM"Crooks And Liars" lives up to its name. At least the "Liars" part.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:13 PMRadley Balko wonders why Bush (and Cheney) haters would want Hillary!™ as president.
The 1990s, remember, weren't exactly a decade of peace. Bill Clinton ordered more U.S. military interventions than any other post-WWII administration, and there's no reason to think any of them were over Hillary's protestations. She supported the U.S. military campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo, and Bosnia. She once boasted that as the tension in Kosovo mounted, she called her husband from her trip to Africa and, "I urged him to bomb."Hillary Clinton voted for both the Patriot Act and its reauthorization. She voted for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. She voted to loosen restrictions limiting the federal government's ability to wiretap cell phones. In the past, she has supported a robust role for the federal government in enforcing "decency" standards in television and music. She teamed up with former Sen. Rick Santorum on a bill calling for the federal government to restrict the sale of violent video games.
Leftists concerned about the entertainment industry's increasingly imperial stand on copyright might take a cue from copyright guru Lawrence Lessig, who wrote on his blog for Wired magazine: "Of all the Dems, I would have bet she was closest to the copyright extremists. So far, she's done nothing to suggest to the contrary."
What about secrecy and executive power? It's difficult to see Hillary Clinton voluntarily handing back all of those extra-constitutional executive powers claimed by President Bush. Her husband's administration, for example, copiously invoked dubious "executive privilege" claims to keep from complying with congressional subpoenas and open records requestsclaims the left now (correctly, in my view) regularly criticizes the Bush administration for invoking.
How short their memories are.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 AMNot that I'm a big Rudy fan, but this is one of the (few) reasons that I'm glad to no longer be in California.
California is one of the most blessed places on earth, in terms of climate and gorgeous scenery. It's too bad that it was ruined by all the nutty (recent) Californians.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:59 PMRe: Harry Reid & Co matching Rush's E-Bay take for charity, more than a few readers have suggested the easiest way for the Dem Senators to match the funds would be for Hillary to arrange for some itinerant in Chinatown to "bundle" a quick four mil.There was a World War II charity campaign called "Bundles for Britain". Senator Clinton needs to launch "Bundles for Harry".
The real point, of course, is that Rush is donating his own money. The entire Democrat philosophy, though, is to do charity with other peoples' money.
[Saturday morning update]
Harry Reid and the Letter of Doom.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:38 PMChristopher Hitchens provides his thoughts on the subject, and some reviews of books about it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:19 AMI don't think that this analysis is right:
Bowers theorizes: "[E]very single candidate has seen their numbers drop from the time when their candidacy was first announced or first rumored. After the announcement, people learn more about candidates and media criticism grows harsher. That might actually explain Clinton's rise better than anything else, since she is so well known and opinions on her are so fixed that she had less to fear from the inevitable drop-off. In other words, that people have fixed opinions on her has actually been an asset, rather than a hindrance, to her campaign. ... Clinton, by contrast, is a rock who has been through the meat grinder several times in the past. Things were not going to get worse for her, but they were going to get worse for everyone else."
First of all, Hillary has never been through a meat grinder. At worst, she's been scraped over a dull cheese grater, relative to what could have been done had the press been doing its job in the nineties. Also, her opponents aren't going to bring up her sordid past, because as Democrats they were complicit throughout in covering it up, and completely accepted the corruption of the Clintons as the price for political power (the straw that broke the back of my support for Democrats for my lifetime, or at least until a new generation comes along that renounces the behavior of their forebears). And the Republicans and other foes of a Hillary candidacy (like me) are going to keep their powder dry until she is actually nominated, and lay down the most withering fire in the campaign, not over a year before the election.
One other point. Even if she had "been through a meat grinder," that was then, and this is now, and there are a whole lot of voters who are unaware of the events of over a decade ago, because they were young and not paying much attention, or paying attention to only the salacious aspects, not the criminality and corruption. Now that young people get so much more information from the Internet, and the traditional media gatekeepers who protected the Clintons in the nineties have lost so much of their power, I suspect that we are going to be reintroduced to both of the real Clintons in the coming year, via people like the "Slick Grope Vets for Truth."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:08 AMCalifornia, originator of most wacky laws, is about to make the sales of semi-automatic weapons and their ammo effectively illegal, by demanding science-fictional requirements from the manufacturers. The cops, unlike the little people, will still be able to buy real-world armament, of course. And the criminals, being criminals, will ignore the law. Only law-abiding citizens will be disarmed.
I wonder how this will stand up to a Second Amendment challenge? Given the composition and nutty opinions of that particular circuit, I'm sure that it will be found up to Constitutional muster, but I would hope that the Supreme Court would have something to say about it.
Oh, and is there any useful sense in which Arnold Scharzenegger can be considered a Republican? He seems to have gone completely native along with the legislature.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:44 AMI think that this is a pretty accurate thesis. After all, what with their enemies list, and the "missing" FBI files, and IRS investigations on their enemies, the Clintons actually got away with things that Nixon could only dream of doing. And the difference was, of course, that the press hated Nixon, but loved the Clintons.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 AMWhile I agree that Google's behavior is blatantly partisan, that doesn't excuse the continued misunderstanding of the First Amendment repeated in this Examiner editorial:
On its face, a policy that allows censorship of political speech critical of the trademark holder is a violation of the First Amendment. If Google maintains this policy, it will be handing a powerful tool for crushing dissent not only to political groups like MoveOn.org but to every corporation with a trademarked name.
Sorry, no. As I wrote not long ago:
Ahmadinejad had no First Amendment right to speak at Columbia, and he had no First Amendment right to not be criticized, either before, during or after his speech. And I have no First Amendment right to AT&T DSL service, or to not have it cut off if I express an opinion over its tubes. All that the First Amendment says is that "Congress shall make no law," not "Columbia University will grant a podium and audience," or "AT&T shall provide Internet service regardless of the behavior of the customer."
It also doesn't say that "Google shall not discriminate by political beliefs in which ads it chooses to run."
Not that Google shouldn't be criticized, and its hypocrisy pointed out on a daily basis, of course.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:36 AMJesse Walker explains:
3. Kill a lot of people, then stop. In 1973, the Nobel Peace Prize was shared by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. Kissinger's CV included the "secret" bombing of Cambodia and the "Christmas" bombing of North Vietnam; just a month before his prize was announced, he was complicit in the coup that installed a brutal dictatorship in Chile. So why did he win? Because he and Tho had reached a truce to end the Vietnam War. Tho wasn't a particularly peaceful man either, but at least he had the common courtesy to refuse the award.Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:15 PMMore recently, the prize went to Palestine Liberation Organization chief Yasser Arafat, a man whose career to that point had been spent arranging terrorist assaults on civilians. He shared the award with Israel's Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin; the three of them, like Kissinger and Tho, had negotiated an end to a war. In this case the peace agreement didn't hold, and both the state of Israel and various Palestinian groups went on to produce many more corpses. So don't worry if you develop a taste for blood during the initial stage of your Peace Prize campaign: You're free to resume killing once Mr. Nobel's money is safely in your hands.
Everyone else has been linking to this piece, but (contrarian that I am) I've been bucking the trend. But after actually reading it, I could understand why they have, so I am as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:24 PMJimmy Carter, of all people, calls Dick Cheney a "disaster." I suspect that the vice president will have too much class to respond, but the response would surely be entertaining.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:31 PMI've long believed that once she became the nominee (as seems increasingly likely), Hillary!™'s past would come back to haunt her. One of the means by which this would happen would be the "Slick Grope Vets For Truth." Well, it looks like Kathleen Willey has fired the first salvo
...as evidence that the Clintons haven t changed, the terror and harassment continue. Over 2007's Labor Day weekend, Kathleen's home was burglarized. Instead of taking jewelry or computers, the thief took the manuscript for Target, with its explosive revelations that could damage Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Sounds par for the course to me. Hopefully (and apparently) it wasn't the only copy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:18 AMFrom John Hood, on free trade.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:20 PMIs anybody else troubled that someone can give a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court $1.5 million for a book deal, but I can't give him a $100 gift?
Here's a spot where FEC monitoring of money flows would be useful. I want to hear what the Justices have to say, so banning book deals seems wrong. But this appears to be an easy way for a single entity to influence a Justice's decisions. I think everyone should have a chance to give Thomas money to influence his decisions just like we do by donating to elected officials' campaigns.
I wonder how Thomas will dispel the appearance of impropriety. If he waits until 2009, he may get impeached.
---Update 2:30 PM CDT---
My commenters seem to think there is no appearance of impropriety. So I guess if you want to buy influence with a non-elected official, offer them a $1.5 million book deal.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 10:34 AMMatt Welch's new book on John McCain
Mark Steyn, on the Democrats' stealth nationalization of "health care" and their cynical use and abuse of children:
The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader. If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man's job, then the boy is fair game. As it is, the Dems do enough cynical and opportunist hiding behind biography and identity, and it's incredibly tedious. And anytime I send my seven-year-old out to argue policy you're welcome to clobber him, too. The alternative is a world in which genuine debate is ended and, as happened with Master Frost, politics dwindles down to professional staffers writing scripts to be mouthed by Equity moppets.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AM...So executive vice-presidents' families are now the new new poor? I support lower taxes for the Frosts, increased child credits for the Frosts, an end to the "death tax" and other encroachments on transgenerational wealth transfer, and even severe catastrophic medical-emergency aid of one form or other. But there is no reason to put more and more middle-class families on the government teat, and doing so is deeply corrosive of liberty.
And, if the Democrats don't like me saying that, next time put up someone in long pants to make your case.
I agree with Mr. Jones; Human nature is immutable, damn the luck although I suspect a great many of Mr. Jones prescriptions rely on its endless mutability but the nature and quality of societies change, which is why Tony Blair left office on his feet instead of being dragged into the public square to have his bowels unspooled, and Mr. Jones himself who believes Chaucer was assassinated for political reasons can speak his mind without fearing for his life. Especially since he took the right side on the matter of the Crusades those rude God-bothering popish maniacs blundering into the civilized gardens of Islam, ad so on.What is it with these guys? You point out that America was the first nation to land on the moon, and they nod and say yes, well, the Sumerians first described the moons orbit 2000 years ago. Perhaps, but thats like saying that marrying Sophia Loren is an equal accomplishment to watching her walk across the street. Historical perspective is one thing. But nothing changes is a sad gust of defeat. Things change, all right. Just wait.
And listen to the Diner.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:04 AMWith the release of Clarence Thomas' memoirs
I've been as enthusiastic about Thompson as I can be about any Republican, but this is disappointing, if true:
He voted against them in the Senate. But after touring an ethanol plant in Iowa today, he considers them "a matter now of national security."
It's not just the policy that's a problem but the apparent flip-flop for blatant political reasons. I'd hoped for better from him.
Not a deal killer, but disappointing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:55 PMJames Taranto, on the Senate Democrats:
As National Review's Byron York explains, when Limbaugh talked about "phony soldiers," he was referring to phony soldiers--that is, to men like Jesse Macbeth, an "antiwar" activist who claimed to have served in Iraq, received a Purple Heart and killed innocent civilians, when in fact the Army discharged him before he even completed basic training.If Democrats want to support the phony troops, it is their right to do so. But when they try to interfere with Limbaugh's livelihood, that amounts to an effort at creating a McCarthy-style blacklist.
The Fox report says that 41 Democratic senators signed this letter, which means that 9 or 10 did not (depending on how you count Joe Lieberman). Will they speak out against their colleagues' intimidation efforts? And where are the Republicans in all this? With the Democratic Party increasingly in thrall to hate groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, America urgently needs politicians of either party with the courage to take a stand for decency.
Don't hold your breath.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:58 PMThey told me that if George Bush was reelected, brave voices of critics would be silenced. And they were right:
For daring to raise a voice and raise some money for the troops (all proceeds from the sale of his items go to the National Military Family Association charity), this T-shirt seller earned the wrath of MoveOn.org's lawyers. MoveOn.org chief operating officer Carrie Olson brought down the sledgehammer. She sent a cease-and-desist letter to CafePress demanding that PoliStew Cafe's items and other anti-MoveOn.org merchandise be removed from the store.
Free speech for me, but not for thee--the motto of the left.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:08 AMDoes anyone think that this kind of thing is any different at any other government agency? CIA, FBI, TSA? Or even HUD, or NASA?
Or even large corporate bureaucracies? A good friend just got out from under an employer that was an old-boys network that promoted incompetents and punished good employees because management worked with filtered info.
One of the reasons we need smaller government--at least that way, rogue agencies wouldn't be able to do as much damage.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:00 AMIf true, this is of particular concern to me:
AT&T has rolled out new Terms of Service for its DSL service that leave plenty of room for interpretation. From our reading of it, in concert with several others, what we see is a ToS that attempts to give AT&T the right to disconnect its own customers who criticize the company on blogs or in other online settings.
My DSL service is with Bellsouth, which recently was reabsorbed into the AT&T borg collective. So if they're serious about this, they could in fact choke off my tube to the Interweb. After all, when one Googles Bellsouth DNS Problems," one of my posts comes up number two. Same thing with my complaints about "Bellsouth Usenet Problems." And don't even get me started on email.
So, yeah, I'm concerned, I guess, but as the article points out, it wouldn't be very good PR for them to cut off service to critics (particularly when the criticism is completely legitimate).
But I also have a problem with the article:
There's nothing which guarantees that what AT&T is doing here is either legal or what the company intends. This wouldn't be the first time that poorly thought-out legal language made it into a contract used by a major corporation. Why are we thinking it's an oversight? Simple: we believe that AT&T isn't misguided enough to expect to be able to squash First Amendment rights with a ToS contract without losing both face and their cozy legal status.
Apparently, very few people understand the First Amendment, at least insofar as it protects speech rights. Ahmadinejad had no First Amendment right to speak at Columbia, and he had no First Amendment right to not be criticized, either before, during or after his speech. And I have no First Amendment right to AT&T DSL service, or to not have it cut off if I express an opinion over its tubes. All that the First Amendment says is that "Congress shall make no law," not "Columbia University will grant a podium and audience," or "AT&T shall provide Internet service regardless of the behavior of the customer."
AT&T has a right to do this, but as is often the case, what it has a legal right to do wouldn't necessarily be right. And I would hope that they don't do it, both for their sake and mine.
[Update on Wednesday morning]
For what it's worth, AT&T says not to worry:
"AT&T respects its subscribers' rights to voice their opinions and concerns over any matter they wish. However, we retain the right to disassociate ourselves from websites and messages explicitly advocating violence, or any message that poses a threat to children (e.g. child pornography or exploitation). We do not terminate customer service solely because a customer speaks negatively about AT&T. This policy is not new and it's not unique to AT&T."
I kind of assumed that was the real intent.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:46 AMFrom the IBD:
A high-tech revolution had spread ideas of freedom across the Web. Migrant laborers returned home with tales of glimpsing freer societies. The economy had tanked, with fuel prices doubling and public tolerance of the morally bankrupt regime hitting an all-time low. There didn't seem to be a way this regime could last.There is an exception, however: The brute force of a violent military regime that cares little what the world thinks. It's a message real tyrants send with a soggy U.N. establishment doing nothing. They expect to get away with it. They're counting on a few visits from U.N. officials, a few statements of condemnation, a few expressions of "concern" and then another 20 years of tyranny.
After all, they've looked at the opprobrium America drew from this global consensus when it sent in troops to overturn a comparable tyranny in Iraq. That verdict from the global establishment that calls itself "the world" the Nobel committees, the U.N., regional alliances certainly did get the word out to regimes such as Burma's that the only real criminal regime out there is U.S.
...The ultimate lesson of Burma is that it's not the active countries out there that create an environment for mass murdering regimes to flourish, it's the passive ones that prefer the decorum of international institutions. There needs to be a strong response or communities such as the U.N. and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will forfeit all their moral authority.
Too late for that, I think. That train left the station a long time ago.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:40 AMRoger Simon thinks so.
I'm skeptical, at least insofar as there would have been an actual invasion and occupation. I'm not sure that he would have even overthrown the Taliban. He might have bombed the hell out of them, but I'm not convinced that we'd have a democratic government there now had Gore been in charge. I find this support for Roger's thesis uncompelling:
The Clinton-Gore administration wasnt the least bit afraid to use force. Erratic about it - maybe. Insecure about it - maybe. But pacifist? Ask Milosevic.
If Milosevic were around to ask, I think that he'd point out that the Clinton-Gore administration was perfectly happy to use force as long as there was no risk of any bloodshed to American troops. Since he's not, I'll do so.
The Bosnian campaign, at least as far as American forces were concerned, was an air mission only, dropping bombs on a country with no significant air defense, from thousands of feet. On the rare occasion when they tried to get bin Laden, they used cruise missiles. The famous aspirin factory bombing the day of the Lewinsky testimony was just that, not an aspirin-factory invasion with boots on the ground.
In the one instance during that administration in which we did have American forces in harm's way (in, ironically, a humanitarian mission inherited from the Bush administration), they were refused the armor they requested, by Clinton's defense secretary, Les Aspin, and then, after the "Black Hawk down" incident in Mogadishu, all troops were withdrawn, tail between our legs, one of the incidents that bin Laden pointed to as demonstration of American unwillingness to shed blood.
I think that a Gore administration would have been largely a continuation of the Clinton administration, in terms of personnel and attitudes. Even after 911. Unfortunately, I can't be as sanguine as Roger is about a Hillary presidency, considering that she has Sandy Berger as a national security adviser.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:09 PMHe's mentioning the unmentionable, and questioning the notion of citizenship as a birthright.
I think that this is a long overdue discussion (and I've thought that for decades, long before the immigration controversy heated up). But in order to discuss it, we have to have a discussion about what citizenship means.
In my opinion, citizenship of this nation is something that should have to be earned, even for those born here (I think that Heinlein was on to something with Starship Troopers, though I don't necessarily agree that only military service would convey the privilege). But I won't make the opponents of illegal immigration happy when I also state that I don't think that one should have to be a citizen to live and work here (and for those born to American citizens, there would be no obvious place to which to deport them, even if they don't earn citizenship). I think that non-citizens on US soil should enjoy most of the constitutional rights currently accruing to citizens.
Here's what I don't think they should get. They shouldn't be able to vote. They shouldn't be entitled to welfare benefits. They shouldn't be entitled to public schooling (though, of course, I don't think that that's something that should be inflicted on citizens, either). They could live, and work, and spend their entire lives here, and even bear children, but they shouldn't be allowed a franchise to be a parasite on the rest of society. And if they work hard, and pay taxes, and/or volunteer for public service of some kind, they should be granted a route to citizenship.
I in fact would rather have as a citizen someone who was willing to walk across miles of desert to be here, than someone born here who thinks that the world owes him a living as a result of that accident of fate.
Note, while I haven't fleshed this out completely, it's quite conceivable that I might come up with criteria by which I myself wouldn't currently be eligible for citizenship. If so, though, because I consider my American citizenship of great value, if that were the case, I would do what I could personally to rectify the situation as soon as possible.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:50 AMMark Steyn, on the self-absorption of academia.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:26 AMMurtha is going to be deposed in the slander suit against him.
It's about time that he was held accountable for his vicious demagoguery. Being a Congressman doesn't give you license to vilify troops in arms without basis.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:33 PMGlobal Warmmongers often complain that critics (such as TCSDaily) are funded by Big Oil. But I guess it's all right when James Hansen is funded by George Soros.
Frankly, I'd rather see arguments based on data, rather than funding sources.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 AM...but somehow, it always seems to land in Europe. And this comment is one that I've always thought rung true:
Re: the misuse in current parlance of "fascism". It is, of course, not Nazism. Fascism was an Italian phenomenon. I believe that the Left has sought to supplant "Nazi" with "fascist" because of the root words for Nazism: National Socialism. Since Stalin et al. practiced International Socialism, one can understand their sensitivity. National Socialism and International Socialism are not opposite ends of some political spectrum: they are subsets of Socialism. And when one counts up the dead, the distinction [between] National and International Socialism is one without a difference.Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:20 PM
I've heard a lot of silly blather about how Ahmadinejad has a "right" to speak at Columbia University.
No.
This is the problem with positive "rights" such as right to health care, or food, or housing. It's not possible to grant such a "right" without violating someone else's.
If you have a "right" to groceries, then someone else has to pay for them, with taxes. If you have a right to housing, then someone else has to pony up to satisfy it. If you have a "right" to earn a minimum wage, and your labor isn't worth that much, then the employer must subsidize you by paying more than your value on the market.
Everyone has a right to free speech in general, because in doing so, no one else is prevented from speaking.
But no one has a "right" to speak at Columbia University. There are limited opportunities to do so, and to grant it to one is to deprive another of the opportunity.
To speak at Columbia University is a privilege, and it is not one that should have been granted a murderous propagandistic fascist like Ahmedinejad. While Bollinger is to be commended for his harsh introductory comments, that doesn't excuse his misjudgment in inviting the man to speak. That he was applauded there was a travesty, and a stain on the judgment of the Columbia students (if they were students) in attendance.
[Update in the afternoon]
And who is one of the idiots who thinks that Ahmadinejad has a "right to speak" at Columbia?
The hateful lies that he may utter about Israel, the Holocaust the answer is for us to promote the truth and show the world the values and ideals that we hold dear, Obama said Monday. One of the values we believe in is the value of academic freedom. He has a right to speak.
Yes, he has a right to speak. But he has no right to speak where others, particularly Columbia students, will hear him. He has no right to further sully the once-great name of that university with his presence.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:14 AMWhat if Moveon.org had been around sixty-five years ago?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:29 PMBeldar wonders about the Hillary/Berger connection as well.
Do you really want this gang in charge of the country again, let alone national security?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:55 PMFred Thompson has been making a lot of good noises about federalism. But there's one aspect of it on which the campaign has no comment.
Thompson is the only candidate yet to take a public position on the [marijuana] raids. While hes right to note his impressive pro-federalist voting record in the Senate, he also voted for a number of bills strengthening the federal war on drugs.
So is he a federalist, or a fair-weather federalist? As Radley Balko notes:
...you cant argue that states should be free to make their own policies without federal interference except when you happen to disagree with them. You can be a federalist, or you can be an ardent drug warrior. But you cant be both.
And it should be noted, that despite his favorable position on this particular issue, Obama's no federalist, either. For instance, I strongly doubt that he believes that abortion is something that should be left to the states...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:17 PMAt least in my eyes. Fred Thompson doesn't go to church regularly, and isn't afraid to say so.
I've nothing against church goers in general, or even church-going politicians, but I'd much rather have one who doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. Particularly compared to hypocrites like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who primarily went as a photo op, Bible in hand, usually when trying to tamp down a scandal.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:27 PMHillary has Sandy Berger as one of her policy advisers. I'm less disturbed by this than the fact that so many won't find it disturbing. Will he play a role in another Clinton administration? If so, is this payoff for covering up whatever he covered up for them?
[Update mid morning]
Captain Ed has more information about where Hsu got his money. She hasn't even been elected yet, and we already have a huge scandal. I feel like I've gone back to the nineties in a time machine. Except I think that, this time, the scandals will get a lot more, and better coverage.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:41 AMMiss the rampant corruption of the Clinton years? Have no fear--it will be back if Hillary! is elected. Look forward to more sleepovers for campaign cash in the Lincoln bedroom.
Before the announcement, new evidence surfaced that the Clinton camp had dismissed allegations about Hsu made by a Southern California businessman. In an e-mail obtained by The Times, a Clinton campaign staffer told a California Democratic Party official in June that the businessman's concerns were unwarranted."I can tell you with 100 certainty that Norman Hsu is NOT involved in a ponzi scheme," wrote Samantha Wolf, who was a campaign finance director for the Western states."He is COMPLETELY legit."
In fact, Hsu was a fugitive wanted on a 15-year-old bench warrant stemming from an early 1990s investment fraud case.
And for all the talk about competence and cronyism of Bush appointees, apparently people forget that Hillary hired a former bar bouncer as head of White House security, though she denied it, instead blaming it on the dead guy (of which there were too many in the Clinton administration).
In interviews, the first lady has denied any involvement with Livingstone's hire, and Nussbaum testified under oath to House investigators on June 26 that he was not involved. Just who hired Livingstone was not quickly established, although White House officials eventually said late White House attorney Vincent Foster brought him in.
But I guess we're not supposed to point out things like that. Only "Clinton haters" would do such a thing. Wonder if Hsu almost became another dead guy who could tell no tales? And what was he really running from?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:13 AMI think that we need a new benchmark for this failed Democrat Congress. They need to get their microphones working, or we should set a timetable to pull the pork out of their districts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:32 AMSome thoughts from Eric Scheie:
I was immediately reminded of the unresolved Peter Paul case, but if we think back further, there's Johnny Huang, Charlie Trie, Moktar Riaddy. The Craig scandal is pathetically simple, even sad by comparison, does not involve the presidential election, nor money corruption, and probably wouldn't be much of a scandal if it involved the Democrats. That the public perception would be that "both parties have scandals" shows only how easily manipulated the public can be....I think the Hsu case is bigger than Vick and Craig combined. It has a creepy, tip-of-the-iceberg feel to it, and it's a perfect reminder (as if anyone needed a reminder) of the deep, hard-core corruption which has long characterized Bill and Hillary Clinton. (I don't believe they have changed at all.) What sickens me more than seeing this corruption resurface is to see so many naive people behaving as if they're shocked and surprised. (And what will sicken me more than that, I'm sure, is the speed at which they'll forget.)
Yes. That people still don't understand the depth of corruption of the Clintons is a failure--no--a criminal unwillingness to inform the public, or even an ongoing effort to deliberately misinform them--by the press in the nineties. It was journalistic malpractice.
And it continues, as long as they remain Democrats, and Bill maintains his (always unnoticeable to me) charisma level. Who has been reporting on the upcoming Peter Paul trial? Very few.
And Eric implicitly offers a challenge to the poetically gifted among us--come up with new lyrics for "Runaround Sue."
At least for me. He seems to be interested in, and understand technology.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 PMDavid Bernstein makes some good points, but I think the real question is not, why should Larry Craig resign, but why shouldn't most of the Senate? Of course, I've been asking that question for years.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:12 AMAmerican is gone, but Hillary! (and Bill) will bring it back. Can't wait.
[Update a minute later]
I loved this comment:
Maybe she means the American people will get their silverware back.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 AM
If the global warming evangelists had the slightest sense of irony, they'd never even attempt things like this. They have no concept of what laughing stocks they make of themselves.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:52 AMI would ask him to forgive me for taking great pleasure in this. Guess that's what schadenfreude is all about.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:43 PM...to hear that Venezuela's currency is collapsing. Such are the wages of socialism. No doubt he'll blame it on George Bush.
Let's hope that it leads to the collapse of Hugo's government. I would think, at a minimum, that it bodes well for lower oil prices, because he's going to have to start selling it off faster to prop up his national shell game.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:55 AMPete Seeger has (finally) denounced Stalin. And written a new song about it.
[Update on Monday morning]
More Pete Seeger discussion here. Some people don't think that he deserves as much credit as he's getting for denouncing Stalin, when he still refuses to denounce communism itself. I think they're overexpecting a very old dog to learn a new trick.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:31 AMFrom cutting and running:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has backed down from demands for a withdrawal of our troops in Iraq by next spring.Selling voters on cut and run was always tough, but now a new UPI/Zogby Poll finds that 54% of Americans believe the Iraq war is not lost.
Beyond the achievements of our forces, the public is obviously impressed that Iraq's five top political leaders have agreed on a series of compromises, including oil wealth distribution and provincial elections.
Well, that's what happens when you govern by poll instead of principle.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:14 AMSome thoughts about Republican "sex" scandals.
Of course, the Democrats will just point to this as evidence that Republicans have "hang ups" about sex.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 PMWhen I was reading this blog post about the Marines at Haditha being cleared (sort of--you'll see what I mean when you read the post), this phrase jumped off the screen at me:
"We can't say those guys didn't commit a crime," said Michael F. Noone Jr., a retired Air Force lawyer and law professor at Catholic University of America. "We can only say that after an investigation, there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute."
That statement could have been about Bill and Hillary Clinton, without changing a word. Bob Ray's report didn't clear them, contrary to popular media (and Democrat) myth.
And no, it's not old news. She's running for president, and seems likely to be the Democrat nominee. And "innocent until proven guilty" is a principle for the courtroom, not for public opinion.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:11 AMWhy do these people think that they are entitled to American taxpayers' wallets to build another disaster waiting to happen? Give them a grant, and tell them to move.
Instapundit has a roundup of Katrina links, including continuing myths in the press.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:42 AMHere's a(nother--see comments*) example:
He told the governors: 'Who's going to fight [the war on terror] in the future if we're a generation so sick that we don't have the capacity to show up for work?'" So: In addition to folksy, populist, and funny, we need to start adding the adjective "dumb."
Between that and his proposal for a nationwide smoking ban, I think that you can stick a fork in him for the Republican nomination. Sorry to those Democrats* who were looking for a southern Democrat to run on the Republican ticket.
* "I like Mike Huckabee. He speaks with a level of candor other politicians do not and he is just about the only GOP candidate that might tempt me to cross over in the general election.
However, this also means he is very, very unlikely to become the GOP nominee. "
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:09 PMThey won't stand up for their religion. Why can't they be more like Muslims, and riot and demand decapitations over things like this?
Also, terrorist chic. Maybe they'll wear them with "Che" tee shirts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 AMI agree with Mark Danziger that, if for no other reason, Craig should resign for this:
According to the police report, the senator presented a business card and asked, "What do you think about that?"
Of course, it's just one step beyond what most, if not all Senators do for special privileges. John Kerry was famous for his "Do you know who I am?" incidents to take cuts in line, get into restaurants, etc., which were apparently legion in Massachusetts, and other places. Senators (and Congresspeople) being human, are going to abuse their power for privilege, but an attempt to intimidate a law officer goes over a line.
[Update a few minutes later]
While I think that he should resign, I also think that this would be a perfectly appropriate response from him should he be asked by the press:
...if I were a Senator asked to vote to expel him from office, my public answer would be, just as soon as the House throws out Patrick Kennedy.
[Another update]
Further thoughts from Victor Davis Hanson:
Apparently it's a 'family-values' kind of guy like Larry Craig, Mark Foley, or the odious Ted Haggard, not just getting caught in homosexual scenarios at odds with their rhetoric-but in particularly disgusting acts such as bathroom trolling, solicitation of teenagers, and drug use with a male prostitute. The problem is not that these creepy people are confessing to be gay, but rather denying just that while engaging in behavior that is bizarre and repellent regardless of orientation.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:34 AM
One of Hillary!'s big-money donors is wanted for grand theft. I am, it goes without saying, shocked.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AMFidel Castro says that a Hillary/Obama ticket is invincible.
Is this like the support that Kerry said he had from foreign leaders?
Well, at least it maintains the tradition of Democrats getting the votes of the dead.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:37 PMAfter all, the only allegations we've heard about Senator Craig relate to oral sex. And as we were told 24/7 by the Democrats about a decade ago, oral sex isn't sex at all. Just ask Bill Clinton.
[Update in the evening]
Slate editors are conflicted.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PMIn a post about the effect of California splitting its electoral votes:
...it has been more than 40 years since the Democrats won a sizable majority of the popular vote.
I hadn't thought about it, but that's true. The last time there was a Democrat landslide, in terms of popular vote, was 1964. Every popular-vote landslide since then was a Republican one (Nixon in '72, Reagan in '80 and '84, Bush in '88). Clinton only got 43% in '92, and couldn't get a majority in '96.
Maybe next year will be different, but given the current approval rating of a Democrat Congress (it's currently lower than that of Michael Vick, I believe), and the disapproval rating of the person most likely to head their ticket, I wouldn't bet on it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:23 PMAffirmative action is keeping blacks out of the legal profession. Get out the crayolas and color me shocked. As the article points out, good intentions aren't enough, and when they implement racist policies, they're all the more egregious.
[Late evening update]
Jeff Goldstein has further thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 PMFor some unaccountable reason, Senator Kerry has decided not to sue the Swift Boat Vets for Truth for libel. Beldar gives him one last chance.
I just don't understand. How can he pass up this golden opportunity to clear his name?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:08 PMThe French are prepared to apologize to Iraq.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:28 AMA smart Republican presidential candidate will make a big deal out of this story, and promise to do something about it (such as reining in the BATF). It won't be Rudy, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:26 AMBurt Prelutsky has some thoughts. I have to dispute this particular point, though, because it continues to nurture the myths of that incident:
Frankly, I didnt even care that Bill Clinton dallied with Monica Lewinsky. I took his perjury seriously, but not his philandering. I did figure he could have done better than Ms. Lewinsky, being commander in chief and all, but thats neither here nor there. I simply dont expect politicians to be saintly. Besides, a lot of saints werent the least bit saintly before they had their epiphanies.
You know what? I didn't care if Clinton "dallied with Monica Lewinsky*," either, and I do think that the perjury (and subornation of perjury, and intimidation of witnesses, and bribing of witnesses, and failure to faithfully execute the laws as he pledged when he took the oath of office, particularly when they were laws that he signed with his own pen but thought himself above) was very important. But that doesn't mean that his "dalliance" wasn't.
Two points. The Monica "dalliance" was not, despite the incessant spin at the time, and now, his "private" life. It occurred on company time, on company premises. He kept people (like Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentson) cooling their heels in the outer room while being serviced in the Oval Office by said "dalliance." He was getting a hummer while discussing troop deployments in Kosovo with members of Congress on the Hill.
Second, it was not something that he wanted to see on the front page of the Washington Post. If, like a French president, you want to have an affair, on your own time, and keep a mistress out in Virginia, that you visit on the off hours, I'm no prude--go for it*. But if you think that you need to keep it a secret, don't do it, if you are the most powerful man in the world.
I've asked before, and I'll ask again. What if Linda Tripp had decided to sell the tapes to Saddam, or the head of the government of China, instead of giving them to Ken Starr?
*All other things being equal, I'd prefer a president that kept his vows to his wife to one that didn't, given that this seems to me at least as important a vow as one taken to defend the Constitution. But note my caveat. I can live with a president that is unfaithful to his wife, given the long history of presidents who have been less that faithful to their wives, Mr. Clinton excepted. I'm just sayin'.
From a mail list I subscribe to:
If a Republican is elected President in November '08, Roe v Wade is a dead fetus walking.
Of course, I think that Roe should be reversed simply because it was such an atrocious opinion, independently of my opinion on abortion. People should also understand that a reversal wouldn't outlaw abortions, per se. It would simply restore the issue back to the states, and the political process, where it always belonged.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:14 PMJust in case you had somehow deluded yourself that Robert Fisk was sane, he's apparently joined the 911 Truth Brigade. As someone at The Corner pointed out, the title should have been "Especially I...," not "Even I..."
I don't have time, but anyone want to have a go at fisking Fisk?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:45 AMAl Maliki has asked Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin to "come to their senses."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:45 AMIn all its incandescent lunacy and glory.
This is sedition (not to mention a profound misunderstanding of the Constitution and the basis of this country's government). But then, how would an idiotic Brit visiting here be expected to know? No need to arrest him. Just deport him.
Better yet, ridicule him, as he so richly deserves. I just wish that it would have any effect on such a moron.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:27 PMHighway robbery. Literally. By your government.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:14 AMRadley Balko has a righteous rant on what Mark Twain called American's only native criminal class--Congresspeople. I wouldn't go quite as far as this commenter, though:
I think I'd actually vote for Jar Jar Binks before most of our current senators.
He'd be an improvement over some of them, but not, I think, most.
"Jar-Jar in '08!"
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AMAndy McCarthy has some interesting thoughts on demands that Maliki be replaced:
...shouldn't Senator Clinton have a higher standard to meet in explaining why Maliki is unacceptable? This is the same former First Lady who actively encouraged her husband's embrace of Yasser Arafat a poisonously corrupt master terrorist the Clintons cultivated as a statesman, repeatedly hosted at the White House, and got a second intifada for their troubles. Plus, we now know that, through all that time, the government knew Arafat had ordered the cold-blooded murder of American diplomats in Sudan in 1973.Shouldn't Sen. Clinton have to explain on what basis Arafat was acceptable but Maliki isn't?
Yes, and in a sane world, she would. But her highness doesn't get tough questions, at least not from the MSMers moderating debates. It would be a good point for a Republican candidate in the general election, though, assuming that she gets the nomination.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:50 AMHe's actually calling out Hillary on the Lincoln Bedroom. As it's noted, it won't work. Democrats are in continuing denial (with a few notable exceptions) about the deep corruption of the Clintons.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:50 AMTo listen do DiFi and the Brady bunch, you'd have expected crimes committed with "assault weapons" (i.e., scary-looking semi-automatic rifles) to have skyrocketed with the end of the ban on them. So what happened?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:46 AMThoughts, from Jeff Goldstein:
...what is not debatable is that modern liberalism (more properly, contemporary progressivism) and, in particular, its academic boosters is absolutely committed to defending its long-held positions, even if doing so forces proponents into the kinds of contortions weve seen so much of recently, from the insistence that color-blindness is actually racism, to the demonizing of such concepts as merit or fairness or equality of opportunity or melting pot as right-wing code words brandished to maintain the white patriarchal status quo (the irony being that the status quo these truly liberal ideas are purported to maintain is, in fact, not the status quo at all that distinction having long ago been granted to those pushing for various manifestations of equality of outcome, and for a social order built around multicultural feel-goodism).The radical has now become the familiar but its dusty champions are so caught up in the ego gratification and anti-establishment thrill they get from self-identifying as movement radicals that are blind to how stale and entrenched theyve become.
Or, if they recognize the failings of their utopian beliefs, they are quite adept at denying it though it takes the worst kind of anti-intellectual rationalization to maintain such positions in the face of times march, which cares not for their supposed good intentions, but instead seems determined to judge these progressive throwbacks on the effectiveness of their advocacy.
To todays progressive, the mold on their ideas looks like penicillin. To time, it looks only like the moss growing on an old slice of marble rye.
"Liberals," in the twenty-first century, are the new conservatives.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:15 PM...to learn that Bill Clinton lied to us again. Over a matter of national security.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here's the full story:
The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal constraints agency officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. What did I do? What did I do? Clinton said at one point. I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector generals report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to kill bin Ladenone reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations, the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector generals findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. There was never any ambiguity, he said. None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least thats what the CIA lawyers told us. A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)
No, they rarely do.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AM...in the post-Plame, post-Scheuer, post-Tenet era is that no one believes much what the CIA says any more about the Middle East; no one believes that a wire-photo from there is genuine or its caption accurate; and no one necessarily believes anything in once respected magazines, whether the Periscope section of Newsweek or anything published in The New Republic. The common gripe is that the administration lied to the public about WMD in Iraq; but what is lost is that once revered institutions proved disingenuous in their accusations and unreliable in their performance.
I remain appalled that Bush gave Tenet a Medal of Freedom. Just one more sign of his misjudgment.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 AMYou know, I think that there are Democrats that could win the presidency next year. But I don't think that any of them are in the race, or if they are, they have no chance of being nominated.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:37 PMFormer prosecutor Nifong is whining that he's being treated unfairly:
When former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong mailed in his law license last week, he also included a note bemoaning "the fundamental unfairness" of the North Carolina State Bar's handling of his ethics case.Nifong was disbarred for his handling of rape charges against three Duke University men's lacrosse players. State prosecutors later dismissed the charges and declared the players innocent.
I think we have a new dictionary example of chutzpah, to replace the old one about the guy who murdered his parents and threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan.
I have to say that I also like the part about how the dog ate his law license.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:42 AMLaShawn Barber writes about their insulting minstrel show. Republicans do this as well, but with the Democrats, it's completely institutionalized. Have to keep them on the liberal plantation, after all.
[Update at 5 PM EDT]
Semi-related. Just in case you've been living on some other planet, academia favors Democrats. In other news, most Israelis are Jewish.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:27 PMRich Lowry, on the insanity of our ethanol policy:
Prior to the Civil War, southerners genuflected before King Cotton. Now, we live in an era of King Corn. It is our most heavily subsidized crop.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:15 AMWe will plant 90 million acres of it this year, up 15 percent from last year. Still, the price of a bushel of corn jumped from $2 to $3 in the past year, thanks to the demand for more ethanol. This is increasing the price of corn-based foods tortillas have become as much as twice as expensive in Mexico and meat, poultry and dairy products, since livestock traditionally has been fed corn.
In some parts of the country, Jeff Goodell writes in Rolling Stone, hog farmers now find it cheaper to fatten their animals on trail mix, french fries and chocolate bars. The higher cost of raising livestock is naturally passed along to consumers. So, with its ethanol mandate, Congress has effectively passed an indirect tax on food. The big winners are agricultural firms that have locked up lots of land, since the price of cropland has gone up 14 percent in the past year. (If your local real estate is slumping, its only because you cant plant corn on it.)
Michelle Malkin has pulled together a history of slandering of American troops, by both real and fake troops. It's not very pretty. And as with Memogate, the pathetic excuse from the defenders of the people who do this is "fake, but accurate."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:28 AMThat's what Bill Clinton says he wants:
"With regard to media consolidation, the rules were relaxed too much," Clinton said during his Million Dollar Hamptons fundraising marathon this last weekend."Anti-trust law should apply. I think we shouldn't have abandoned the fairness law; if a media outlet were pushing a particular political point of view...then you had a right to demand the opposite point of view. The airwaves belong to the public, not to anybody, particularly not to Fox News.
Only one problem, Bill. Fox News doesn't use the airwaves. It's a cable/satellite channel. And the "scarcity" argument for regulating content never made that much sense, even with over-the-air radio and television. It was alway theoretical, and never really mattered in practice, particularly with the advent of UHF. After all, any metro, and most rural areas have multiple television and radio stations. How many major newspapers do they have? Guess it must be a newsprint scarcity.
Also, I guess he didn't get the memo that the latest Dem talking point is that they don't want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine--they just want more "responsibility" on the part of broadcasters. And of course, the notion of "balance" is absurd, and only makes sense to those simplistically stuck in a one-dimensional political world view, with only "left" and "right." Most issues have more than two sides to them, on different axes.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AMNot something I say very often, but I agree with Rich Lowry. It's about time someone stood up to these demagogues. All interests are "special" to someone.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:56 PMJohn Edwards is a phony. And it sounds like he'd be another Bill Clinton (who was famous for thinking that no one's time except has had any value) when it comes to inconsideration of others:
It was well past the candidates alleged time of arrival, but no one seemed to mind. Then a prominent Democrat who lives in a fashionable downtown neighborhood confided wed be waiting even longer. We all knew the candidate had a more public appearance at Martin Luther King Park before this one, and no one begrudged him such face time with real voters. But this particular insider knew something else: He had bided his own time because he had seen Sen. Edwards go jogging in front of his house, along with his security detail, after the time that the MLK event was to have started.As reported in The State the next day: Edwards was running late, and the throng waiting to rally with him at Martin Luther King Jr. Park took notice. They sat for two hours in the sweltering heat inside the community center, a block off Five Points.
We were cool at the club, drinking, schmoozing, snacking. So hes late? What are these folks going to do write checks for the Republicans?
Also, when you make Howard Dean look good, it's pretty bad.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:35 AMIn a long and ongoing discussion on (now proven) fabulist Private Beauchamp over at Winds of Change, the topic drifts to Ra
However, one fake document which claimed things that were almost certainly true, was widely regarded to somehow prove they were false because that document itself was fake. Very twisted logic there.
I must have missed that. Maybe someone somewhere argued that this proved that Bush wasn't AWOL, but I don't recall ever seeing such an argument.
But then, I never had a strong opinion on whether or not Bush was AWOL (and still don't). Furthermore, I never much cared, because Bush has always said that when he was young and stupid, he was young and stupid, and he (unlike John Kerry) wasn't running on his youthful military record--he was running on his more-recent record as president.
Frankly, what was so funny to me about the thing was that the people who were pushing the "Bush is AWOL" story thought that it would damage him with his base, when in fact they were the only people who gave a rat's patoot (and then only because of the political damage they thought it could do to their enemy, not because they have any intrinsic problems with soldiers going AWOL--many of them would probably laud that in general). It's the same mentality that causes them to "out" gay Republicans.
What Ra
I'm not a constitutional law expert, but this seems strange to me:
Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker's documents.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.
How does that work? What's to keep the Congressman from arguing that all the records had to do with legislative business, and not allowing them to see anything? The real issue here, since they at least ruled the raid itself illegal, is whether or not the trial judge will throw out the untainted evidence.
I wonder if Justice will appeal?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:15 AMSo says Markos, who wants to "cleanse" his political party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:35 AMSo, Barack Hussein Obama made a foreign policy speech today. Apparently, he wants to (among other things) invade Pakistan. So, he wants to make nice with North Korea and Ahmadinejad, and Hugo Chavez, and the chinless opthalmologist, all of whom are essentially at war with us, but invade a key ally in the war. Boy, I think four years of this guy would make us long for Jimmy Carter. If the intent of this was to disprove Hillary's charge that he's naive, I suspect that the effect will be the opposite.
Jim Geraghty has deconstructed the speech.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:33 AMDoes John Edwards really believe this?
We have to fight back against these people. We cant let them do this kind of stuff to us. And theyre always going to be very powerful forces that dont want us to hear my voice, and the voices of those like not just me, the voices of those like us.They want to shut all of us up, Ed. Thats what this is all about. Im amazed youre still able to talk on the radio.
Who are "they"? Who are these dark forces that conspire to get progressive voices off the air? Who is it that is paying millions of people to refuse to listen to Air America and kill their ratings? Will John Edwards bravely call for an investigation?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:17 AMA senior Democrat admits that the party is invested in defeat:
Clyburn is the Majority Whip No. 3 man in the House and he said that if Gen. Petraeus has a positive report in September that would be a real big problem for us (Democrats).
No further comment necessary.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:21 AMMaybe I should try this .sig on Usenet:
Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:13 AM
Our deer management policies are insane, due to animal rights loonsactivists. And is Bob Byrd suffering from Lyme disease? Eric Scheie explains.
When I consider the current prices of beef, it seems a shame to let all that venison go to waste.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:53 AMFred Thompson has a long essay. I like it. I hope that he can force a debate on actual constitutional principles (something that most Republicans seem quite out to sea on these days).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:06 AMCan anyone explain to me why I (or anyone) should give a plug nickel about what Mikhail Gorbachev thinks? About anything?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AMWell, not really. Despite the idiocy and ineffectiveness of the current airline security procedures, I don't worry about hijackers any more, because I simply don't believe that the passengers will let it happen again. But instead of allowing qualified people to arm and protect themselves and their fellow passengers, the TSA puts up a politically and bureaucratically correct show.
What I do worry about is bombs, particularly in checked luggage. Airline security is just one more area in which I both believe that the Bush administration has been a disaster, and that the Democrats would be even worse, since they are unwilling to even discourage terrorists from suing vigilant citizens who rat on them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:15 AMSome thoughts on Chief Minniehawhaw, and the potential implications for cleaning up the ongoing fraud and abuse of the left in academia.
Churchill's firing doesn't spell the beginning of the end for professors who abuse their positions, but it was a good day in Denver.
Unfortunately, I suspect that he will be paraded by the so-called progressives as a martyr for freedom of speech, and many will foolishly continue to buy it.
The Pirate Ballerina also has a roundup of links about Chief Lies-a-Lot, with a picture of a drum-beating ceremony.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 AMThis is interesting:
The fact that our state's code is thoroughly woven with references to two specific political parties is evidence that the parties themselves act like a single, two-pronged special interest group, one that is more powerful than any labor union or trade association could hope to be. And furthermore, when one party is able to establish dominance for a period quite a bit longer than a lifespan, the probability factor for un-democratic malfeasance nears 1 (as in 100%).
I'd like to see some sort of constitutional amendment that would open things up to more parties. Of course, the chance of such a thing passing is epsilon squared, given the current power structure.
On the other hand, I wonder if we need one? It might be worthwhile to set up a foundation to look for laws like this, and challenge them in the courts on the grounds that the Constitution is silent on the very notion of political parties? It seems like, at a minimum, that you could strike down laws describing "two" or any specific number.
[Via Instapundit]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:10 PMBill Richardson might be good on space policy, but I sure don't want him responsible for our national security:
ROBERTS: but there's no indication that they want to get together and no indication that the international participants want to get involved, as well.GOV. RICHARDSON: no, but you use the leverage of our withdrawal and you engage diplomacy to almost force them to get in there. get iran and syria in there. my point is all these other candidates are still talking about, even though we've had 160,000 troops, they're still ready to leave 50,000 troops behind. i don't. i move them out, deploy them around the region for contingencies, into afghanistan, so there is a difference in our approach, and i believe i got that out in the debate last night and some of your poll tested video groups have been good.
As Kathryn points out, way to go. Hand the place over to the terrorist-supporting enemy regimes that have been destabilizing it.
As Glenn notes, National Socialism was socialism, unhappy though leftists might be when it's pointed out.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 AMAre the Democrats taming Markos? I mean, it's not like this is new stuff. He himself is still remembered for his f-bombing the contractors killed in Fallujah. I have to think it's about election season, and wanting to become respectable.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:14 PMArnold Kling writes about a movie too subversive to be shown in the public schools:
As a Jew, I am certain that I missed a number of the religious aspects of the movie. There were subtle references to Christian doctrine that went right past me. Perhaps there are Christians who would be more aware of the context and, based on their knowledge, might even take offense at the film's stance. I imagine that passionate atheists would tend to be turned off. But I think that a typical high school student could be exposed to the religion in "Call of the Entrepreneur" without being permanently scarred or corrupted.I would argue that "Call of the Entrepreneur" and "An Inconvenient Truth" are both religious films. However, unlike Al Gore's movie about global warming, "Call of the Entrepreneur" steers clear of sensationalism, dogma, and misleading half-truths. It is ironic that public teachers and parents are happy to see "An Inconvenient Truth" in the classroom, but "Call of the Entrepreneur" would probably be greeted with protests if it were shown.
Yes, times have indeed changed. And not in all ways for the better.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:28 AMAnd pure gold (errr...golden).
I was just listening to Fox News Sunday, and Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) (in keeping with the grand press tradition, his party affiliation, as a Republican, must be identified--only Democrats are exempt and partyless in situations like this) just pronounced Peshawar as "Pee Shower." Evan Bayh and Chris Wallace are smiling, but obviously say nothing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:56 PMHere's a brave college student, defending his right to defend himself, even on campus.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:41 PMHeh:
When a cat is affectionate towards you, he really means it. With a dog he's merely sucking up. Cats are like Britons. Dogs are like the French. Dogs expend insane amounts of useless energy yet never accomplish anything - they are like liberals. Cats conserve their energy and pick their fights - they are like conservatives. Please keep up the good fight.
Why, yes, I did in fact have trouble categorizing this post.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:12 PMArnold Kling lays out his issues. I agree with almost all of them. I laid out my own problems with Bush a few days ago. One would have to be deranged (Bush deranged, that is) to think that I'm a big fan of this president.
I also agree with Arnold that Al Gore is much more responsible for the current divisiveness, going back to 2000, than Bush is. Bush is not a "divider." If anything, he has been much too willing to compromise with the Democrats. As I've noted before, he's no conservative.
I should also note (as I have in the past) that the president's approval rating, and "right track, wrong track" polling tells one nothing useful about who will win the next election (even if Bush himself were still running). I have never approved of Bush's performance, but I remain damned glad that Kerry didn't win.
People who simplistically think that those who are unhappy with one party means that they'll simply switch to the other are apparently unfamiliar with the concept that there are some, even many (and I think the numbers are growing) people who are unhappy with both major parties. It's also foolish to try to guess about the source of the unhappiness.
Democrats delude themselves that they won last fall because people wanted out of Iraq, which is why they are having their idiotic slumber party tonight, and why Cindy Sheehan thinks that she can run against Nancy Pelosi on an "impeach Bush and withdraw from Iraq immediately" platform. No, Dems won because a lot of the Republican base stayed home, because they were disgusted with a White House that didn't seem to want to win in Iraq, and a Congress that had forgotten that Republicans were supposed to be responsible spenders. Similarly, the media and the left fool themselves if they think that McCain's campaign cratered over Iraq, rather than the other "I" word.
Amusingly, I suspect that many of the donkeys idiotically think that their low approval rating on the Hill is because they haven't surrendered fast enough. I wouldn't bet at all that the public won't tire of them much faster than it did the Republicans, and there could be another turnover in '08, particularly if there is a strong candidate at the head of the ticket (e.g., Fred Thompson), and a sense that the Republicans learned their lesson. That would be in keeping the the "Feiler faster thesis," in which a political party in power wears out its welcome with increasing rapidity.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:39 PMRandy Barnett, on anti-war libertarians.
Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is "no."
I agree.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AMAn interview by Hugh Hewitt:
HH: Why did Fitzgerald, do you think, in your opinion, continue on with the investigation once Armitage had revealed it was he who was the leaker?Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:44 AMRN: Becauseyou know, when he entered the case, he was told that Armitage was the leaker. That information was given to him, because it had been known for three weeks before he was named as special prosecutor. And therefore, I think the Justice Department should have bitten the bullet and taken care of him itself. Why he did not reveal that is something that is in the mysteries of the whole, strange relationship of special prosecutors. It is very difficult for them to say no crime was committed, youve named me for nothing, and Ive established a staff for nothing. But thats in fact what he should have done.
It's a little long, but that's my bumper sticker slogan. I think it's refreshing to have a candidate so open about his bribe policy.
I want to jump on the Burge bandwagon, while the slot for Space Czar remains open. Normally, the Vice President is in charge of that kind of thing, but Goldstein doesn't know anything about it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:02 PMAppointments like this are what make the notion that George Bush is a conservative so laughable.
Only a year and a half to go.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:21 AMRich Lowry, on Michael Moore:
His voice...joins a vast, age-old chorus of left-wing bafflement and disillusion at American exceptionalism our national traits that have prevented the development of a statist politics along continental European lines. Moores explanation for this phenomenon is typically twisted: Americans are saddled with debt from college loans and health care, and that keeps us from demanding French-style pampering from our government for fear of foreclosure by The Man.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:00 AMTellingly, Moore picks up this theory in an interview with Tony Benn, an old-school British socialist of the sort who simply doesnt exist in the U.S. Here, our left-wing politicians vote for war funding before they vote against it, always trimming to keep from rubbing too strongly against the American grain. Moore fervently wishes that grain were different, and he celebrates all countries where government has a vaster reach and tighter grip from Cuba to France.
Some testimony on the Libby commutation:
The most important and consequential problem was the decision to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate this matter in the first place. This step was particularly regrettable, since senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials knew, prior to tapping Mr. Fitzgerald, that the leak of Valerie Plames name to the columnist Robert Novak the ostensible basis of the CIAs referral of the matter to the DOJ was effected by Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage and Mr. Fitzgerald either learned about this fact at the time he was appointed or learned all of the relevant facts shortly thereafter. Also, it appears that shortly after his appointment, Mr. Fitzgerald knew that the very reason for his appointment an alleged violation of Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), 50 U.S.C. 421 et seq. was in error, since Ms. Wilson was not a covert agent within the meaning of the IIPA. More generally, as I have written and argued on other occasions, the appointment of a Special or Independent Counsel, no matter the probity and virtue of the individual involved, invariably skews the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and is virtually guaranteed to produce less than optimal results. It fosters time and again a leave no stone unturned, protracted, costly, and Inspector Javier like pursuit of the individual being investigated. Yet, doing justice is not a mechanical process and it must always be informed by a sound exercise of prosecutorial discretion.Here, we have a situation where a Special Counsel spent several years and millions of taxpayer dollars because he believed that Mr. Libby might have lied to him or to his investigators when they investigated a crime they already knew had not been committed. In the process, the Special Counsel caused a great deal of harm to the ability of reporters to ply their business which is a core element of our body politys overall system of political and institutional checks and balances. I emphasize the word might because, quite aside from the frailties of human memory, Mr. Fitzgerald could not have known for sure at the time he went after Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, and other media figures that Mr. Libbys account of having heard first from reporters of Ms. Plames work and her alleged role in organizing her husbands trip to Niger differed from their recollections. That conclusion on his part necessarily had to wait until he successfully coerced the reporters involved. Ask yourself whether a regular DOJ prosecutor, not wearing a Special Counsel hat, would have done this.
I'm guessing that Congressman Conyers wasn't very pleased to hear any of it. And if so, that pleases me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:07 AMTheres a notion on the left that the president commuted Libbys sentence, rather than give him a pardon, in order to keep him quiet; with his appeal going forward, Libby can decline to appear before congressional committees because his case is still in court. Perhaps that argument would make sense if Libby had kept quiet. But he appeared twice before CIA-leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgeralds grand jury. That testimony was, of course, secret, but later all eight hours of it were played at Libbys trial. Anyone who wants to can read it today. Given the aggressiveness with which Fitzgerald pursued his investigation does anyone believe a congressional committee would send reporters to jail if they refused to testify? its hard to imagine that Congress would find key facts that Fitzgerald didnt.No, the reason Democrats want to question Libby, and the reason Chairman Conyers invited Joseph Wilson to testify today, is that this hearing is a political exercise, pure and simple.
And the notion that that brain-damaged Congressman from my home state, John Conyers, would be in charge, just makes me want to weep. One of the many reasons to regret the Dems getting power.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AMFor those with nostalgic longings for Cynthia McKinney, meet Congressman Keith Ellison:
On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."
As Lileks notes, yup...could happen. In fact, I think he's too late.
There's more lunacy at the link.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:25 AMRobert Novak describes the "attack on Joe Wilson":
Armitage was giving me high-level insider gossip, unusual in a first meeting. About halfway through our session, I brought up Bush's sixteen words. What Armitage told me generally confirmed what I had learned from sources the previous day while I was reporting for the Fran Townsend column.I then asked Armitage a question that had been puzzling me but, for the sake of my future peace of mind, would better have been left unasked.
Why would the CIA send Joseph Wilson, not an expert in nuclear proliferation and with no intelligence experience, on the mission to Niger?
"Well," Armitage replied, "you know his wife works at CIA, and she suggested that he be sent to Niger." "His wife works at CIA?" I asked. "Yeah, in counterproliferation."
He mentioned her first name, Valerie. Armitage smiled and said: "That's real Evans and Novak, isn't it?" I believe he meant that was the kind of inside information that my late partner, Rowland Evans, and I had featured in our column for so long. I interpreted that as meaning Armitage expected to see the item published in my column.
The exchange about Wilson's wife lasted no more than sixty seconds.
The notion that Wilson was being "punished" by "outing" his wife never made any sense, except to the Bush deranged. And as the article notes, Fitzgerald knew this before he ever deposed Libby, and yet decided to go on his fishing expedition anyway.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:15 AMYusaf Islam (aka "Cat Stevens"), who thinks that Salmon Rushdie should be murdered in the name of the Religion of Peace™ is singing "Peace Train" on Al Gore's Live Aid Concert, which may have had a bigger carbon footprint than Afghanistan.
The mind boggles.
[Update a little later]
The American Thinker is on the case.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 PMElaine McArdle has an article at the Harvard Law Bulletin about the prospects for the Supreme Court overturning Parker, or upholding the Second Amendment as an individual right. I do think they're likely to uphold, but it's by no means a sure thing, and I do think that gun-rights advocates are taking a gamble.
It would have been nice if the framers could have foregone that purpose clause, because it certainly allows gun opponents to throw a lot of obfuscatory mud around the issue. I wonder how the prospects would be for an amendment to remove it? That might be the only relief if the court rules the wrong way.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:32 AMBrendan Nyhan (once again, and it should be needlessly) points out the nonsense.
Sorry to upset your delusions, Bill.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:55 PMDoes anyone really believe that Hillary didn't know about this?
Rosen's attorney, Paul Mark Sandler, did not return a call asking for comment. Mrs. Clinton's lawyer on campaign finance matters, David Kendall, said, "The Senate Campaign Committee has fully cooperated with the investigation. Mr. Rosen worked hard for the campaign, and we trust that when all the facts are in, he will be cleared."The businessman who hosted the event, Peter Paul, has told federal authorities that it cost more than $1 million and that he had been surprised when he saw that most of the contributions were not reported.
The money from the fund-raiser went to Mrs. Clinton's successful campaign for a Senate seat from New York, the Democrats' national Senate campaign organization and a state Democratic Party committee.
The joint fund raising made the rules more complicated because the gala raised both "hard money" -- funds given to candidates subject to federal limits -- and "soft money" that was unregulated and unlimited under the former campaign finance law.
Underreporting the cost of the event allowed the committee to spend less of the coveted hard money, contributions that unlike soft money could be used to cover Clinton's campaigning costs.
Federal law governing such joint fund-raisers was designed to prevent joint committees from circumventing restrictions on the contributions given directly to candidates.
Peter Paul claims she did. I wonder if she'll have to take the stand in a trial? And whether or not she will "recall" anything?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:43 AMOne of the few policies that Bill Clinton pushed with which I agreed was free trade. Unfortunately, it sounds like his wife has abandoned it:
Mrs. Clinton's decision to make Mr. Gephardt an official member of her economic team is a blunt repudiation of her husband's strategy from 1992, when he won the White House in part by distancing himself from unions and protectionist elements in the Democratic base.
There's always been a tension between the true Democrat liberals, and the forces of protection driven largely by their union constituencies. If support for free trade has collapsed among Dems, and they get into power, it will be very bad news for not just the US, but potentially devastating for the world economy, particularly in the most vulnerable and poorest countries, still struggling to develop.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 AMThat critics of the president's commutation of Scooter Libby are hypocrites:
Then there is Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who saw in Bushs Libby commutation a clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice. Clinton touts her years as first lady among her qualifications for being president, but she has never publicly repudiated either her husbands FALN commutations or his pardons of Susan McDougall, convicted of mail fraud, and Marc Rich, the stock speculator convicted of tax evasion. McDougall was a former Clinton business partner, and Rich was the former husband of Denise Rich, a major Clinton fundraiser, both of whom clearly qualify as Clinton cronies.
And as usual, the false equating of Clinton and Libby crimes continues:
Republicans who clamored for the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton for lying about his affair in the White House with Monica Lewinsky may justifiably be taken to task now for merely tut-tutting Libbys crime. Perjury is perjury, regardless of the position of the guilty or the magnitude of the topic misrepresented. Like every other felony, if you commit perjury, be prepared to do some hard time.
Again, what the president did was much more egregious, and he was responsible for seeing that the laws of the land were faithfully executed.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:18 PMLileks has a semi-screed for the Fourth of July:
Remember the first Fourth after 9/11? We were all relieved when nothing happened. Well, except for the isolated incident of a man shooting up the El Al counter at LAX, but there was no indication of any terrorism connection. (Unless the fellow has an Al Qaeda employee benefits pamphlet in his back pocket, it doesnt count.) No, nothing happens. Here. It happens elsewhere, but it can always be explained away, run through that perversely creative Justify-O-Matic that blames radical murderous doctors on the overthrow of Saddam as if a terror campaign waged by Iran would make doctors at the Mayo Clinic lay down their scalpels and set off nailbombs in an Iranian community in LA.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:39 AMIve gotten to the point where I imagine, almost simultaneous with the event, what the reaction will be among those who find evidence of terrorism both maddeningly inconvenient and perversely heartening they must downplay the event lest the dark gang of warmongers use the crime to terrify the bedwetters you know, all those people who believe in the bogeyman of global jihad - but at the same time, the attacks prove that weve not only failed to stop terrorism, we have made it worse by, well, trying to stop terrorism. Oh, it can be stopped, if the proper postures are assumed, but on we go with our chests out and our manhood in our hand, looking for fights. As Hitchens put it in this recent piece, there are many who cant quite get on board with the whole anti-caliphate gig, since the people running the show are probably motivated by racism. Even if its true, its like saying the people who wanted to fight Hitler did so because they couldnt stand German opera.
I saw a bumpersticker today: Im already against the next war. No doubt. That really says everything. Its not the cause; its not the stakes; its not the world the foe wants to impose. Its the means. War bad. If Iran nukes Israel, itll prove their point. The fact that it might have been preventable by lesser war? For some, the position is perfect and hermetically sealed, and can be pointed in any direction. The war that might have prevented a larger war is bad, because it is war. The war that resulted from the lack of a smaller war is bad, because it is war. War is war and bad is bad, and when youre that far up in the clouds the details dont really matter. A puff of smoke here, and puff of smoke there: do we need to know the name of the place to know its wrong?
Meet Roman Genn, an escapee from the Soviet Union, who knows what freedom is all about.
BC: Some of your pieces, such as the clever depictions of Napoleon Bonaparte and Winston Churchill that you just alluded to, rely heavily on the viewer having a background knowledge of history. Does this fact limit your commercial appeal? It seems to me that the general population is about as interested in history as they are in quadratic equations.Roman Genn: Yes, Sir Winston's life and achievements are undoubtedly less interesting than Ms. Hilton's current legal predicament. As Liddell Hart put it to J.M. Scammell, I've done enough knight-errantry of forlorn heroes to know the difficulty. If I had done Hannibal instead of Scipio, or Lee instead of Sherman, I should have sold double or treble. Pity he doesn't know we still read him.
[Update on Wednesday morning, the anniversary of our declaration of independence from England]
I hope he's wrong about this, but fear he's right:
...it is my deepest belief (and here I differ from my fellow conservatives) that modern democracies are incapable of fighting effectively and wining a war of any duration against nonwestern opponents. (Notable exceptions being, what Bernard Lewis calls Kuwaitus interruptus and the Israeli wars), reasons being primarily, the complete lack of understanding of ideological warfare, as well as the inability to control the home front. And yet no lessons have been learned and no changes have been made. It is our great fortune thus far that our current adversaries do not employ Mansteins and Guderians, but that may very well change, so who knows? All of this, plus other minor things, lead me to believe that this is going be a long and interesting century...Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:25 PM
I agree with Bush's decision to commute Libby's prison sentence. But what's interesting is that Tim Noah does as well:
President Bush's commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 30-month prison sentence will likely prompt many people with politics similar to my own to cry bloody murder. It will be called a cover-up. It will be called a payoff for Libby's failure to implicate Vice President Dick Cheney, and perhaps even Bush himself, more directly in the Plamegate scandal. It will be compared to President Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, and to Bush pre's pardon of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger a mere 12 days before Weinberger was to go on trial for perjury in connection with the Iran-contra scandal. Both of these actions were wrong. But the comparison is a weak one. What Bush did was just and fair. It was the right thing to do......Judge Reggie Walton went overboard in sentencing Libby to 30 months. This was about twice as long as the prison term recommended by the court's probation office, and if Libby hadn't been a high-ranking government official, there's a decent chance he would have gotten off with probation, a stiff fine, and likely disbarment. Walton gave Libby 30 months and a $250,000 fine, then further twisted the knife by denying Libby's routine request to delay the sentence while his lawyers appealed it. (Libby was duly assigned the federal prison register number 28301-016, but Libby's lawyers managed to move quickly enough to keep Libby out of the slammer until his appeal was denied on July 2, the same day Bush commuted his sentence.) The voluminous pleas for leniency from Libby's A-list friends seem to have annoyed Walton, who erred on the side of severity not in spite of Libby's high position in government but because of it. Walton wanted to make an example of him...
...What's the matter with that? Two words: Bill Clinton. No fair-minded person can deny that the previous president committed perjury about Monica Lewinsky while serving in the Oval Office. The country knew it, and it let him get away with it. Does that mean no government official should ever again be prosecuted for perjury? Of course not. But it does mean Walton should have wondered whether he was imposing a double standard in treating Libby more harshly because Libby worked in the White House. Is it really fair to treat White House aides more harshly than ordinary citizens when presidents get off scot-free?
Short answer: no.
But there's much more to the story than that.
Bill Clinton didn't merely lie under oath. He perjured himself, yes. But he also suborned perjury. He intimidated witnesses. He bribed witnesses.
Recall the Tripp tapes, when Monica said, "He's going to lie. I'm going to lie. You have to lie, too." Bill Richardson didn't have to look into getting a job for Monica at the UN because she was qualified. Vernon Jordan didn't line up a job at Revlon for her because she was an expert in makeup. The president didn't call Betty Curry into the Oval Office on a Sunday morning because he just wanted to shoot the breeze.
This, much more than anything that Scooter Libby did, was true obstruction of justice, in all its ugliness. It was done to prevent a young woman from getting a fair trial in a civil lawsuit against him, under a law that he signed with his own pen. And it was committed by the person who took an oath of office to see that the laws of the land were faithfully executed.
Now, I don't think that Bill Clinton should have gone to prison for what he did (at least in that case). But I do think that he should have been stripped of his office.
And for much less, that's essentially what happened to Scooter Libby, who had no such responsibilities, even with the commutation.
He lost his job. He lost his law license. He will be on probation for two years. He is a convicted felon, with all that entails. And he won't be picking up hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches. At least, not any time soon.
[Wednesday morning update]
Then and now:
Back in 2001, the broadcast network evening shows weren't quite so fast to jump on President Bill Clinton's Inauguration Day morning pardon of Marc Rich, a fugitive from justice over fraud and tax evasion, who was hiding overseas and whose ex-wife was a big Democratic contributor. ABC's World News got to it a day later, but it took the NBC Nightly News another day. The CBS Evening News didn't bother reporting it until the Thursday after Clinton's Saturday morning action -- and then Dan Rather framed it as another instance of Clinton being victimized by unrelenting critics who wouldn't let go even after he left office: Critics of former President Clinton are going beyond the very end. They're raising new questions about one of the end of term pardons President Clinton granted.Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:49 PMMonday night, July 2, ABC, CBS and NBC all led with the Libby commutation.
Jane Galt points out another of the many problems with employer-provided health insurance. I believe that this lies at the core of health insurance problems. Until people actually are motivated to shop for insurance themselves, and the insurance companies motivated to view the patient, rather than employers, as the customer, we will have no hope of fixing things.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:53 AMThere was a discussion over on Usenet in which people were whining about how unfair it was that Gore didn't win the presidency, even though he got a majority of the vote (he didn't really--there's no way to know that within the margin of error of vote counts, so close was the election), because of that anachronistic electoral college thingie. I pointed out that there's nothing at all anachronistic about it, and that in fact it's arguable that it's needed more than ever, with modern media. If the president were directly elected, all a candidate would have to do is ad buys in the major media markets, and voters in places like Wyoming and Alaska would be effectively disenfranchised, since the candidates would have no need to pay any attention to them.
It occurs to me that, in fact, a lot of California's mess could be alleviated by instituting an electoral college. As it is now, while there are legislators representing rural counties, they're overwhelmed by those from the cities, and the entire state (most of which is in fact quite rural) is run by Sacramento.
I'm not sure exactly what the mechanism to restore some balance might be, but it would probably involve having electors proportional to state senator and representatives from some kind of new district analogous to states within the state, to at least insure that the governor was more broadly representative of all the state's constituencies, rather than just LA, San Diego and the Bay Area. Of course, given the current political structure, implementing such a reform is probably a fantasy.
[Early afternoon update]
Just by coincidence, here's an article by Henry Lamb defending the electoral college.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:38 AMMark Steyn declares independence from bloviators like Trenthorn Lotthorn and his goats.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:13 AMI agree too:
By all appearances, we need more remedies for illegal conduct by officials. And if damages are inappropriate, Congress can always legislate an appropriate scheme.
I've always found it absurd that the only penalty for illegally procured evidence or prosecutorial misconduct was to throw out the evidence. Of course, it's not always practical to get damages, but perhaps if North Carolina had to pay damages for what Nifong did, they'd be a little more careful about how they hire prosecutors. And the notion of electing them seems (again, from the same case) problematic...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:10 PMHillary's campaign doing push polling? Surely it can't be true!
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:53 AMYou know, speaking of unjustified self esteem and overpraised Senators, like royalty, I suspect that members of "the world's greatest deliberative body" (OK, I'll wait a few minutes for you to stop laughing)...often cocoon themselves with such simpering sycophants as staff that they have no concept of how idiotic they can come off when performing unscripted. George Voinovich being a case in point. When a dim bulb like Sean Hannity can make you sound like a fool, you're a blithering idiot.
Well, at least he didn't cry, as he did during the Bolton nomination.
That creatures like this get elected to such high positions is a shameful commentary on the state of the nation's electorate.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of overpraised Senators, Jonah Goldberg makes a good point about fluffy, meaningless political rhetoric (in this case, from the Great White Whale of Massachusetts):
Sen Kennedy just shouted that the choice before the Senate on the immigration bill is between "voting for our hopes, or voting for our fears!"I don't quite understand why voting your fear is obviously wrong or why voting for your hopes is necessarily right. Fear is often quite reasonable. I have a reasonable fear of alligators. Hopes, meanwhile, are often irrational and goofy. I hope eating lots of cashews will give me laser-vision and super-strength.
Yes, phrases that seem to sound good in an impassioned speech often break down under even a trivial analysis. My pet peeve on this score is Kennedy's "not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." in explaining why go to the moon. I've discussed this in the past.
[Update a couple minutes later]
By the way, just in case no one noticed, for the clueless, I've been bashing Republicans today. Not that that's in any way unusual for me, but some myopic people seem to only notice it when I go after Democrats.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:02 AMSocialism is inherently boring, which is why its main enthusiasts arebores themselvespeople with high boredom thresholds, like professors and politicians.
Heh, indeed.
...for "energy independence."
"Famine," observes Dennis Avery, the director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues, "is a human society's ultimate failure. Tightening the world's food supply by diverting major quantities of its grain stocks into fuels will drive up the prices of all food. This will inevitably hit hardest at the poorest people in the world's food-shortage regions. This would not be ethical even if there were no other sources of energy."But then, the world's poor do not participate in Iowa's presidential caucuses.
Hey, morons! Just in case you didn't notice (which seems likely, based on the history of my being accused of going only after Democrats), this is a criticism of Republicans.
For those morons who think that I never criticize Republicans, or the administration, let me point out this post by Instapundit, about a legal overreach of the administration, with which I entirely agree.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:15 PMA huge off-topic discussion was fired off in the comment section here by Keith Cowing, in which he accused me (along with Mark Whittington) of having a "visceral and unwavering hatred of Democrats." Note that there was nothing in my post about Democrats, and that I don't now, and haven't ever, hated Democrats (or anyone, for that matter), but never mind that (at least for now). It's not the point.
The discussion devolved into some people wondering why I called the Democrat(ic) Party the Democrat Party. Some assumed that my intent, along with (apparently) Joe McCarthy's, Rush Limbaugh and other "conservative" luminaries (I use the quotes because I am not, in fact, a conservative, nor do I listen much to Rush Limbaugh), was simply to offend Democrats.
No.
Now, I can't speak for Rush Limbaugh (and no one can speak for Joe McCarthy, what with him being in the ground for the last half century or so), but I'm not trying to offend, but rather, simply to defend the language and the meaning of words, particularly since the left seems to have made it a project to utterly change them, or dilute them of their meaning to the point of uselessness (e.g., "racism," and one on point here, "hate").
I think that it's important to understand, if they're "offended" at being called the Democrat Party, why that might be. We are scolded and told they're offended, but they never quite get around to telling us what is so offensive about being called the "Democrat Party" when it consists of people who call themselves Democrats. We are told only that it is offensive, and that that "hateful" meanie Rush Limbaugh calls them that, so it must be, and that we should therefore be ashamed of ourselves.
So what is their real problem? I don't honestly know, but here's my theory. In order to understand that, I think that one needs to ask why they insist on being called instead the "Democratic Party."
A new term that was invented a few years ago, but fortunately hasn't become very popular, is the word "bright," to describe someone who is a non-deist, and takes their world view and belief system from science and rationality. In fact, by the definition of the people who invented it, I am a "bright." But despite that, it would never occur to me to use such a word to describe myself.
Why? Because I recognize, unlike Dawkins and Dennett et al, that when one calls oneself a "bright," one is implicitly saying that people who aren't brights are...well...dim. D&D are smart people in many ways, but they're not smart enough to realize that some people are going to be offended when they're informed by their self-fancied intellectual betters that they're not that smart, because only dumb people believe in God. From a PR standpoint, such a term is a disaster, if they're trying to convert people to their cause.
Well, just as it's reasonable for theists to be offended when implicitly told that their beliefs are dumb, it's also reasonable to be offended when non-members of the Democrat Party are subtly told that their political beliefs are undemocratic. I don't buy their self labeling of being "democratic" (and more so than thou) any more than I do of the self labeling of "progressives," or of "liberals." I don't necessarily find the beliefs of the people who call themselves that either progressive or liberal. Nor did I buy the notion that the Bolsheviks were the majority, even if they claimed to be so by their name.
My point is that I have as much right to be offended by the name "Democratic Party" as they do by "Democrat Party" (one of the reasons, by the way, that many conservatives found Bush's phrase "compassionate conservatism" offensive--they rightly don't think that it needs the modifier). In fact, I think that their version is more offensive to me than mine should be to them (and I think that the comparison of it to the "n word," as one commenter made, would be silly if it weren't another sad case of watering down true racism and hate). I suspect that the real reason that they're "offended" (or at least, being the inventors and promulgators of the cult of victimhood, feign to be, hence the quotes) when people do this is that they don't like being called out on their propaganda.
[Update a few minutes later]
Based on the initial comments, I think I've hit a nerve.
You refuse to use the proper name, "Democratic Party," and yet you get miffed when people call you a "conservative" or a "Republican." Pot, thy kettle it is black.
I think you're making a category error here. The reason that I get "miffed" when people call me things I'm not is because...I'm not. It's a far different thing to accuse someone of holding beliefs that they don't, or being members of a party that they're not, than it is to simply use the name of a party that the party members apply to themselves. In any event, it doesn't matter whether I get "miffed" or not, because I know that clueless people will continue to foolishly insist that I'm a conservative, or a Republican, or a "neocon."
Look. I can understand why they'd be upset if I called them the "Fascist Party" or the "Gun-Grabber Party," or the "Abortion Party" or (as Ramesh Ponnuru writes) the "Party of Death." It makes sense to me that all those things would be offensive. I don't understand why it's offensive to be called the "Democrat Party." And as I said in comments, the longer it takes for someone to provide a coherent and substantive explanation of why they insist on being called the "Democratic Party" (i.e., not just "it's what we want to be called"), the more confidence I get that I got it right, and guessed exactly why they do. And I'm not going to play along.
[Update]
One more thought. I find it strange that, just because some group wants me to call them by the name they choose, that I'm somehow obligated to do so, and that failure to do so is legitimately offensive to them, and that I could have no other reason to do so than to offend them. But that seems to be the position of some commenters.
So, if the Klan decided to form a political party, and decided that it would be the "Superior Race Party," am I therefore required to use that name in reference to them? If I instead call them the "Inferior Race Party," or (more simply) the "Racist Party," is it not conceivable that I have some reason to do so other than simply to offend them?
Words mean things, and as I noted at the beginning of the post, the left has long been known for its Orwellian newspeak tactics, from "Bolsheviks" to the various "Peoples' Republics." When I refuse to call North Korea a "Republic," it is not because I am trying to offend them. It's because I want to call things what they are, because I respect the English language, and because I want to prevent further incursions on it from those who want to debase it as a currency of communication.
And no, I'm not comparing Democrats to the Klan or the Communists. I'm simply pointing out the principle involved. I just scratch my head over the angst caused by simply substituting a noun for an adjective. Methinks the party doth protest too much.
[Saturday evening update]
Enough with the Keith Cowing bashing. In light of it, I regret mentioning him in the post. The only reason I did so was because his comment about my alleged (and mistaken) hatred of Democrats in the other post instigated the mess about nouns versus adjectives.
He has not claimed victimhood, he has not complained about the "Democratic" Party being called the Democrat Party. Most (in fact, all, other than mine :-) of the criticism that I see of him here looks gratuitous and irrelevant to me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:06 AMActually, when I saw the picture here, I thought that she was lifting up a copy of the immigration bill itself.
Anyway, I guess it's just the continuing fraudulent strategy of (as Mickey Kaus puts it) "fooling the yahoos."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:28 PMI know a lot of space enthusiasts (particularly Democrat space enthusiasts) would like to see Bill Richardson as president (or at least as vice president, a role that has traditionally had space as part of its portfolio), because of his friendliness to commercial space, as evidenced (among other things) by his support for Spaceport America in New Mexico. But it's hard to take his campaign seriously, when you read about things like this. If you can't develop a coherent policy position on arguably the most important issue facing the nation, or manage a campaign properly, why should we trust you to run the country?
Not to mention the fact that as a former UN ambassador, he was unaware that France was a permanent member of the Security Council.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:54 AMMichael Moore says that 911 could have been an inside job. His idiotic comment about the difficulty of flying airplanes takes him into Rosie-stupidity territory.
[Update an hour or so later]
Speaking of the Stupid White Man, Kyle Smith is less than impressed with his latest crockumentary:
Even Moore does not believe what he says, and his films dont bring about change-union membership did not skyrocket nor corporate downsizing trickle off after "Roger and Me," there was no movement towards banning guns after "Bowling for Columbine," and John Kerry did not have to fill out any change of address forms in 2004. Moore's documentaries are mere political slapstick that could have been made by a third Farrelly brother or an eighth Stooge. I will pay him the honor of treating him with his own meds. How else can I deal with a film that calls Hillary Clinton "sexy"?Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:17 PM
That noted right-wing war-mongering neocon, Richard Cohen, says that Scooter Libby was railroaded by an out-of-control prosecutor, and that his fellow journalists are sanctimonious hypocrites.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:37 AMDid American liberalism die with JFK? It's an interesting thesis, that so many so-called liberals want to delude themselves that he was a victim of the right wing and homegrown reaction, rather than of a communist and the Cold War.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 AMMark Steyn says to beware of "moderate" politicians promising to do good.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AMI just got a call purporting to be from the American Civil Liberties Union. Before they got going, they said, "This call may be monitored for quality assurance."
I said, "That's ironic." Then asked them not to call again. If one can't have privacy from other ACLU people talking to the ACLU, then there is no worthy defender of privacy left.
I know Rand doesn't like me to mistake loss of liberty ("freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control" according to dictionary.com) for loss of privacy. But a great way to curb control is to curb monitoring. I also mourn freedom from waiting in long airport security lines and freedom to keep my hair gel in my carry-on bag.
There were 360 million US one-way airplane trips taken last year. That's 360 million half hour delays for "increased" security. Let's express that as lifetimes lost--wasted--due to boredom: 250. Let's express that as number of trips that took 15 minutes too long: 100%. After 6 years of increased security, we have now lost 1500 lives worth of time from waiting in airport security lines. That's a higher flux than terrorism for five of those years.
It's time for the FAA to start keeping statistics on wait time in airports and TSA revamping security procedures so that the cost no longer exceeds the benefit.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 01:35 PM...and many other issues, from the Senate. In particular from the Senate Majority Leader. Marlo Lewis gives it a righteous fisking. Unfortunately, there's a lot of stupidity and cluelessness to fisk, so it's a long read.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:01 AMThey told me that if Bush was reelected, voices of opposition would be silenced. They were right:
The deal with WIOD would ensure that news conferences are broadcast start to finish live from the county Emergency Operations Center in Plantation. Emergency managers became concerned during hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 that radio and television stations preempted their announcements in favor of news out of Miami.Limbaugh, who lives in Palm Beach, could not be reached for comment. Ken Charles, WIOD's director of AM programming, said the station's talk show lineup has no relationship with its news coverage and that the county should focus on the benefits of teaming with the station.
"It's a shame that people would let politics get in the way of saving lives in a hurricane," Charles said.
Yes, it is a shame, but that's the way of the Bush (and Limbaugh) deranged among whom I live. I think they're still upset because they can't figure out how to vote properly.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:54 AMI visited the copper statue in New York harbor yesterday. Nearly six years after New York was attacked, security is very high. Prior to boarding the ferry for Liberty Island, one must undergo a metal detector procedure. Once on board one is told to report anything suspicious. On route, one is escorted by a Coast Guard boat with two mounted machine guns. Liberty Island is a misnomer. To see the Statue, one must wait in yet another security line and get sniffed by smell detectors from GE. No cameras or cell phones are permitted to be used in the security area. After a two hour security wait one can witness that she has walled out tourists with bulletproof glass. No tourist can climb higher than her feet. Like the green coat of corrosion on the Statue, Liberty Island and its gateways have acquired security tents antithetical to the freed woman with broken shackles at her feet.
Her inscription is also an anachronism. We are stuck in an anti-immigrant rut as we were in World War II when citizens and resident aliens were detained on nearby Ellis Island, former gateway to 12 million Americans.
The New ColossusNot like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
No. The torch is extinguished. The golden door is shut. Keep your tired, poor, wretched, homeless and tempest-tost. We are a new self-important Land of storied pomp that has forgotten its genesis.
I deem her the Statue of Security.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 01:29 PMTo France. And what happened to the Dems, who are all the time telling us that we should be doing things the way the Europeans do?
The Democrats are stuck in a punitive, soak-the-rich time warp with class warfare written all over it.Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:11 PMDespite all the current polls, I still believe their Walter Mondale approach to taxes and their McGovernite soft-on-the terror war approach is a losing combination that will doom the Dems next year.
Mickey Kaus (who has been on fire over the immigration fiasco) says that Republican voters aren't as stupid as the administration thinks (or at least hopes).
I hope he's right, and it certainly seems to be the case. Bush needs to get a simple message: build a fence, and then get back to us.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:28 AMMaybe John McCain can get the "undocumented workers" to send him money:
McCains money-raisers are hard put to reach the $10 million goal set for the second quarter of 2008 by the June 30 deadline, after collecting $12 million in the first quarter. McCain raised $2 million in April and $3 million in May, and is expected to reach $2-3 million in June falling short of the $10 million goal and of what his opponents have raised.
Boo.
Hoo.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:43 AMBrit Michael Hodges can't wait for London to become Londonistan.
In an Islamic London, Christians and Jews with their allegiance to the Bible and the Talmud would be protected as peoples of the book.
Well, isn't that comforting? But wait a minute. Jews. Hmmmm...aren't those the people that some enlightened Muslims refer to as the offspring of pigs and apes?
Hindus and Sikhs manage to live alongside a large Muslim population in India, so why not here?
Sure, why not? So what if while "living alongside a large Muslim population," they occasionally are murdered in religious riots? Picky, picky, picky. I mean, the population over there is too high, anyway, right?
Although England has a long tradition of religious bigotry against, for instance, Roman Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that under the guiding hand of Islam a civilised accommodation could be made among faith groups in London. This welcoming stance already exists in the capital in the form of the City Circle (see Yahya Birt interview), which encourages inter-faith dialogue and open discussion.
Amazing.
As is often the case, Iowahawk (who has finally thrown his hat into the presidential ring) has dredged up the first draft of Hodges' lunatic opinion piece.
[Update mid morning]
I have to say, in reading over the Iowahawk platform, I particularly like the environmental policy:
The scientific debate is over: man-made global warming is real. Finally! This means we can now stop paying for all those expensive redundant research projects to prove global warming. Not only will this save over $2 billion dollars per year in federal spending, we will see significant reductions in CO2 as unemployed global warming scientists sell off their Volvos and move to mud huts.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:23 AMTo further help reduce the nation's carbon footprint, I will order the Environmental Protection Agency to bulldoze the mansions of Al Gore, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Laurie David, and convert them to more eco-friendly use as free public drag strips. And for all serious environmentalists willing to make the ultimate Green sacrifice, I will offer discounted funerals with hybrid hearses, and framed federal carbon credits for their surviving families and animal companions.
And how much would recent history have changed, had Ahhhhnuld, instead of calling the Sacramento nannies "girlie men," called them "epicenes"?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:47 AMI'd be willing to help, too. Anything to ease the burden on our busy Congresspeople. Maybe we could think of it as "doing the jobs that Congressmen won't do."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:11 AMI've noted before how amusing I find it that people call me a "Clinton hater" or a "Bush fan," when I think that my take on both presidents is reasonably objective. When I criticize Bill (and Hillary) Clinton as corrupt, this is the kind of thing that I'm talking about. The Clinton years were this kind of thing non stop, but it was rarely reported, or if it was, the press (who were in love with both of them) bent over backwards to excuse it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:12 PMWhat was Sandy Berger hiding when he gave up his law license?
What is at stake is more than what we think and say about Sandy Berger. It is more than the legacy of Bill Clinton and of George W. Bush. It is more than the prospects for Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats' presidential nominee and ultimately the President. All of these, of course, are wrapped up in this story.Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well. That should concern all whose lives and loved ones may be at risk if our nation follows the wrong path, not knowing everything that should inform our judgments. It should concern all who respect the law, all who have labored as lawyers and judges, as honorable government officials and voices for even-handed justice.
Sadly, this story doesn't interest the Justice Department, which disposed of the criminal charges leniently based in part on false information from Berger. When faced with the fact that Berger had access to original documents on two occasions before Archives' employees became suspicious enough to start marking documents, the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken - they asked Berger if he had taken anything during those visits, he said no, and they let the matter rest.
This is just one more example of either incompetence on the part of the Bush administration, or more of the waging of war on it by the bureaucracy, or perhaps something worse.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AMThe WSJ has an article today on backdating:
Brocade Communication Systems Inc. agreed to pay a $7 million penalty to settle ... the backdating scandal, according to people familiar with the matter.... Brocade first struck a deal to pay $7 million in March 2006, but the settlement was held up as the number of companies under investigation for backdating options expanded to more than 100....Republicans, in general, oppose [fines for backdating] as a double hit to shareholders, who already have been penalized once for being defrauded. Democrats argue that penalties serve as deterrents.
There was not necessarily fraud on the shareholder because it's in a shareholder's interest to use backdated options to pay executives. They don't have to use as many of them because they are intrinsically worth more (H. Jenkins), but are also not taxed as highly as more regular dated ones where the date wasn't coincidentally the lowest price of the quarter.
Putting that aside, fines in general should not be paid by the damaged party, but should be paid as a deterrent--and as compensation! How about the following proposal: the company pays the fine to the shareholders of record on the day before the news that false accounts were filed. That way the ongoing shareholders aren't hurt and the shareholders that sold after the bad news came out and the stock tanked will be compensated by the new ones who bought after the news. Just like how shareholders are treated when a company goes ex dividend.
Here's another controversial idea to increase deterrence: don't prosecute companies for common practices until you've given them sufficient warning to change their ways. Otherwise the prosecutors are doing what Dr. Strangelove accused the Russians of doing:
[T]he... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?
The Constitution guarantees no ex poste facto laws in Article I, Section 9, but we are still working on no ex poste facto judicially implemented regulation.
Who watches the watchmen? Do we need four independent judiciaries with each one's scope determined by the others like the four redundant computers on the space shuttle? No need to curb the SEC and prosecutors of public companies--the companies are helping themselves. By going private.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 12:06 PMIt will drive the Bush deranged crazy, but liberal Richard Cohen recognizes that George W. Bush is a liberal.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:36 PMIn the middle of a war in which some people say "support the troops by bringing them home," crassly treating them as victims for cynical political purposes, it's important on this Memorial Day to remember that it is not our job to protect them, but theirs to protect us, and how astonishingly bravely and selflessly they do it.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jules Crittendon has a roundup of Memorial Day links.
[Update at 1 PM CDT]
Michael Yon has some Memorial Day thoughts from Anbar province:
Q has already made it to Germany and is about to be flown home. CSM Pippin is on his way to Germany. Along the way, excellent groups like Soldiers Angels will welcome them home, I expect. My readers will find out here where to send messages once that news is released. Both men often lamented to me how frustrating it was to be back home and realize that the average American is not aware of practically any of the progress thats been made in Iraq. Both men darken with something closer to anger when they consider the sacrifices made by fallen soldiers and the fact that while the media most likely counted the deaths in all instances, they also most likely failed to mention any of the good things their fellow soldiers had accomplished while in Iraq.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:14 AMI plan to stay in Iraq for the rest of 2007, doing my part to tell of these and other accomplishments, and both of these men would not have it any other way. But when I do finally get home, I want to see these heroes, and be reminded what Memorial Day is all about.
Well, what would one expect from an ambulance chaser?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:54 PMWhile I'm not a conservative, I think I'm pretty capable of recognizing one. And I've never thought that George Bush was (either father or son). Bruce Bartlett, who is one, vehemently agrees.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AMApparently the public has a bipartisan consensus on the immigration bill, just as its backers do. Unfortunately, the public's consensus is in opposition:
Advocates of comprehensive reform have taken to arguing that those who want an enforcement-only policy must explain how they would deal with the 12 million illegal aliens already living in the country. The public reaction to that question appears to be Why?
Good question.
Only 29% of voters say it is Very Important for the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States....These survey results are consistent with other recent polling data showing that most Americans favor an enforcement-only reform bill. Support drops when a path to citizenship is added to the mix. President Bushs Job Approval ratings dip every time comprehensive immigration reform tops the news.
You know, you have to give the president credit for one thing. He's no Bill Clinton, when it comes to governing by the polls. You may not agree with his positions, but he clearly doesn't take them to be popular.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:30 PMI'm certainly no fan of Gonzales, but this is pretty funny. But we can all play this game. What other amendments could we add to this resolution?
So easy, a caveman can do it! Errrr...unless the caveman is a Congressman...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:48 AMLike abortion, I'm one of those folks who don't have strong opinions/feelings about immigration, but I think that Mark Steyn makes a great point here:
Is that This-background-check-will-self-destruct-in-24-hours clause for real? If the entire "undocumented" population of, say, Falls Church, Virginia wanders into the local immigration office at 4pm on Monday, the clerks have got till 5pm on Tuesday to find anything on the guys or they've got no choice but to issue the Z visa? For the agency that takes the best part of a decade to process nanny applications and which sent Mohammed Atta his visa six months after he'd died, this is, to say the least, a massive cultural change.If the 24-hour dry-cleaner standard were to be mandated for every government agency, I might reconsider my position. But it seems curious, to put it at its mildest, that only the lucky members of the Undocumented-American community will get to enjoy the benefits of express service from the US government.
Regardless of one's opinions on immigration, legal or otherwise, we should all be appalled at how such an important issue is being railroaded through the Congress with so little review, or time for it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 PMDictator snuggler, Islamic extremist coddler and anti-semite Jimmy Carter says that George Bush is the worst president in history.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:32 PMOn Sandy Berger. From Byron York:
Shipp is not allowed to discuss the case, so all we have is the report sent from the DC Bar to the Court of Appeals recommending that the court accept Bergers agreement to give up his license. It is a brief document, but it does say that Berger is aware that there is currently pending an investigation into, or a proceeding involving, allegations of misconduct; that he acknowledges that the material facts upon which the allegations of misconduct are predicated are true; and that he knows that if disciplinary proceedings based on the alleged misconduct were brought, [he] could not successfully defend against them.And that, apparently, is the end of the Berger matter. Some Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wanted to hear more from Berger about some of his still-unexplained actions We had more questions for him, says one GOP aide. But Republicans are now in the minority, and there is no chance that Democratic chairman Henry Waxman will pursue the matter. For its part, the Justice Department, wracked by internal scandals, has shown no interest in further investigation. So now, with his decision to give up his law license, Berger has apparently shut off the last chance for anyone to learn more about the case.
So once again a Clintonista gets off clean, with little (or at least insufficient) accountability. More importantly, once again, as in Filegate, Foster, Emailgate, etc., we will never be able to find out what really happened, and why.
There is a long essay to be written about how politically incompetent this administration has been in many areas, and about how a White House allowed its own agencies to go rogue, and behave as though it was the enemy, and to punish its political friends and reward its political enemies--the CIA, the Justice Department, the State Department, the INS. George Bush certainly brought a new tone to Washington--a pathetic one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:23 PM...with appliance design:
Not so long ago, you could count on most washers to get your clothes very clean. Not anymore. Our latest tests found huge performance differences among machines. Some left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing. For best results, youll have to spend $900 or more.
It reminds me of the 1.6 gallon mandate for toilet tanks, which often results in more water usage, because a single flush doesn't always do the job.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:36 PMGlenn asks the question that we still have no answer for:
"In giving up his license, Mr. Berger avoids being cross-examined by the Board on Bar Counsel, where he risked further disclosure of specific details of his theft."Hmm. That would seem to confirm suspicions that we haven't gotten the full story. And why has the Justice Department seemed so uninterested in following through here?
Not just here. It seems that Clinton cronies are never held accountable for their actions, even under a Republican administration. One law for them, another for the rest of us.
Of course, Hillary may still have to testify in the Peter Paul civil trial. If so, we'll see how her memory is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:08 AMA power grab in the House was fought off by a dedicated minority. Unfortunately, the Senate seems to be determined to roll over.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:57 PMI was never a fan of Jerry Falwell, though it's possible that Reagan wouldn't have been elected without him, and what a different world that would be. Other than that, about the best thing I can say about him is that he wasn't as big an idiot as Pat Robertson. But condolences to his family and friends.
And it will be very interesting to hear what Newt has to say about him at commencement on Saturday.
[Update in the evening]
Another roundup of "thoughts" (such as they are) on Falwell's passing. They seem pretty much in synch with hater Brian Swiderski's comments here. Birds of a feather...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:24 AMThe state of Alabama thinks I'm a terrorist.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:17 AMIt's not just college campuses. Military commanders on the front of the war have made their bases into gun-free zones.
And in a supposedly "conservative" administration.
I wish we'd had better choices to vote for.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AMRich Lowry puts paid to the stupid notion that Tony Blair was George Bush's lap dog:
Long before President Bush arrived in the White House, Blair championed the idea that the West should intervene to stop human-rights abuses in other countries, putting morality above respect for the borders of sovereign countries. It wasnt until after 9/11 that Bush embraced a version of this expansive vision, essentially making him a convert to the Blair view rather than the other way aroundPosted by Rand Simberg at 06:33 AM
Speaking of immigration problems and non-assimilation, Stanley Kurtz has an interesting post on the problem of giving preference to family members:
I am not saying that anyone in the Duka family, outside the plotters themselves, was involved here. The point is, when you bring over a vast extended clan through chain migration, and when that extended family group maintains constant ties with an originating village, it becomes vastly more difficult to assimilate. For one thing, chain migration means a constant supply of new family members who dont know English and are unfamiliar with Western ways. For another thing, you are least likely to give up traditional practices, notions of honor, etc., when you are surrounded by people who know you from your home village. In England, its gotten to the point where marriage-based chain migration has resulted in entire Pakistani villages almost literally being picked up and transferred whole to Britain. Todays Times article paints an all to [sic] similar picture, whether cousin marriage per se was involved or not.
One of the immigration policies that we need to rethink is this one. I'd much rather have someone admitted on their own merits, than because he happens to be some other immigrant's brother-in-law.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:10 PMIn the context of the Fort Dix hirabis, Victor Davis Hanson has some useful thoughts on the problem of completely uncontrolled immigration:
Once the United States accepts as a permanent condition the notion that several million illegal aliens can reside in perpetuity and under immunity from the law, then a sort of insidious message is established:We in America will ask nothing of our immigrants-not legality, not English, not rudimentary knowledge of our history and values, and not real efforts at assimilation and Americanization.
So, the wannabe jihadist, here illegally, whether as in the Fort Dix case or as was true of a few of the 9/11 murderersgets two messages: one, they won't dare come for me, since they'd have to come for 12 million others. And, second, this is a pretty easy country where rules don't count and one can operate well enough in a nether world in which it is more likely to be considered criminal, or at least unspeakable, to arrest or report an illegal alien than to be one.
Think of it as an analog to the " broken window" theory of policing that Giuliani used so effectively to clean up New York in the nineties.
I'm actually in favor of immigration, even in mass numbers, but I do think that it has to finally be controlled, so we know who's coming in, and rationalized so that we're bringing in those we want, and excluding those (for example, hirabis) we don't. We also need to work harder to ensure assimilation (though we're doing a much better job than the Europeans are).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 AMSusan Katz-Keating would like a tell-all from George Tenet that really tells all:
We had insufficient intelligence. True, we had electronic surveillance; but we lacked the all-important human intelligence-gathering the Humint networks. How did Tenet know this? Because the former spy chief-turned-author who held powerful intelligence posts for 21 years helped oversee the gutting of programs that would have put spies on the ground in Iraq.Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:10 PM
A lot of ignorant morons call me a "neocon," and I generally eschew labels in general, but here's a new one (well, new to me) I just discovered that probably comes as close as any will for me. I'm apparently a neolibertarian.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:57 AMSweden and Finland are acting like they want to join NATO.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:40 PMFrom Anne Applebaum. It's not pretty:
...it's a very important legacy: One of consistent scorn for the Anglo-American world in general and the English language in particular, of suspicion of Central Europe and profound disinterest in the wave of democratic transformation that swept the world in the 1980s and 1990s, of preference for the Arab and African dictators who had been, and remained, clients of France. In his later years, Chirac constantly searched, in almost all international conflicts, for novel ways of opposing the United States. All along, he did his best to protect France from the rapidly changing global economy.
With the new president, let's hear it for Friendship Fries (even if they were invented in Belgium).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:12 PMJohn Podhoretz manages it:
Rall is basically little more than pus in human form.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 PM
Ann Coulter, a couple minutes ago, in response to a comment that Bush's polls were the worst since Jimmy Carter: "Bush got his polls down by fighting a war, Carter got his down by fighting a rabbit."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:00 AMApparently George Tenet is as incompetent as an ex-CIA chief as he was when he ran the agency, when it comes to getting the story right. Doug Feith reviews his book:
Echoes of "slam dunk" so vex former Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet that he has written a book. Had he never blurted those words to the president, Mr. Tenet tells us, he might not have written it. He wants to explain what the words meant and how they had so little importance on that December 2002 day in the Oval Office. Along the way, he wants to explain the intelligence community's role in the lead-up to the Iraq war. His book does so, mainly through revelations he did not intend....The date, the physical descriptions, the quotation marks are all, in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan's "Mikado," "merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."
...Fairness, evidently, was not Mr. Tenet's motivating impulse as an author. His book is defensive. It aims low -- to settle scores. The prose is humdrum. Mr. Tenet includes no citations that would let the reader check the accuracy of his account. He offers no explanation of why we went to war in Iraq. So, is the book useless? No.
What it does offer is insight into Mr. Tenet. It allows you to hear the way he talked -- fast, loose, blustery, emotional, imprecise, from the "gut." Mr. Tenet proudly refers to the guidance of his "gut" several times in the book -- a strange boast from someone whose stock-in-trade should be accuracy and precision. "At the Center of the Storm" also allows you to see the way he reasoned -- unimaginatively and inconsistently. And it gives a glimpse of how he operated: He picked sides; he played favorites. The people he liked got his attention and understanding, their judgments his approval; the people he disliked he treated harshly and smeared. His loyalty is to tribe rather than truth.
Read the whole thing.
[Sunday morning update]
More claims that Tenet is lying.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:46 AMI didn't watch it. Yeah, I know it was on, but it's just too early for me to care. And I also think that these so-called "debates" are a bad joke. Particularly when the questions are loaded by liberal moderators.
But NRO did, and had a lot of live blogging on The Corner (no, not even going to link to specific posts--scroll, if you care). But Rich Lowry had some post-debate thoughts, and this was one that resonated strongly with me:
Rudy's getting hit hard on his Roe answer. But it wasn't a gaffe and it perfectly represented his viewa lukewarm, let-the-judges-figure-it-out position. It was always obvious this would cause Rudy problems. The weird thing is that I don't think it's even a sincere position. He probably doesn't care much about abortion, and I believe he doesn't want to oppose Roe mostly because he thinks it would be too confusing for people if he opposed it as a pro-choicer. So, his position is harmful to his candidacy and insincere. That's kind of crazy if you think about it. If a given position is hurting you and it's something you don't really believe, change your position!
No kidding.
As I've noted before, one can be opposed (or in favor of) Roe regardless of one's opinions about abortion. Roe was a constitutional travesty. Maybe he thinks that the electorate is too dumb to understand such an argument. But more likely, he's just saying whatever he thinks he has to get elected.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:53 PMHere's another reason for Gonzales to resign.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PMHere's a hilarious Fark thread on the increasing desperation of the Truthers in the wake of the Oakland bridge collapse:
I heard the tanker driver took driving lessons but didn't want to learn how to park.
[Via LGF, who has a great graphic]
[A couple minutes later]
Oh, my gosh. There is a web site devoted to it. I'm pretty sure that it's satirical, but with these people it's hard to tell. Either way, it's pretty funny.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:50 AMStanley Kurtz has a review of Evan Coyne Maloney's documentary on political correctness run amok on college campuses:
I was struck by the scientist who said that her students were able to figure out her politics simply by noting what she did not say. Just by teaching her subject, without adding extraneous leftist political harangues, she had revealed herself to be a closet Republican. You wont believe what happened when the faculty found out about her politics. But the full horror story is almost less disturbing than the reality of that single observation about silence. Particularly in some of the non-science disciplines, it really has gotten to the point where mere silence on matters political is enough to reveal you as the enemy.
It's ironic that these are the people fondest of throwing around the epithet "fascist."
Go tell the film makers that you want to see it. It's particularly important to get it shown on the campuses. Check out the trailer, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:36 AMNot that that's a bad thing. Also known as "Cinco de Pinko."
At Free Republic. The comments are a hoot:
You put your LEFT foot in..."Things you see when you don't have a hand grenade."
"Winner and Runners-up of the "People Who Look the Least Like Jessica Alba" (Tintorero Cumbre Alba) Contest"
Unfortunately, rumor has it that Fidel is healthy enough to get in on the hot leftist dancing action as well. We'll see.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:03 AMOne of the things that I've long criticized George Bush for was keeping so many losers on from the Clinton administration, Tenet being foremost, but Norm Mineta another. In the case of Tenet, it isn't clear if this was part of "changing the tone in Washington," or misplaced loyalty to a family friend. (Dan Goldin was yet another, but at least there he had the excuse that it's hard to find a NASA administrator, not to mention the fact that he'd been appointed by his father.) Either way, it was a disaster.
Sunday night, Tenet gave the impression that any thought of Saddam and al Qaedas cooperating was pure fantasy. You never would have known that in October 2002 Tenet wrote a letter to Sen. Bob Graham that said: We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade; Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qaida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression; We have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaida members, including some that have been in Baghdad; We have credible reporting that al-Qaida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities; and so on.That was then. Now that the war has proved difficult and unpopular, Tenet feels safe in attacking its advocates. In a widely quoted anecdote, he says he saw Richard Perle exiting the White House on September 12, when Perle told him Iraq should be punished for the attack since it bore responsibility. Perle says this couldnt have happened because he was in France at the time, as Bill Kristol has noted. (Tenet apparently has a problem getting the facts straight even in his post-CIA life).
Unfortunately, because his revision of history fits the current template of the Democrats and their allies in the media, he's going to continue to get a lot more attention than he deserves, with too little criticism or skepticism.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Andrew McCarthy has related thoughts, and knocks down the red-herring claims about Saddam and 911:
Now, if its possible, lets give Tenet the benefit of the doubt and forget for a moment that he clearly has an ax to grind when it comes to Iraq. The fact remains that, like others in the intelligence community now running for the hills because Iraq has proved more difficult than they may have thought, Tenet is desperate to change the subject from Iraqs complicity in jihadist terror to Iraqs fingerprints on 9/11. He carefully tells Pelley that the CIA could never verify that Saddams regime had anything to do with 9/11. Not, mind you, that the CIA can categorically state that Iraq was uninvolved in 9/11; just that CIA (which, it turns out, cant verify much of anything) could not verify Iraqs involvement in those particular attacks.Of course, thats not the point at all. The point was whether Iraq was working with al Qaeda, not whether it was necessarily aware of and complicit in specific operations like 9/11. Al Qaeda exists its singular purpose is to carry out operations against the U.S. If you are helping al Qaeda at all, what on earth do you suppose youre helping it do?
The issue is not rogue-state culpability for 9/11. After all, theres no hard evidence that the Taliban was involved in 9/11. Yet we attacked and overthrew the Taliban a military incursion even liberal Democrats say they supported because the Taliban was aiding and abetting al Qaeda. No one contends that our rationale requires proof of direct Taliban involvement in 9/11.
Such, though, is the logic-challenged nature of the Bush Deranged.
[Update at 11 AM EDT]
According to George Tenet, Saddam would have had nukes by now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:30 AMLileks, on fellow Minnesotan Garrison Keillor's double standards and Bush derangement:
One can make the argument that the current Iraq strategy wont work, but for Mr. Keillor to say it is indefensible suggests that he has a keener insights into the realities of the situation than Gen. Patraeus. Its possible; in his article, he cites an article from the New Yorker, so hes obviously staying abreast of current affairs. He also fears that the United States will confront Iran, which is another indefensible position. Only blind allegiance to the ol Current Occupant would drive a person to such madness. Leave Iran alone; leave the field in Iraq: those are the only defensible positions. Anything outside those actions is proof one has entered the Iron Bubble, and automatically gainsays the statements of the other side simply because the other side made them.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:26 AMIts interesting: in his review of his own sides history, he shows how domestic political considerations drove out the ability to recognize greater evils abroad. I ask, as gently as I can: Might the same instinct be abroad in the land today?
That well-known metallurgist and structural engineer, Rosie O'Donnell, told us that fire can't melt steel. It's never happened before in history. Well, I guess that there's got to be a first (or second) time for everything:
Heat from the tanker explosion on the westbound 580 melted the upper roadway of the MacArthur Maze. The fire was intense enough to cause the tanker truck to basically melt away, according to crews on the scene.
I think that we need to investigate this. Were there charges planted in the bridge to make it collapse at an opportune time? Were there Enron and Halliburton financial records in a truck driving below? Were the Jews warned to stay off it? And where was Dick Cheney?
More grounds for impeachment, I'd say.
[Via emailer Mike Puckett]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:02 AMYou should see how the French feel about them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:41 AMI hate massages. Just as is the case with watching basketball, I would pay not to have one, if I had to. I love s3x, though.
Another reason I'm not a Republican.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 PM...of Zimbabwe:
Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of southern Africa, is crippled by foreign currency and fuel shortages, unemployment of over 80 percent and the highest rate of inflation in the world."Year-on-year inflation, which stood at 1,072.2 percent in October last year, rose to 1,281.1 in December and has risen to 2,200 percent by March," Gono said in a televised statement.
Emphasis mine. It doesn't take long for socialist thugs to destroy breadbaskets. The Venezuelans may be on the verge of learning the same lesson.
But hey, what's the problem? Just print more money!
Seriously, this is a tragedy, in which the neighbors, particularly South Africa, are culpable, in their unwillingness to isolate and denounce Mugabe, who is vying to become one of the worst leaders in the world.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AMI get a little tired of hearing all the whining from Democrats and other faux defenders of civil liberties over how we treat terror suspects, when the War on (Some) Drugs has had far greater atrocities on civil liberties, like this one, described by Radley Balko, for decades now, and for a much less worthy cause. The cynicism and corruption that this has generated in the nation's police departments and federal enforcement agencies, as they make war on their own citizens, is frightening, and its depth unknown.
As Glenn says, I'd take the Dems more seriously if they'd denounce this war, which truly is "failed," a "quagmire," and one that we have "lost." But that would take political courage.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:08 AMThe demented dwarf from Cleveland has introduced articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney. Dana Milbank has the (hilarious) story:
A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer encouraged USS Kucinich to contact planet Earth. "But Nancy Pelosi says this is not going anywhere," she pointed out.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:09 AM"Have you talked to her today?" Kucinich shot back.
"Yes, I did," she replied.
Kucinich had not expected that answer. "Then I would say I have not talked to her," he acknowledged.
It was not an auspicious beginning for the impeachment of Richard B. Cheney.
At least not in Illinois. Or New Jersey, or other states, apparently:
The Illinois statute, modeled after a New Jersey law, requires anyone selling or producing halal food to register with the state for a $75 fee and fill out a disclosure form by checking off boxes indicating how the food was obtained and who certified the product as halal. Since New Jersey passed the nation's first halal law in 2000, similar laws have taken effect in nearly a dozen states.
How in the world can this be constitutional? The state is not, or at least should not be, responsible for enforcing religious dietary laws. Do they have a similar requirement for what is, and isn't kosher? If they do, it's just as bad. Somehow, the Jews have managed to keep kosher in this country since its founding without having to involve the government. Why can't the Muslims? This seems like creeping sharia to me.
Where's the ACLU? I thought that they always came down with both feet over this kind of thing? Or is that only when there's a Christian creche on a lawn?
[Update at 3:30 PM EDT]
OK, reading the comments, I'm scratching my head.
No, this is not just about enforcing against fraud.
In order to enforce against fraud, the government must prove there was fraud. In order to prove that fraudulent halal foodstuff was purchased, the government must prove that said foodstuff was not halal. In order to do that, the government must provide a legal standard as to what is, and what is not, halal. In other words, the government must put its imprimatur on whether or not a particular foodstuff meets a certain religious dietary restriction, in effect playing the role of a (in the case of the Jewish religion) Talmudic scholar.
Do you folks really want to open up that can of worms?
Church A promises me that if I attend it and give it money, and subscribe to its beliefs, I will live a happier life. Does anyone here propose that the government should prosecute that church for fraud if in my opinion it doesn't meet its promises? Whose definition of halal (or for that matter kosher) should the government choose?
Sorry, but to me, this is nuts. Not to mention completely and thoroughly unconstitutional. At least if you believe in the concept of "separation of church and state."
And to the poster who asked why Good Friday is a state holiday, beats me. I don't think that the government should be granting religious holidays, either. Though at least in that case there's a much better consensus on what day Good Friday is, and there is a huge majority of people who celebrate it, so (like Christmas) it makes sense at least on practical reasons.
[Wednesday morning update]
I'm properly corrected in comments. I should have written "observe Good Friday," not "celebrate" it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:42 AMAnd the resistance of the media to point it out:
In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the malls gun free policy.
What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.
As Glenn Reynolds pointed out, people don't stop people with guns--people with guns stop people with guns.
[Tuesday morning update]
Sorry, the first link was honked up. It's fixed now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 PMAnd it takes a female press secretary to finally slap down that demented moron, Helen Thomas. Men can't get away with it, because they can't be seen as beating up on an old lady. One silver lining of Tony Snow's cancer recurrence.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:21 PMMark Steyn, on VPI:
I think we have a problem in our culture not with "realistic weapons" but with being realistic about reality. After all, we already "fear guns," at least in the hands of NRA members. Otherwise, why would we ban them from so many areas of life? Virginia Tech, remember, was a "gun-free zone," formally and proudly designated as such by the college administration. Yet the killer kept his guns and ammo on the campus. It was a "gun-free zone" except for those belonging to the guy who wanted to kill everybody. Had the Second Amendment not been in effect repealed by VT, someone might have been able to do as two students did five years ago at the Appalachian Law School: When a would-be mass murderer showed up, they rushed for their vehicles, grabbed their guns and pinned him down until the cops arrived.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:01 AMBut you can't do that at Virginia Tech. Instead, the administration has created a "Gun-Free School Zone." Or, to be more accurate, they've created a sign that says "Gun-Free School Zone." And, like a loopy medieval sultan, they thought that simply declaring it to be so would make it so. The "gun-free zone" turned out to be a fraud -- not just because there were at least two guns on the campus last Monday, but in the more important sense that the college was promoting to its students a profoundly deluded view of the world.
Thank goodness we have smart and gracious celebrities generous enough to take time out from their busy lives to fly around the country in executive jets and provide the little people like us with proper instruction on wiping our @sses.
I wonder if she'll use a whole roll herself, but buy teepee offsets?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:34 AMIt looks like Amtrak needs new rules of engagement:
The attack occurred as the train from the Bay Area neared the I Street Bridge to Sacramento's rail station and slowed for a signal, said Eugene Skoropowski, managing director of the Capitol Corridor, said. A group of people stood on the tracks to block the train, which stopped. When the engineer went downstairs and opened the door, he was dragged off the train and assaulted, Skoropowski said.
It wouldn't hurt to let the engineers have firearms, either, if they're trained.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:21 AMMark Danziger points out the difference between "blaming the victims" and blaming the flawed doctrine that made them victims.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:56 AM...is no Harry Reid:
We should not surrender in the face of barbarism.
Can someone explain to me how a man with as much negative charisma as Reid ended up being Senate Majority Leader? I mean, it's like he almost sucks the charm out of a room.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 AMI'm pretty sure that JSC is a gun-free zone.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:20 PMProfessor Volokh has some thoughts:
I want to claim that this echo of Weber (who said "Today ... we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory") is utterly inapt in gun control debates, at least such debates in a Western country.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:00 AMTo begin with, note that, read literally, my friend's proposal is not "old-fashioned." It's not new-fashioned. It has never been the fashion in any jurisdiction in America.
Peggy Noonan wonders (sorry, the Journal doesn't seem to believe in permalinks for current articles):
The last testament Cho sent to NBC seemed more clear evidence of mental illness--posing with his pistols, big tough gangsta gonna take you out. What is it evidence of when NBC News, a great pillar of the mainstream media, runs the videos and pictures on the nightly news? Brian Williams introduced the Cho collection as "what can only be described as a multi-media manifesto." But it can be described in other ways. "The self-serving meanderings of a crazy, self-indulgent narcissist" is one. But if you called it that, you couldn't lead with it. You couldn't rationalize the decision.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:28 AMSuch pictures are inspiring to the unstable. The minute you saw them, you probably thought what I did: We'll be seeing more of that.
I hope that this puts to rest any insanity about nominating Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court. If they are going to have an Hispanic affirmative action nominee, he should at least display some level of intelligence and competence.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:05 AMAmidst the discussion about whether or not professors are capable of protecting their students with guns, we have the example of one professor who saved his students without one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 AMBoris Johnson says that it's time for England to reconquer France ("reconquer"? Is he referring to Waterloo?).
A couple months ago, I'd have thought it a trivial exercise, what with the several reverse speeds on the French tanks and all, but with the wimpy performance by the Royal Navy in the Shatt al Arab and the ensuing response from Whitehall, it's not clear who would win the rush to surrender.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:39 PMEugene Volokh (who I'm given to understand has a pretty tight pattern at the range) asks "why not at least arm the professors who want to be"? The argument is, as usual, comprehensive.
[Update a few minutes later]
Best comment so far: "You really want to arm Ward Churchill?"
[Update at 3:45 PM EDT]
Another amusing comment:
In order to reflect the hierarchy of faculty, there would have to be stratification:Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:00 PMAssistant Professors get muzzle-loaders
Associate Professors get semi-automatics
Full Professors get automatics
Adjuncts get a sharp letter-opener
Chaired Professors are irrelevant, since they never come to campus
One in which a rich tort lawyer pontificates on "two Americas" but gets $400 haircuts, and one in which that's like a bad joke.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:15 AMWith idiot gun grabbers reenergized by this week's tragedy, Eugene Volokh and Donald Sensing ask, "what law would have prevented this?"
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:31 AMHere's the kind of question that a supposedly objective press would ask:
The quote from Senator Reid that Kathryn quotes below is especially peculiar given that Reid himself voted in favor of the bill the Court upheld today. So he wishes O'Connor could have still been there to overturn the law he supported?
Sounds almost like George Bush on campaign finance.
[Update at 8 PM EDT]
Jacob Sullum has more thoughts on "gun-free zones:"
Cho used two handguns, a .22 and a 9mm, neither of them especially powerful or exotic. Contrary to the false promises of gun controllers, firearms cannot be neatly sorted into "good" and "evil" categories; any weapon that can be used for self-defense (or for hunting) also can be used to murder people. A gun's specific features matter even less if the victims are unarmed.Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:28 PM"We can't have an armed guard in front of every classroom every day of the year," Virginia Tech campus police chief Wendell Flinchum said after the shootings. Given the reality that police cannot be everywhere, it is unconscionable to disarm people who want to defend themselves.
On Monday, I wrote:
Here it comes. Now they're going on about "the children, won't someone think of the children"? Someone on Cavuto is demanding to know what they're doing for "the kids." Are they being kept warm, are they being fed, are they getting the grief counseling they need?These "kids" are college students. Almost all of them are of the age of majority. They're the same age as the "kids" who are off fighting for us overseas, who are seeing things just as horrific, or more so, every day. Yes, one doesn't go off to an idyllic campus in the western Virginia mountains with the expectation that they'll have to deal with something like this, but they're not kids. In every society up until this one, they would have been considered adults, and many of them would have already been married (or not) and raising families. The notion that we should treat them like grade schoolers, for whom we are responsible for feeding, and heating them, is ludicrous. Yes, they're upset, but I'm pretty sure that they're still capable of feeding themselves, and finding a blanket, if shooting people somehow caused the heating systems on campus to break down. If I were one of them, I'd be insulted and appalled at this kind of stupid, stupid commentary.
Today, Mark Steyn expands much more eloquently on that theme, and on our culture of passivity:
The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and if youll forgive the expression men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are children if theyre serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clintons Oval Office. Nonetheless, its deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself and, in a horrible world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:41 AM
Can the US trust the BBC? The folks at BritainAndAmerica.com don't think so.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:04 AMAs we saw on Monday, there is no such thing--the only people no allowed guns in such places are the law abiding. Dave Kopel and Glenn Reynolds have thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 AMI'd like to see a class-action lawsuit against the university by parents of the injured and murdered students, particularly if any of them had CCW. That would discourage not just VPI, but other universities from arbitrarily disarming their community and leaving them exposed to nightmares like yesterday's.
[Late morning update]
Some in comments here have some weird fantasies about gunfights at the OK Corral if those with permits are allowed to carry on campus, and that even more would die in the confusion if there had been multiple people with guns. First, I would point out that a campus like that probably has a very high percentage of ROTC, with weapons training. I think that the notion that, had they been allowed to carry, many more would have died is ludicrous. We now have empirical evidence of what happens at Virginia school shootings when people are allowed weapons, and when they are not. It's pretty overwhelming in favor of the former at this point. I think that in the face of both theory and experience, it is criminally negligent for a university to make itself a "gun-free zone." Particularly if it is warned of the potential consequences ahead of time.
But apparently, to people like this, making people "feel" safe is more important than actually making them safe. In the modern "liberal" mind, feelings trump all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:36 AMThis sounds worse than Columbine, from what's being reported so far. Only thirteen died there.
Of course, the gun grabbers will use it as an excuse for calls for more gun control, though probably none of the nostrums that they put forth would have prevented it from happening. And defenders of the Second Amendment will point out (as I'm admittedly doing in this post), that if people had been allowed to carry legally on campus, as they are in the rest of the Commonwealth of Virginia, that the shooter would almost certainly have been taken out long before he could kill twenty unarmed people. And it's not clear that he couldn't have killed even more if he'd chosen to, since it's unclear whether he (or she, to be fair) was killed by a self-inflicted wound, or someone else.
We'll find out in due time.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Some related comments from Instapundit. The legislature apparently made the campus a "gun-free zone." Well, you can call a tail a leg, but it doesn't make it one. Modern "liberals" see the words "gun-free (or nuclear free, in the case of Berkeley) zone" and somehow thinks that this magically makes the place safer. But the sign that mass murderers see is "free-fire zone of unarmed victims."
[Update at 2 PM]
Now it's up to almost thirty fatalities? Whoever did this was serious, and well trained.
Perhaps multiple people? A terrorist attack? Who knows? I'd think a shopping mall would be a better place for that. All speculation at this point (at least on my part).
[3 PM update]
Thirty-two people now. I suspect that this is the worst such incident in US history. What lessons will we draw from it? Not good ones, I suspect. I heard some "security analyst" being interviewed who was basically advocating making university buildings into lock-down prisons, with no classroom windows, and wanding of everyone going in and out.
[Update at 4:40 PM EDT]
Here it comes. Now they're going on about "the children, won't someone think of the children"? Someone on Cavuto is demanding to know what they're doing for "the kids." Are they being kept warm, are they being fed, are they getting the grief counseling they need?
These "kids" are college students. Almost all of them are of the age of majority. They're the same age as the "kids" who are off fighting for us overseas, who are seeing things just as horrific, or more so, every day. Yes, one doesn't go off to an idyllic campus in the western Virginia mountains with the expectation that they'll have to deal with something like this, but they're not kids. In every society up until this one, they would have been considered adults, and many of them would have already been married (or not) and raising families. The notion that we should treat them like grade schoolers, for whom we are responsible for feeding, and heating them, is ludicrous. Yes, they're upset, but I'm pretty sure that they're still capable of feeding themselves, and finding a blanket, if shooting people somehow caused the heating systems on campus to break down. If I were one of them, I'd be insulted and appalled at this kind of stupid, stupid commentary.
The infantilization and extended adolescence of our society continues apace.
[Update at 5 PM]
One more thought. I already noted that it was probably the biggest death toll in US history from such an event, up above. I heard Cavuto say so as well.
But I'll bet that now that the news reporters (I don't count myself in that category--I doubt many people read this site for up-to-date news, except on those rare occasions when something exciting is happening in manned spaceflight or New Space, and not that many people read this site, period) are making the point, there is at least one, and probably more than one, person listening to all the coverage, and thinking "You know, I could beat that. He was a wienie."
One unfortunate consequence of advances in technology is an advance in the ability to kill large numbers of people with ever-smaller numbers of people, in a short period of time. This is Vernor Vinge's (and Bill Joy's) nightmare (I don't think Vinge's interview with Mike Godwin at Reason is on line yet, though). This is also the core of the so-called "War on Terror," and it's unfortunately only going to get worse as time goes on, particularly as world population increases, and the number of people on the tails of the bell curves increases as well.
[One more update a few minutes later]
What happened in Blacksburg today, and Columbine, and other similar incidents, is very similar to what happened on 911, in that it was a catastrophe, in the mathematical sense. It's probably worth a TCSDaily column.
[Another, listening to John Gibson]
No, I haven't listened to the other news channels, because I'm working in my office, where I can't easily browse channels, but I think that it's safe to say that this is the only story of the day.
[Update at 5:40 PM EDT]
Finally. Gibson and Judge Napolitano are discussing the fact that no one on campus was allowed to carry, and the fact that it was a decision by the university administration, regardless of the bill that failed in Richmond. I don't know whether it will or not, but in a just world, this would open them up to lawsuits.
[Update at 6 PM EDT]
Brit Hum lead story: "Worst mass shooting in American history."
Yeah, that will discourage the next one seeking equivalent publicity.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:58 AMThe Democrats want to establish a Department of Peace.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:32 PM[Update on Saturday afternoon]
Tim Lambert says that at least some of the quotes are fake.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:03 AMFrom Germany. As a son of a Jew, I cried when I read this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 PMThis story of a sweatshop protest at USC is hilarious. I suspect, though, given that it's the LA Times, that it's unintentionally so:
Thirteen students, who came prepared with food to last three days and pillows, ended their protest after about six hours when the university threatened to suspend them and, in a move that even surprised former 1960s student activist Tom Hayden, called their parents."We were prepared for arrest, but not suspension," said Ana Valderrama, a senior in philosophy.
...The students were given 10 minutes to decide whether to end their sit-in and thus have the whole matter dropped. "We all got scared. You could feel the fear in the room," said Meher Talib, a junior in international relations and one of the protesters.
...To the cheers of about 150 students gathered outside the building, the protesters, some in tears, peacefully walked out. Talib said they were tears of frustration. "I'm upset that we didn't win the campaign," said Talib. "But that doesn't mean the campaign is over."
Emphasis mine. This isn't your parents' protest generation.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:09 AMBill Whittle has a long essay on critical thinking.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:25 AMDr. Paul Hsieh is fighting against socialized medicine in his home state of Colorado.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:27 AMThis seems kind of stupid to me:
The measure would award Maryland's 10 electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change.State Sen. Jamie Raskin, a law professor and sponsor of the idea, said Maryland is largely ignored by presidential candidates during campaigns, because they assume the Democratic state will vote for the Democratic candidate.
OK, I can understand the misguided desire to have the president be elected by popular vote. I disagree with it, as did the Founders, who wanted us to be a Republic, and ensure that the smaller states had a more level playing field when it came to electing a president. I can even agree that it's probably constitutional, albeit dumb, since the legislature can use any method it wants to award its state's electoral votes. But I don't understand why Senator Raskin imagines that making Maryland's electoral votes dependent on the national popular vote will make politicians pay more attention to Maryland's voters.
It seems to me that if you're going to get Maryland's (and other states') electoral votes regardless of how you do in Maryland, and only need to get a national majority, you'll put all your resources in the most cost-effective media markets in the major cities. Now it might be that this means that you'll target Baltimore-Washington, because it's a fairly dense area, but there's nothing intrinsic about this plan that would make politicians pay more attention to the state of Maryland per se. And of course, it would screw over Wyomingites, who would be essentially disenfranchised if they followed such a strategy (and perhaps even if not, since the methodology would be skewed even if they didn't sign on).
Is there someone out there who can get into a (presumably) liberal law professor's mind and explain this to me?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:31 PMJohn Strossel writes about the fear industrial complex.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:29 PMSurely, if the Constitution has a right to privacy, there must be a right to travel? Can the police really arbitrarily prevent people from doing so? Is there any precedent for such a ruling?
[Update a few minutes later]
Note, when I ask if there's a precedent, I'm referring to the ruling, not cops preventing people from traveling. As noted in comments, one would think that this would be covered by the Ninth Amendment.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:31 AMBoy, talk about self centered. Let's see, Saudi Arabia is a place where women are not allowed to drive, aren't allowed to leave the house unaccompanied by a male, aren't allowed to appear in public without their face covered, and are burned alive rather than allow someone to see them without the proper Islamic attire. They are treated worse than second-class citizens--they have essentially no rights at all. But what is Nancy Pelosi worried about?
None of that. No. She's complaining to them because they don't have enough female politicians. Just when you thought she couldn't be any more clueless.
[Noon Update]
Compare and contrast how the media treated John McCain's visit with how they treated Queen Nanc's:
Assad's been trying to play his empty "peace process" card for months, because he's facing an international murder rap for killing Rafiq Hariri, and because he wants to put Lebanon back in his hip pocket. If he can get the Speaker of the House to play the dupe on his behalf, that works for him. In fact, just the footage of their meeting helps him, because it suggests that his isolation is ending. The EU has been frustrated with him, and the Arab League may have failed to close a deal with him on the paralysis of Beirut, and his Arab neighbors may have stopped trusting him long ago, but hey, he's still got some people willing to try to help him out of a jam: Tehran, Hezbollah, and Nancy Pelosi. I mean, why should the US be content with merely pulling out of Iraq in defeat when it can kiss Syria's butt as well?Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:55 AMSo after Pelosi stopped talking, then what happened? All the stories that I've seen about Pelosi's embarrassing amateurism are perfectly straightforward accounts of what she did and what she said, with a little underplayed regional context. Where's the smartass coverage of Pelosi's visit? Where are the telling juxtapositions? Where's all the snark when we need it? I can't find any of it.
Glenn's sentiments are mine, ignoring the morons in comments who think that I worship George Bush, despite the many times I've expressed wishes for other choices.
I've never felt that degree of attraction to, or affection for, Bush -- you never saw the kind of praise for him here that you once saw for him elsewhere. Mostly, I've just hoped he'd manage to do a decent job under difficult circumstances. On the other hand, I haven't had the same over-the-top response to disappointment with him, either. But I try to keep the political and the personal separate, something that seems increasingly old-fashioned these days.
Yes, particularly when one has morons in comments to whom everything is political.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:29 PMIt's about bossing people around:
Gore says global warming is a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth. Its graver than any war. He compares it to the asteroid that allegedly killed the dinosaurs.But heres the thing. If there were an asteroid barreling toward Earth, we wouldnt be talking about changing our lifestyles, nor would we be preaching about reducing, reusing and recycling. We would be building giant wicked-cool lasers and bomb-carrying spaceships to go out and destroy the thing.
But Gore doesnt want to explore geo-engineering (whereby, for example, wed add sulfate aerosols or other substances to the atmosphere to mitigate global warming). Why? Because solving the problem isnt really the point.
As Gore makes it clear in his book, Earth in the Balance, he wants to change attitudes more than he wants to solve problems. Indeed, he wants to change attitudes about government as much as he wants to preach environmentalism.
Global warming is what William James called a moral equivalent of war that gives political officials the power to do things they could never do without a crisis.
Well, yeah.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:27 PMNeal Boortz explains:
...there's more. Sunday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution tells us about another website, this one run by Andrew Schlafly, the son of Phyllis Schlafly. Conservapedia pushes the creationism theme with revelations that dinosaurs and humans roamed the Earth at the same time.[video] You'll also learn that atheism has led to a large increase in bestiality. But once again you'll learn that not only is the Earth standing still, but it's actually flat ... and sitting still in space while everything revolves around it.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:42 AMTell me .. how do you counter the "conservatives are ignorant" argument, and how do you manage to recruit more people to the cause of lower taxes, less government and more individual responsibility when you have people running around loose calling themselves conservatives, getting elected to office as conservatives, and running websites as conservatives all the while telling us that the earth does not spin on its axis and does not revolve around the Sun .. and that everything in the known universe revolves around the Earth?
...with Ramesh, on who should replace Gonzales (and yes, I think he should be replaced--I never thought he should have been appointed in the first place):
I just want it to be somebody the president has never met.
The biggest flaw of this president is selecting cronies and people he knows and trusts for key positions, rather than looking for those most qualified (Harriett Myers being the most prominent example). Unfortunately, it's a failing of almost every president. (Anyone remember Craig Livingstone?)
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:38 PMVaclav Klaus says that environmentalism is the new communism.
Of course, a lot of Europeans wouldn't see anything wrong with that, since many of them have been pining for its return.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:02 AMA New Jersey court has recognized the Second Amendment, and overturned a gun forfeiture law.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 AMMy disgust with Congress has found new depths. They're buying votes for a troop withdrawal with pork.
[Update a few minutes later]
As Glenn's emailer says, I guess we can now call them the coalition of the bribed.
[Update at noon eastern]
Porkbusters is on the case.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 AMOne third of Washingtonians are functionally illiterate.
DC always struck me as a canary in a coal mine for what the fate of the entire country would be if liberal Democrats got all their federalized social-programs hearts' desires.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:10 AMMrs. Wilson seems to have trouble keeping her story straight.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:08 AMSteve Gilbert has put together the time line that makes it look most likely that Joe Wilson did so, and when and why.
In a nutshell, up until no WMD were discovered in Iraq, Wilson didn't say anything about the "sixteen words." But once he saw the political opportunity, and had joined the Kerry campaign, he decided to try to pretend that he'd told the administration otherwise beforehand. And he used his wife's connection to the CIA to enhance his credibility with his fellow Democrats. Particularly damning is the fact that Armitage spilled the beans to Woodward before Wilson's op-ed piece (and thus before the White House would have had any reason to "punish" him). He most likely got the information from Democrats or other reporters, or from Wilson himself.
[Update in the evening]
Looking at the responses from commenters who often disagree with me, but are sane (and occasionally, but not usually, correct when they do) and the usual nutballs, I think that Steve Gilbert's post might prove to be this year's "Rathergate," once it starts to bounce around the blogosphere. This seems to me like irrefutable evidence that the entire leftist myth about Plamegate (that the media has always eaten up like ice cream in a Houston August) is, and always was, completely bogus.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:13 PMBased on a post by Randall Parker (who I really need to add to the blogroll), John Derbyshire isn't optimistic:
Looking round the world right now, the prospects for an advance of liberty are not very encouraging.
I don't know if I'm as gloomy as he is, but this is one of the reasons that I think that space is important.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:15 AMListening to that obnoxious ass, Henry Waxman, saying in opening statements of his show hearing, that Valerie Plame's identity was "one of our nation's most closely guarded secrets." I'll bet he managed to say it with a straight face, too.
[Update a few minutes later]
Mark Hyman explains:
Plame had been living in the U.S. for several years when her identity was revealed in Novak's 2003 column. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act was crafted not to protect Plame and other classified employees from the FedEx driver, the Safeway cashier, or from threats commonly found in the school carpool line. The Act was to protect the identities of classified employees (typically known as "case officers") and their contacts while overseas.The first person to bust Plame's identity was likely Plame herself. In using a commercially available data base it took me less then three minutes to learn that Plame had listed "American Embassy, New York, NY 09255" in 1991 as her official address. This, it turns out, was the APO address for the U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece. Cover busted.
In addition, Brewster-Jennings & Associates was the name of the fictitious company she used as her cover story that she was a business consultant living and working in Europe. Another three-minute database research revealed that Brewster-Jennings reported annual sales revenues of $60,000 and a work force of only a single employee (presumably Plame). Even the most gullible foreign intelligence service would not swallow the whopper that the so-called Brewster-Jennings company could afford to send its only employee to work in Europe on total revenues of $60,000 a year.
[Update a few minutes later]
Bob Novak is now pointing out the absurdity of a "covert operator of the CIA" who drove to and from Langley every day.
[Update in the late afternoon.]
Tom Maguire, who despite his ongoing desecration of the Instapundit web site, remains the go-to guy on these issues, doesn't think that the pro-Wilson folks had such a great day. He also thinks that Valerie has some 'splainin' to do.
[Update at 4 PM EST]
Cliff May writes that if Valerie Plame did recommend her husband for a Niger trip, it wouldn't have been the first time she did such a thing.
[OK, one more]
Scott Ott has broken the code.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:48 AM...and it's permanence:
A big part of the problem is our outmoded civil-service system that makes it too hard to hire good employees and too hard to fire bad ones. The bureaucracy has become gargantuan, making accountability and reform very difficult.Faced with this managerial swampland, the number of talented executives willing to come to Washington continues to dwindle. Those who do accept the challenges usually want to tackle big national goals in the few years they spend in public service instead of fighting their own agencies. So the bureaucracy just keeps rolling along.
And anyone who thinks that things would be better if we changed parties in the White House are deluding themselves.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:34 AMApparently it was a "someone else's culpa." I always love that passive voice. It takes me back to the nineties.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:26 AMBill Clinton lied to a grand jury. As a result, he did not lose his job, did not go to jail and soon thereafter became a multi-millionaire, lionized and celebrated in his party and around the world.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:27 AMIf thats the fate in store for Libby, by all means, bring it on.
One more point: Valerie Plame is getting $2.5 million for her story. How much did New York publishers and Hollywood producers pay for the stories of Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick?
The jarring spectacle of jurors expressing support for, or at least indifference toward, an executive act to wipe away the conviction that they just handed down is a damning statement about Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It means that he had sufficient evidence to convince a handful of people drawn from Washington, D.C.s liberal jury pool that Libby was guilty, but even they didnt believe Libby should have been in the dock in the first place.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:12 AMLibby might have deliberately lied or might have had a memory lapse, given that practically every witness had memory problems. Fitzgeralds evidence against Libby was all he said/he said. In these circumstances, a judicious prosecutor would have committed an act of forbearance, and even moral courage: He would have let it go.
Fitzgerald couldnt resist the temptation of every Washington special prosecutor, which is never to close up shop without at least one obstruction-of-justice indictment. Fitzgeralds justifications for his pursuit of Libby have proven either false or tendentious.
There's been a lot of Buzz about Fred Thompson getting into the race, and some have been talking him up as Reagan reincarnate (though I think that a stretch). I think that he's got a very big skeleton in his closet, though, that he'd have to exorcise to have a chance:
Thompson was one of only four Republican senators to endorse McCains 2000 presidential campaign and was an important ally in McCains effort to pass campaign-finance reform in 2002.
Emphasis mine. I think that that he'll have to repudiate this to get much traction. He could simply say that he now realizes that the legislation, while well meaning, was wrongheaded and counterproductive, and unconstitutional, and that he wouldn't support any future efforts, and would in fact support its repeal. It would piss off McCain, but that doesn't cost him much if he's running against him anyway.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:27 AMDC gun control laws have been stricken down, in accordance with the (properly interpreted) Second Amendment. It's probably a good bet that this will go to the Supreme Court (which may get an opportunity to clarify Miller so that we can finally put a stake through the heart of the nonsensical "collective right" argument). This seems like a pretty big deal to me.
[Via Instapundit]
[Update a few minutes later]
If Giuliani has any political acumen whatsoever, he will laud this ruling, and pledge to nominate judges that would uphold it.
[Update after noon]
As Kathryn Jean Lopez notes, it would be useful to hear from all of the presidential candidates (both parties) on this issue.
[Late afternoon update]
For those who (like people in comments who shall remain nameless...errrr...unless you read the comment) are concerned that this won't be heard by the court, Glenn Reynolds has a roundup of links on the subject, some of which lead to arguments that it's very likely to (by Volokh, at least).
Of course, going to the SC is a double-edged sword. Given the current composition, be careful what you wish for...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AMThe WSJ has a piece today on the continuing decline of my home state, where I still have family. It really makes all that nonsensical talk a few years ago about trying to amend the Constitution so that Granholm could run for president seem even more absurd.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 AMGreyhawk explains why Walter Reed was underfunded. It wasn't in anyone's congressional district.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:25 AMI scored a hundred percent on this test.
"A+ -- Not only should you vote, you should consider a career in politics."
And I, too, would strongly encourage anyone who doesn't score well on it to stay away from the voting booth. A grateful nation will thank you.
Though it seems like they ought to actually deduct points for knowing the pop culture icons.
[Early evening update]
I agree with commenters who say that the test is much too visual. Actually, it's kind of a dumb test. It's like those "man on the street" interviews that provide so much fodder for late-night comics. As someone in comments started to do, what would good questions be?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:43 AMPeter Mulhern thinks that the president should fire Patrick Fitzgerald:
The President has ample grounds for such action. Fitzgerald repeatedly lied, both in court and out, about the nature of his investigation in a successful effort to convince the jury that Libby had something to hide. Worse yet he pursued a criminal investigation when he had no reason even to suspect that any crime had been committed. This is the core of horrible prosecutorial abuse. In this situation there can be no legally sufficient conviction for perjury or false statements.
He may be right on the merits, but if he were to do what's recommended here, it would set off a political firestorm that would make the Tokyo bombing look like a fall bonfire. Because he's let people undermine him, and continue to do so without consequence, ever since he came into office, the president is now in a no-win position.
[Update in the afternoon]
Tom Maguire (who has been the go-to guy for all things Libbygate from the beginning) writes about Fitzi's Dishonor.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:24 AMNow that the trial is over, Bob Novak has a clarifying piece in the WaPo:
Democrats had been slow to react to my column of July 14, 2003, which reported that former diplomat Joseph Wilson's mission to Niger was suggested by his CIA employee wife, Valerie Plame Wilson. By September, when the Justice Department began investigating the CIA leak, Democrats smelled another Iran-contra affair or Watergate. They were wrong.The Libby trial uncovered no plot hatched in the White House. The worst news Tuesday for firebrand Democrats was that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was going back to his "day job" (as U.S. attorney in Chicago). With no underlying crime even claimed, the only question was whether Libby had consciously and purposefully lied to FBI agents and the grand jury about how he learned of Mrs. Wilson's identity.
Fitzmas was a fizzle.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AM...an anti-war deputy secretary of an anti-war department leaking to an anti-war reporter the name of an anti-war analyst who got her anti-war husband a job with an anti-war agency is supposedly an elaborate conspiracy by Cheney, Rove and the other warmongers. Looked at more prosaically, its a freak intersection of bad personnel decisions, which is one of the worst features of this presidency. So many of the Bush Administrations wounds come from its willingness to keep the wrong people in key positions: Tenet should not have been retained at the CIA, Armitage should not have been at State.
And Mineta should not have been at DoT.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:30 AM...on the Maher-Coulter embroglio. But even though it's from Iowahawk, it probably won't be.
(Note, not a family-friendly link...)
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:32 PMApparently I have to continue to correct the record, over and over and over.
This time it's Vic Rubenfeld:
Frankly, I have to put a lot of blame for this on the Republicans, for using this tactic to impeach Bill Clinton. Having sex isn't a crime, but he was impeached for lying about it.
Well, maybe if you were familiar with what actually happened, you wouldn't have to do that.
Bill Clinton was not impeached for "lying about sex." He was impeached for perjury, subornation of perjury from others, witness intimidation, and obstruction of justice, in the service of preventing a young woman from getting a fair trial in a civil law suit under a law that he signed with his own pen, but thought shouldn't apply to King William. And he did this after having taken an oath to see that the laws of the land were faithfully executed.
Those aren't my opinions. They're black-letter facts. If you people are going to continue to whine about Clinton's impeachment, at least get the history correct. Of course, this kind of spinning nonsense and mischaracterization of the president's behavior was occurring in the media at the time, 24/7, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that people are still at it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 AMThe nutroots may be celebrating their long-awaited "Fitzmas" tonight, but it's pretty weak tea compared to their fantasies of "Rove being frog marched out of the White House." And they can't take much comfort from Fitzgerald's comment that the investigation is essentially over. Also, people should be reminded that Joe Wilson is still a liar, regardless of Scooter Libby's fate:
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address...
...The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.
In the end, the only crime was Libby's alleged perjury. Well, and the fact that the media for so long promulgated and continued to provide oxygen to the loony left conspiracy theory that this was "retribution" against Wilson by the White House.
I agree with (former federal prosecutor) Andy McCarthy:
I don't think there ever should have been an investigation in the first place. The Justice Department should quickly have realized that the facts here did not warrant a prosecution under its standards for the espionage act or the agent identity protection act. DOJ, under intense political pressure from Democrats and the anti-Bush media, did not close the investigation and kicked it to an independent prosecutor, but the most culpable person in this mess is Wilson, and I wish no one had been charged if there was no legal way of charging him. The administration had every good reason to refute Wilson it was essential for the public to be told that what Wilson said in his op-ed was disingenuous; but I wish administration officials had done that openly and without apology, rather than in confidential leaks to reporters.All that said, though, there was an investigation, and nobody, especially public officials, should lie to the grand jury or to investigating police. We can't (or at least we shouldn't) take the position that the obligation of truth-telling applies only to the investigations we approve of especially when we live in a country where you are privileged to decline to answer any questions. What Libby did here was not the worst wrong in the equation, but it was still wrong.
[Via Instapundit].
[Another update]
Mark Steyn has thoughts on the other liars who haven't been punished, and continue to be celebrated, and the ongoing incompetence of some of the most critical aspects of our government in wartime:
The Bush Administration can be faulted on several grounds for its conduct here, but one of its earliest errors was apologizing for the notorious 16 words in the SOTU that started this thing:''The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."The British government stands by that statement. So does Lord Butler, in his investigation. In stepping back from the statement, the Administration showed an astonishing political ineptness, and in effect legitimized Wilsons core grievance.
Three years on, meanwhile, MI6, the French and others still know far more about whats happening on the ground in Africa. The real scandal has always been that the worlds most lavishly endowed intelligence agencys idea of an investigation is flying in a politically-motivated tourist for a long weekend.
[OK, yet another one]
Victoria Toensing (who wrote the law that started this whole foofaraw) lays out potential grounds for appeal.
And Mark Levin wonders when the people who perjured themselves in this trial will be punished?
My guess? Never.
And Jim Geraghty tries to take an objective view:
Even if you like this president, even if youre pulling for him, even if you think his heart is in the right place is there any way this presidency doesn't look pretty disastrous at this moment?
[Early evening update]
Mark Levin has some further thoughts, with which I also agree:
...as long as cases with political overtones are tried in the District of Columbia, Republicans will be at a severe disadvantage. I don't believe that jurors are more perfect than the rest of society. I don't believe in every case they are able to ignore their own biases. And that's especially true when they're being prodded in that direction by the prosecution.Until something is done about this, people like Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger will get what amounts to a pass and Lewis Libby will be facing prison time.
[An evening update]
Byron York's wrap up:
What is next? Libbysand Cheneysenemies have always hoped that a guilty verdict would result in Libby flipping, in fingering the vice president for some still-unspecified crime for which Cheney would then be tried and convicted, or, even better, impeached and removed from office. Mr. Libby, are you willing to go to jail to protect Vice President Cheney? shouted MSNBCs David Shuster as Libby walked away after his lawyers statement. That question will undoubtedly be heard many times in the days to come.
The problem with that fantasy, of course, is that there is, and never was (as Byron notes), any underlying crime on which to either try or convict Cheney, no matter how many times the nutroots tap their red shoes together, and pray for a real Fitzmas.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:12 PMFrance continues downhill, in terms of civil liberties:
The council chose an unfortunate anniversary to publish its decision approving the law, which came exactly 16 years after Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King were filmed by amateur videographer George Holliday on the night of March 3, 1991. The officers acquittal at the end on April 29, 1992 sparked riots in Los Angeles.If Holliday were to film a similar scene of violence in France today, he could end up in prison as a result of the new law, said Pascal Cohet, a spokesman for French online civil liberties group Odebi. And anyone publishing such images could face up to five years in prison and a fine of ‚75,000 (US$98,537), potentially a harsher sentence than that for committing the violent act.
This very scary. I hope that the worshipers of foreign decisions on the US Supreme Court don't find it appealing.
[Update in the late afternoon]
I just noticed this peculiar wording:
The French Constitutional Council has approved a law that criminalizes the filming or broadcasting of acts of violence by people other than professional journalists.
Does that mean that people can only film or broadcast acts of violence by professional journalists?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:34 AM"Grim" has some thoughts.
Which is the extreme position: to think that people should be able to put substances into their own body without government interference, or that people should be imprisoned for ingesting smoke from burning leaves?
Is it really "extreme" to think one religion inferior to another? I'm not a member of either one, but if one religion really does preach peace and turning the other cheek, and another believes that all non-adherents to it should die, who really doesn't believe that the former is superior to the latter? This kind of loony moral relativism is what I find extreme, and not in a good way.
In any event, like Glenn Reynolds, I consider myself an extremist, but an eclectic one. And like Barry Goldwater, I don't think that's necessarily a vice.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:44 AMThis was one of the first stupid political decisions that the Clinton White House made, in their ongoing interest of manufacturing a false image, and it's reverberated right down to Hillary's campaign. It seems particularly true in this case, because there doesn't seem to have been a crime. Bill Dedman has read Hillary's thesis, and it comes off as pretty weak tea to me. Pretty anti-climactic, after all the fevered speculation during the nineties, which (like many Clinton imbroglios) was fed by the secrecy.
[Via La Dynamist]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 AMDick Polman says that it's not just Republicans and moderates who may be suffering from Clinton fatigue. I continue to think that this campaign will not survive for twenty-one months. Part of the Obama phenomenon is desperation for something new.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:58 PMA couple leftist documentarians discover the truth about Michael Moore, and the left:
Caine and Melnyk insist they should not be confused with the right-wing hordes who want to damage Moore.If you have to sell out your values and principles to get at a greater truth, where does that leave you? said Melnyk.
If we think its wrong for the government to lie and manipulate, how do we think that [left-wingers] doing it is the solution?
I don't know how you think that, but your comrades in ideology have thought it for decades, going all the way back to Walter Duranty, and almost certainly farther than that.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:52 PMNot from me--I haven't said anything about her latest fragging of her own troops, because I rarely say anything at all about her (and not being a conservative, I'm not as concerned as conservatives should be as to how she makes them look). It's from a Freeper. In West Hollywood:
The other protest that I have seen already, on different threads, is as follows: Ann is a private citizen, she can say what she wants, only a fool would think that Mitt Romney or Duncan Hunter feels the same way. But I submit to you that this is what I call "insider thinking." Of course, WE know whose stance is what... we are familiar with the nuances of conservative thought. We read up on politics every single day. But compare how an outsider such as Michael (and glittery Tony) views the conservative world: much like we view the muslim world. When a mad mullah or bomb-laden extremist foams at the mouth about decimating Israel and America, we look to the rest of the muslim world as if to say politely "And do you agree?" When all we hear are crickets chirping (and a few bombs going off prematurely because some Palestinian's cell phone got pinged) we notice. And we think, ah. I see. You agree.If we do not agree, we do indeed have the responsibility to say so, as conservatives.
In fact, at the end of the evening an incident occured that captures this second point nicely. A very intoxicated young man with a penchant for chanting hiphop lyrics in people's faces, and flicking his lighter perilously close to women's noses, tried to put his arm around me. I had already developed a dislike for this one, and gave him a slight elbow while I stepped away. Outraged, he pursued me and I gave him a good shove. My sister told the bouncer and the other guys gathered round and chimed in their outrage. Throw that guy out! The bouncer threw the guy out.
For the next ten minutes, gay men were coming up to me anxiously: Are you alright? He's gone now, don't worry. He was a jerk. I don't like him either. I hope you aren't upset. We aren't all like that. Are you sure you're alright?
They instinctively came to reassure me, knowing that as an outsider, I could not distinguish between them unless they made known their stances. And Tony said, "I may be gay, but I'm still a man. Woman are supposed to be protected, you know?"
Unfortunately, while many will agree with her, there are a lot of hateful people over there (though nothing like the denizens of DU).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:25 AMI'm kind of amazed at the latest kerfuffle about the firing of the six US attorneys. As has been noted multiple times, they serve at the pleasure of the president. The only unorthodox thing about it, as far as I can tell, is the loophole that would allow them to be replaced absent Senate confirmation. And there seems to be a certain lack of ingenuousness in some of the reporting on it. For instance, in the piece at Slate, note this graf:
This kind of purge is legal but unprecedented. A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service revealed that since 1981, no more than three U.S. attorneys had ever been forced out under similar circumstances. And now we have six in a day? What's going on?
Unprecedented? Really? We'll come back to that in a moment.
Note the emphasis, which is mine. What does "under similar circumstances" mean? Well, if one follows the link to the CRA report, it turns out that it means "having served less than a four-year term." But why is it so awful for a president to remove his own appointee? The CRA report doesn't count those removed as a result of an administration change.
Which gets us to the "unprecedented" rhetoric. Where was all the fuss and bother in 1993, when Janet Reno fired every single US attorney bar one (over ninety of them) in a single day? As Judge Bork noted:
She was not in charge from the beginning. Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it. Just as the best place to hide a body is on a battlefield, the best way to be rid of one potentially troublesome attorney is to fire all of them. The U.S. attorney in Little Rock was replaced by a Clinton protege.
Just as Whitewater was heating up. Just a coinkydinky, one can be sure.
Yet I don't recall it being such a big deal at the time. In fact, it's hard to find much reportage on it from the era (something that caused some of my commenters to unjustly accuse me of lying about it a few months ago).
Guess it's only an outrage when Republican presidents fire a few US attorneys. A wholesale slaughter isn't very interesting, when a Democrat does it. Particularly when it's a Democrat whom the press had just propelled into office by ignoring, or helping spin away, all of the many corruption issues and incipient scandals associated with him (certainly Clinton's problems with ethics and aversion to truth weren't unknown to Arkansas reporters of the era). And as Bork also notes, it set the stage for all the scandalous activity to come.
[Update]
Andy McCarthy has more on Democrat double standards in such matters, particularly from Senator Feinstein..
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 AMIf they're going to deliberate into next week, that indicates that they're hung, on at least one count. Unfortunately, for him to get off, they need to hang on them all (or hang or acquit on them all). And even then, he might face a retrial (though that would truly be a travesty).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:28 PMStephen Pollard isn't very impressed with the heir to the UK throne:
You have to hand it to the Prince. There arent many people who can manage to be a loudmouth, a danger to the constitution and a buffoon all at the same time. Most of us can manage two of the three. Prince Charles is unique in getting the hat-trick.That he is wrong, or at the very least a hypocrite, about Big Macs is, however, the least of it. Even if he was right and by the law of averages he will surely be right about something, one day his behaviour is an outrage against the constitution and undermines what little credibility the institution of the monarchy has left.
The Prince of Wales has shown over the years that he is simply a loudmouth who cannot resist shooting his mouth off when an opportunity arises. And as he is the heir to throne, such opportunities arise at will.
Whether its the supposedly deplorable state of modern architecture (a matter of taste), the efficacy of alternative medicine (voodoo, not science) or the superiority of organic produce (an assertion with no evidential basis), Prince Charles appears to be a man of limited intellect, but to be nonetheless desperate to share the produce of that limited intellect with the rest of the country.
[Evening update]
Glenn has a sentiment that I share:
Please, can't they skip Charles and go straight to Harry?Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:13 PM
Apparently, John Kerry is as pathetic at kicking @ss as he is at everything else.
And Tom Maguire reminds us that the record of the Clintons' perfidy and assault on civil liberties wasn't the only thing about which the media showed a strange incuriousity. Kerry's true service record remains a mystery, and a suspicious one. As a commenter notes, there are two Americas: a Republican one in which the media reports missteps and prevarications of politicians (even when they didn't actually occur), and a Democrat one in which they're ignored or the press aids the spin and coverup.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:47 AMIf anyone wonders why I refuse to call the Democrat Party the Democratic Party, here's Exhibit A. And the name of the act (as is often the case in such things) is positively Orwellian.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:17 AMWhenever I read anything like this rewriting of history, it makes it hard to take anything else that person says seriously. It tells me that that person is living in some kind of Clinton-spun dreamworld:
As to Bill Clinton not being the focus of right wing hatred, I disagree strongly. For years, I would see bumper stickers around town that said, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bush." The right wing-funded litigation was going after Bill, not Hillary. Ken Starr persecuted [literally] Bill, not Hillary. And, the Republican Congress impeached and tried the President -- not the First Lady -- for no other reason than he was unfaithful to his wife, and in the face of a 65% approval rating. No, they were after Bill, because they just couldn't bear to have been beaten by a Democrat. Especially a Democrat that they had targeted, on which they had attempted political homicide, and who just wouldn't go away when a lesser man would have quit. Clinton's perserverence [sic], and the continuing efforts by the Right to downplay his two Administrations, simply reinforce my theory that the Republicans will do anything -- anything -- to win.
Emphasis mine. Not only were there several other reasons, but that wasn't even one of them. I know that you'll be shocked to learn that none of the articles of impeachment mentioned his wife, or his fidelity to her. He was impeached for things that are federal crimes. Worse ones, in fact, than the one for which Scooter Libby is currently having a jury deliberate, because they included not just lying under oath, but witness intimidation and bribery, and subornation of perjury from others. And Libby hadn't taken an oath in front of the American people to see that the law of the land was properly executed.
And he can't even keep his false story straight, because in the very next sentence, he says that he was impeached because he'd won an election (funny, how they've never done that with any other Democrat president).
And this guy's supposed to be a lawyer?
This is the kind of fantastic denial about the nature of the Clintons among Democrats that I wrote about the other day.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:02 PMIt's OK to have Representative "Frozen Cash" Jefferson on the Home Security Committee--just don't put him in charge of anything serious, like taxes:
Pelosi removed Jefferson from the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee in response to Justice Department allegations that the Louisiana Democrat had accepted $100,000 in bribes and stored $90,000 of them in his freezer. The speaker then gave Jefferson a seat on the Homeland Security, and Democrats agreed to the change in a closed-door caucus in February.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:49 AM"The idea that Homeland Security is less important than the tax-writing committee is ludicrous," Blunt said Wednesday.
A German teenager has been locked in a psychiatric ward because she was being home schooled. And the court in Strasburg has no problem with the Hitler-era law under which this was done.
Ah, the enlightened Europeans. I wonder if this is one of the "foreign court decisions" that some Supreme Court justices think should guide their own?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:55 AMAndy McCarthy asks what's wrong with the Justice Department?
Jefferson is not only purported to be on tape, nearly two years ago, taking a $100K bribe, and was not only found to be in possession, nearly two years ago, of $90K in bribe money (stashed in the freezer). The government represented to a court that he obstructed the separate search of his home which, if true, is a separate felony offense all by itself. And two people, beginning over a year ago, have already pled guilty to paying Jefferson hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes....Regrettably, after Sandy Berger, it's a question that has to be asked.
No kidding. One more piece of evidence of Bush incompetence, but not one that will make the left happy.
Of course (appropriately), Pelosi comes in for some appropriate criticism as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:03 PMMark Steyn comments on the anti-Cheney chickenhawks.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:48 PMRich Lowry has more thoughts about Hillary's past.
Distasteful though it might be, Democrats would be well-advised to revisit Bill Clintons personal scandals from the 1990s, not for what they say about Bill (we already know all that), but for what they say about the political character of Hillary. She was present at the creation of the Clinton ultimate fighting style of politics. As George Stephanopoulos recounts in his memoir, when he and James Carville discussed creating a central clearinghouse for attacks during the 1992 campaign, Hillary quickly grasped the idea: What youre describing is a war room, she said, giving us both a name and an attitude.During Clintons campaign and presidency, the war room got its truest test in beating back allegations of Bill Clintons infidelities. The strategy was to deny no matter what, and if the allegations had merit, persuade the woman involved to lie about them or, if she didnt comply, destroy her. Hillary the feminist pioneer was an adamant supporter of and participant in this approach.
Her enabling of the trashing of other women is why its relevant to her, and not just him, and it's why the Swift Grope Vets will play a pivotal role in the campaign.
I think that the nineties are over, and that they won't be able to get away with it any more. The Geffen dust up is just the beginning.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:44 PMDean Barnett says that Markos is going soft. Or, rather, to be more fair, growing up.
Ah, well, it was great while it lasted, and we'll always have Fallujah. And we still have the Huffpo. Not to mention Metafilter.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:38 AMMuch of my current disgust with the Democrats developed in the 90s, when they were so willing to debase themselves and run interference for a corrupt liar in the Oval Office, enabling the first couple to continue on with business as usual--destroying evidence, gathering political dirt on their enemies, trashing their reputations, prosecuting people they found politically inconvenient, siccing the IRS on them, actually doing things that Nixon only dreamed of, all with the connivance of the press. As I've noted before, I don't think they'll be able to get away with it any more, with the emergence of new media.
Nonetheless, at least for now, such connivance continues. Mickey Kaus, in discussing the latest dust-up between her highness and one of her former Hollywood sycophants, points out what's been missing in the discussion in the media:
Nagourney's conclusion, and that of most other MSM pundits, assumes you can analyze which campaign won and which lost without assessing the truth value or appeal of what Geffen said about Hillary. In this "neutral," strategic analysis, Obama lost because he was the positive candidate lured into going "negative." Doesn't it matter whether Geffen's charges were true--or at least rang true--or were baloney? "Objective" reporters are uncomfortable making such judgments, but those are the judgments voters will be making. If Geffen was giving voice to what lots of Democrats were actually thinking about Hillary, and if by doing so he in effect gave Dems permission to stop suppressing these objections, and if those objections are powerful, he could have done Hillary damage even if her brilliant staff lured an Obama press aide into putting out a snarky press release.
Emphasis Mickey's.
The media never wanted to discuss whether or not such things were true then, and they don't now. In their adulation of the Clintons, they were always content to be stenographers for the White House spin machine. But now that Geffen has pointed out the naked emperor, will her shattered inevitability finally cause the press to turn on her as damaged goods, who can't win the White House for their favored political party? Interesting times lie ahead, but I think that the Slick Grope Vets will hold their fire until she actually gets the nomination.
[Update a few minutes later]
Mickey also asks if the Clinton campaign is unaware of the Internet. Well, they shouldn't be (anyone recall the name Matt Drudge?), but I think they continue to underestimate its power, again, as I've noted in the past.
[Update in the afternoon]
Here's an excellent example of Mickey's and my thesis that the MSM wants to talk about anything other than whether or not Geffen's accusations were true. And note the little ad hominem on him, via anonymous third-party whispers, to undercut his credibility:
Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, its troubling, he told Ms. Dowd. (Of course, many of Mr. Geffens former business partners say that he has had his own idiosyncratic relationship with the truth.)Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 AM
I'm one of the few people who doesn't have strong opinions about abortion. I have opinions (I'd like to see a world in which we have none, but I'm not sure that the government should be involved), but no candidate's position on it is going to be a deal breaker for me, either way. But, as I said, I'm one of the few, and to many people it matters a lot, which is one of Rudy Giuliani's biggest problems. As it happens, my biggest problem with him is his apparent indifference to the Second Amendment.
But for those to whom abortion is a deal breaker, I ask: what does a president have to do with abortion? What difference does it make what he thinks about the issue?
Well, the obvious rejoinder, from both pro and anti whatever, is that he appoints Supreme Court justices.
OK. Well, here's the thing. I know that it's tough to do for a lot of people--it actually requires some sophisticated thought, but one has to divorce Supreme Court decisions from their real-world consequences. That is, the court doesn't rule on whether or not things are good ideas, or even moral. They (at least in theory) rule on whether or not they follow the law, and are in accordance with the Constitution. It is about process, not result.
I know that this will be hard to comprehend, but it is quite possible to believe that abortion is wonderful, that every woman should have at least one, and still believe that Roe v. Wade was a judicial travesty. Similarly, one could believe that abortion is an ongoing genocide, and think Roe great, if one is inclined to want judges to find imaginary rights in the document. My position is that, regardless of one's position on abortion (including mine) that it was a mess. I also agree with the notion that it is something that should be decided politically, and that many legislators on both sides were relieved when the Court made up a new law out of whole cloth, because it relieved them of the responsibility of having to make any decisions on it, for which they might be held politically accountable.
If I were Rudy, I would know that there would be no way to do a "conversion" against abortion (as Romney apparently has)--he's just got too much of a track record the other way, and a recent one.
But he could make the following statement, and it would make perfect sense (at least to people who have followed my argument so far):
"I have stated a personal belief in a woman's right to choose. But I also have a strong belief in judges who follow the Constitution. I admire George Bush's choice of Supreme Court judges--Roberts and Alito. I wish that I'd made them myself, and I hope to have an opportunity to make similar, and (if that's possible) even better ones, who will interpret the Constitution in the manner intended, and not make new law out of old parchment, no matter how worthy the goal. While I personally favor a woman's right to choose, I think that Roe v. Wade was a mistake, and that this should be a matter for the states to determine. You can be sure that, if elected, this will be the criterion that I use to select judicial nominees, rather than a desire for a particular outcome that I happen to personally favor."
In fact, if he made a statement like this, I think that he could win over not only the pro-life crowd, but also those opposed to his views on gun control. And it would not be in any way inconsistent with any previous statements on his part.
It would not only get him off the hook for many of his previous positions, but it would provide a valuable public lesson on the nature and purpose of the judiciary, and one that seems to be badly needed.
[Update on Saturday morning]
I said in comments that Rudy doesn't have a track record in appointing judges, but it turns out that he does:
HH: You know, you picked up Ted Olsons endorsement, taking a digression. Thats a big deal. Will he be playing a role in your campaign?RG: He sure will. I mean, Ted Olson is someone I havefirst of all, hes a very, very good friend. I mean, hes someonehes been my friend since those days, and weve been through a lot together. Yes, Ted will play a very big role in my campaign, and I mean, if Ted werent my very, very good friend, hed be somebody Id still want to rely on as probably one of the biggest experts on the Constitution in this country, and the person who probably has argued before the Supreme Court more than anybody I know.
HH: He or Judge Starr, one of those two are the two most
RG: He or Ken have probably argued before the Supreme Court more than anyone that I know, and their knowledge of it is remarkable. I mean, its a great asset to anybody.
HH: Will he help you pick judges if you are the president, and youre making Supreme Court selections?
RG: Hed be one of the first people that Id turn to for advice and help and assistance. And I was involved in the Reagan administration in the judge selection process, although that was run by the deputy attorney general, and I was involved in the U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. But I watched all of it, and I appointed 100 judges myself. And its something I thought of, when I was the Mayor, as one of the most important things that I did.
HH: Did you have a litmus test for those hundred?
RG: No. No, not a litmus test on a single issue, a philosophical test, meaning what I wanted to know was whats their view of how you interpret the Constitution and laws? Are theydo the Constitution and laws exist as the thing from which you have to discern the meaning and the intent? Or are you going to superimpose your own social views? And I want, I like the first kind of judge, who is a judge who looks to the meaning of the Constitution, doesnt try to create it.
HH: A pro-life voter looking at you, knowing that youre pro-choice, but not concerned that presidents really matter so much in that, except as far as judges are concerned, what do you tell them about who youre going to be putting on the federal bench?
RG: Im going to say Id put people likeI mean, the best way to do it is to just say I would, I could just have easily have appointed Sam Alito or Chief Justice Roberts as President Bush did, in fact. Id have been pretty proud of myself if I had been smart enough to make that choice if I were the president.
HH: Do you expect justices like Roberts and Alito to come out of a Giuliani administration?
RG: I hope. I mean, that would be my goal. I mean, theyre sort of a very high standard, and so is Justices Scalia and Thomas. That would be the kind of judges I would look for, both in terms of their background and their integrity, but also the intellectual honesty with which they interpret the law.
Two points.
First, it would be useful for him to go one step further, and declare Roe v. Wade the judicial monstrosity that it is. Again, he can do this without in any way being inconsistent with his position on abortion, because (at least to rational people), the two issues are completely orthogonal.
Second, it would be interesting to go back and look at those previous appointments, and see how they turned out.
Unless they turned out to be a pack of judicial activists, that should settle the matter. The people in comments who refuse to consider Rudy simply because they disagree with him about abortion would be cutting off their noses to spite their face if they use his views as a litmus test for election, because he can be expected to behave exactly as a pro-lifer president would, and his behavior is really all that matters, not his views. For those who say that he was lying to Hugh, why? Does he have a history of lying? Some candidates, such as Bill Clinton, did, but does Rudy? If not, then are you simply assuming that he's lying because you think that people who aren't pro-life are liars? I just don't get it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:17 PMTom Maguire has some thoughts on the Libby outcome, and the absurdity of Fitzgerald's case.
[Update at 11:30 AM EST]
Byron York imagines the Scooter Libby trial presided over by Judge Larry.
"Chicago, Chicago, Chicago," he might say Judge Larry calls lawyers by the place they're from, so prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald immediately became "Chicago" "Chicago, Chicago, you're getting animated for no reason, my friend. This 'covert' stuff didn't I tell you not to talk about that? Can we put a lid on 'covert?' I'm a product of Hunter College, in the Bronx. You know Hunter College? Sound like you've got a little bit of a cold. A stress cold, probably. I'm going to get you some juice. Here, use my credit card. And a lid on 'covert,' you understand?"Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AM"Your honor" said defense lawyer Ted Wells.
"Have a seat, New York," Judge Larry said. "Everybody sit down. Sit down. Can we have some straight talk here? When I talk, I want to be the only voice I hear. So let's have some straight talk here. You understand straight talk? Is your client lying? Did he lie? I'm from Hunter College, in the Bronx"
Clarice Feldman has an emailer who says that, now that the Libby trial is all but over, it's clear that it was nothing but a political witchhunting expedition:
...the investigation disclosed no violations of law whatsoever. Nevertheless, in his closing statement Fitzgerald made repeated references to the possibility that a covert officer's identity had been disclosed maliciously and that people might die as a result--in spite of the fact that the referral letter apparently never referenced covert status as an issue.Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:01 PM...Beyond pointing up the essentially unethical nature of the Libby prosecution--long obvious--these factors suggest to me that there may have been a type of bait and switch at the heart of the entire investigation. The operation of this bait and switch relied on the public outcry in the MSM about the disclosure of a covert officer's identitity. The reality, if the above analysis is correct, is that the referral letter did not reference such a possibility because it was known that Plame was not "covert" for purposes of the IIPA. The relevant officials at CIA and DoJ knew that this public scenario, replete with images of Administration officials frog marching out of the White house, bore no relation to the reality of the situation--especially in light of what those officials had learned from Richard Armitage. So, the investigation was an open ended warrant to find a violation of any statute or, failing that, to induce a process violation in the course of the investigation. The bait and switch relied on the public hue and cry to provide cover for turning the White House inside out in search of a crime--any crime.
...The real targets of the investigation (Cheney, Rove, Libby) would be told that they were not targets as such but merely witnesses. They would be required by the President to appear over and over before the Grand Jury, ostensibly to give evidence to assist the investigation of what publicly appeared to be the disclosure of a "covert" officer's identity. These targets would rely on the Special Counsel's representations because they had not committed the acts that appeared from public statements--including Comey's letter--to be the focus of the investigation. The Special Counsel had deniability in the form of Comey's letter, although all Fitzgerald's actions have revealed all too clearly that they were in fact targets and not merely witnesses. No doubt the Special Counsel hoped that the targets' sense of their own innocence of what was publicly alleged would lead them to reveal some factual situation that could be construed as a criminal violation--or, failing that, become involved in a process violation. Had the investigation in fact concerned the disclosure of a covert officer's identity, the true target would of course have been Armitage. The lack of prosecutorial interest in Armitage gives the game away.
Dr. Sanity has some thoughts about the "reality-based" community.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:54 PMI previously speculated that Elizabeth Edwards might have been behind the hiring of the foul-mouthed anti-Christer bloggers. William Beutler thinks that theory "more than plausible."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:20 PMJohn Fund likes Brian Doherty's new book
Libertarian ideas have enjoyed a surge of respect lately, helped by the collapse of Soviet central planning, the success of lower tax rates and the appeals of various figures in popular culture (e.g., Drew Carey, John Stossel and Clint Eastwood) who want government out of both their bedroom and wallet. Even so, libertarianism is often not the people's choice. Part of the problem is the inertia of the status quo. "In a world where government has its hand in almost everything," Mr. Doherty writes, "it requires a certain leap of imagination to see how things might work if it didn't." Many people couldn't make that leap when, for example, economists proposed channeling some Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts.
Yes, that's the problem. People like the idea of the government leaving them alone, until they realize that in many cases, they're on the dole themselves. As Fund notes, the net may help spread the idea of personal freedom and personal responsibility, and perhaps these ideas, on which the country was founded, can be reinvigorated, and fight back against the inertia of the past seventy big-government years.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:51 PM...about Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:40 AM...for liberaltarians. That's what Arnold Kling thinks, anyway:
My point is not that the liberals have no case for an alternative approach. What disturbs me is that they are issuing rhetorical put-downs as a substitute for laying out an alternative and thinking through its consequences. Unfortunately, this is an all-to-typical modus operandi.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AMThe Left's religion often comes dressed up as science. Marxism is one example. The eugenics movement of the early twentieth century is another. The Global Warming crusade is probably another.
I think that Brink Lindsey's overture will fall on deaf ears. I think that rather than attempt a fling with the liberals, libertarians would do better to go into counseling to try and save their marriage with conservatives.
2007 has barely started, and we already seem to have the first blog scandal of the 2008 election season. John Edwards hired a blogger for his campaign, named Amanda Marcotte. She seems to have some interesting opinions:
Religious wingnuts, under the leadership of a San Antonio minister whos close to Tom DeLay and pulls himself quite a bit of cash in the business of feeding right wing politics and fairy tales to the sheep, have formed a political organization called Christians United for Israel. CUFI has had multiple meetings with the White House to offer foreign policy advice. From the article, it appears that on top of the usual motivations behind Christian Zionismhatred for Muslims, a desire to bring the end of the world, political opportunism and a chance for ministers to make their congregations feel like they are a part of something dramatic and important so their pocketbooks fall openis seems to bug John Hagee, the founder of CUFI, that he most powerful lobby is D.C. is a Jewish organization, not a Christian one
Betsy Newmark has more.
Does Mr. Edwards think that this kind of stuff is likely to appeal to moderates?
Oh, and here's Mark Steyn:
There are two Americas: one in which John Edwards gives bland speeches of soporific niceness, the other in which his campaign blogger unleashes foaming rants of stereotypically obsessive derangement.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:18 AM
That's what Mona Charen says the Libby trial is. I agree. I'd say that Fitgerald is competing with Nifong for abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:50 PMReason number 5,352 why Hillary probably is unelectable:
"I also want to send a message, if we ever do have to take more drastic action, to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities," said Clinton, who earlier rapped President Bush for refusing to engage Tehran.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 AMClinton's remarks at the Marriott Marquis were met with little applause , and after she left the stage, several people said they were put off by the presidential candidate.
"This is the wrong crowd to do that with," said one person at the dinner, noting the pro-Israel crowd wanted to hear tougher rhetoric.
It's been...nice.
This is why I've never been a Republican.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:09 AMArnold Kling (with whom, among many others, I talked last weekend at the Conservative Summit) has an interesting post, though I'm not sure I agree with the taxonomy. I've never thought of myself as a conservative, and still don't, really, but I agree with most of the principles he lays out in what he calls an Ideological Affirmation Task Force Request for Comment, or IATF RFC.
[Update]
OK, for the clueless commenters who insist not only that I'm a conservative, but (even more foolishly and laughably, as though they can read the minds of the masses) that everyone agrees that I am, with the exception of me, I'm sure that they can confidently tell me my positions on:
In other words, people who mindlessly call me a conservative, or "right winger" cherry-pick their litmus paper types to only judge me on the issues that they choose to, in order to declare my "obvious" conservatism. That's why I have zero respect for their opinions in such matters.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:27 AMI've long believed that the left, and Democrats, contrary to popular myth, are much more racist than the right and Republicans. It is they, after all, who believe that blacks can't make it without help from the government. Here's an inadvertent demonstration of this paternalism and condescension, from Joe Biden:
Mr. Biden is equally skepticalalbeit in a slightly more backhanded wayabout Mr. Obama. I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, he said. I mean, thats a storybook, man.
The first one. Can you imagine that? What a credit to his race he is. Of course, he is only half black. Maybe that explains it.
I suspect that, like M. Kerry, he'll be telling us that it was a "botched joke."
You know, this could be the shortest presidential candidacy in history.
[Via Yuval Levin]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:22 AMEUreaucrats can't understand why people might want their national currencies back. Don't they understand what's good for them?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:47 PMIt's apparently today. Greg Kaza has thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:37 AMJimmy Carter and the ghost of Begin.
Despite how lame Jerry Ford was, my vote for that man was the worst of my lifetime. And not just because it ruined my perfect record ever since of not voting for a Democrat for president.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:03 PMWell, when the evil Republicans controlled the Hill, it was horrible, but now that the Dems have taken over Congress, everything is wonderful, as commenters noted, though nothing else has changed, and despite the fascist bible-thumper still in the White House.
Here's the speech I'd like to hear tonight, but I'm sure I won't. Eli Lake has some further thoughts on what the president should say, and the Dems, who want to eat their cake and have it, too:
Now there are good reasons as to why the Democrats are so incoherent about the war. Their foreign policy masks an uneasy alliance between the party's anti-war left that resents and seeks to restrain American power, and Bush I "realists" who seek to define and wield the nation's power as ruthlessly as possible. Call it the McGovern-Scowcroft pact. It's based on disagreement about big questions on American hegemony and agreement on smaller ones, such as the United Nations, Israel, and the venality of neoconservatives.Hence Secretary of State Baker today is more influential among congressional Democrats than Secretary of State Albright. The George W. Bush presidency is the only thing that can bring these two tribes together. Anti-war Democrats opposed what they saw as a preemptive war for oil, whereas the realist critics of the war opposed it because they couldn't understand what Iraqi freedom had to do with our national interest. A war for oil is just the sort of thing realists say nations ought to be fighting.
I wish we had better choices.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:49 PMThat's why Ron Rosenbaum likes Hillary. Mark Steyn, meanwhile, says yes, but that she's mean to the wrong people:
My problem begins when Rosenbaum expands the proposition to argue that, in a field of Democrat wimps, Hills the one to back to stick it to the jihadists. I yield to no-one in my respect for the Clintons ruthless brutal demolition of Newt, and that guy who succeeded Newt for 20 minutes, and Gennifer and Kathleen and all the rest. But theres no evidence to suggest either Clinton has any interest in applying these techniques to tougher adversaries beyond these shores. Theres a world of difference between the politics of personal destruction and the geostrategic kind. Beating up breast-cancer survivors is no indication youll do the same to Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:05 AM
I know you'll be as shocked as I was to learn that Hillary Clinton is running for president. But I don't think that the Slick Grope Vets For Truth will be deployed before she actually gets the nomination.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:57 PMHeh:
Lets see, last time I checked,
- The stock market is at an all-time high, thus
- Retirement accounts are at last recovering.
- Unemployment is at a 25-year low,
- Taxes are at 20-year lows,
- Federal revenues are at all-time highs,
- The Federal deficit is down almost 50%,
- Real estate values have soared,
- Inflation is at a 20-year low,
- There have been no successful attacks since 9/11,
- Al Queda is being taken apart, one body at a time.
- U.S. and British Intelligence have thwarted a number of attacks.
- The terrorists are flocking to Iraq to be killed, instead of boarding planes for this country.
Oh, and oil fell below fifty bucks a barrel today, at least briefly. I suspect that it will close down there next week. As the emailer notes, if there were a Democrat president, the media would be talking about the greatest economy in fifty years, or more likely, in history.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:40 PMMark Steyn makes a good point:
And yet the media came within a whisker of pulling him across the finish line. If its a 50-50 nation with John Kerry dragging down one half of the seesaw, what would it have been with someone marginally less unlikeable on the ticket? A blowout? With hindsight, 2004 should have alerted Republicans to significant weaknesses in both the Bush and Congressional brands.
I was surprised, and dismayed, at how many votes Jean Francois Kerry got, though I think that Evan Thomas' MSM did deliver its fifteen percent. It should have been a warning, but the Republicans ignored it, and kept earmarking and spending away.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:04 PMArnold Kling writes about the big issues on which Republicans have turned their backs on their traditional supporters, and lost the libertarians.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:59 AMJohn Kerry is (foolishly) considering another run.
It's sad, in a way, when one is so imprisoned by unrealistic ambitions held since childhood. I'd feel some sympathy for him if he were a...well...sympathetic character.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:59 AMWhither Trousergate?
Berger, while reviewing documents, would take frequent bathroom breaks. On one occasion, personnel noticed an unknown white object beneath his pant leg. A witness said Berger "bent down, fiddling with something white, which could have been papers, around his ankle." No Archives official did or said anything.As a report by the Archives' inspector general noted, "He headed toward a construction area... looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DoJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone." He then slid the papers under the trailer. But he took more breaks than four documents or normal biology required.
The Berger team has maintained that: OK, it looks bad, but all documents had been submitted to the 9/11 Commission, and in any event copies of the documents still existed. OK, then, why cut them up and destroy them? Maybe because Berger wasn't as interested in the reports themselves but in comments certain recipients may have made on the copies he destroyed.
The 9/11 Commission was naturally curious about how the Clinton administration handled prior terror threats and what it knew, and when, about potential threats. So, it asked Berger to testify. Clinton, we know now, signed a letter authorizing Berger's access to classified documents in the Archives as preparation for his testimony.
A report by the National Archives and Records Administration says Clinton signed an April 12, 2002, letter designating Berger, and another individual whose name was redacted, as "agents on his behalf to review relevant NSC documents regarding Osama bin Laden/al-Qaida, Sudan and presidential correspondence from or to (Sudanese President) Omar Bashir, contained in the Clinton presidential records."
According to the NARA report, a subsequent letter from a National Security Council official dated May 14, 2002, said Berger was repeatedly briefed that "he was not allowed to remove any documentation from NARA." But he did. Now we know that we don't know how many documents he may actually have taken and what was in or on them.
Another jaw dropper from other reports was that when the National Archive staff realized there was a problem, the first person they called was Bruce Lindsey, long-time Clinton consigliere.
Does anyone seriously think that Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't know what Sandy Berger was up to, and what was in those documents he destroyed?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:44 AMFor all the clueless commenters who insist that I'm a conservative, you can't imagine the clutter in my office. Or my many bookcases full of a wide variety of books.
Also, on the fear of death thing, that must explain why the military, fire and police departments are so overrun with liberals.
Articles like this are why so many people have trouble taking psychologists seriously, particularly academic ones. As Tyler says, at a minimum, it would have been useful to have more than two categories. Though it would still be nonsensical. Just more on the continuing Berkeley theme that "conservatism" is a mental disorder.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:15 AM...of good enough. This is the oldest story in military procurement:
Pentagon sources tell NBC News and internal Army documents seem to confirm that Army officials consider Trophy a threat to their crown jewel, the $160 billion Future Combat System (FCS). Under FCS, the Army is paying Raytheon Co. $70 million to build an RPG-defense system from scratch.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:31 AM
...to revisit his sentencing:
The House committee report said Berger was never given a polygraph test despite having agreed to it as part of his plea bargain with the Justice Department in 2005.
This seems like a weird case where a House committee did a better job of investigating than the Justice Department. Of course, I suspect that the Justice Department still has a lot of Clinton apparatchiks in it, despite six years of a Republican White House. That doesn't explain the Attorney General's behavior, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:24 AMBy "environmentalists." Looks like an interesting documentary.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:54 AMI scored a 31, but it's really meaningless, because for many of the questions, in my mind, the answer was "neither of the above," but that wasn't an option. Of course, one knew right out of the box that it was a stupid test, because it assumes that people can be put on a one-dimensional scale of "liberal/conservative." I'd like to know how Glenn answered differently from me to get a lower score.
I agree with him, in that I don't consider myself anything on that scale, and certainly not a "moderate." There's a cretin over at sci.space.policy who, whenever I inform him that I'm neither a Republican or Democrat, or Conservative or "Liberal," invariably says, "then you're a moderate?"
No. As Glenn says, I'm an extremist, but an eclectic one.
[Saturday morning update]
Volokh has more. Note the commenter who has analyzed the Javascript, and found liberal bias:
You start out as fully liberal, and whenever you give the conservative response, it gives you a certain number of points. Therefore, not answering a question is equivalent to giving the liberal answer. All responses give you one point except the first, which gives you two. If a liberal would check a checkbox, its value is ignored, so even if you don't check it, it doesn't affect your score.
So, if I'd done what I wanted to do in many cases, and left the question blank, because it was so mindless, I'd have probably scored as a "liberal." Note all the idiot stereotypes and false choices implied by the questions. As many noted, if I were teaching a political science (now there's an oxymoron) class, I'd flunk whoever came up with this thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:26 PMOne more sign that that age of the British Empire is long past:
A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: "What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us."Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:58 AMDefence sources said it would be unlikely that the Navy could now launch an armada of the kind that retook the Falkland Islands in 1982.
Steve Bush, editor of the monthly magazine Warship World, said the MoD was bankrupt following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"After 10 years of Labour government, the Royal Navy is on its knees without immediate and proper funding. I cannot see how it can recover especially if Mr Brown becomes the next prime minister," he said.
If this defection to the Conservatives happens tomorrow, you know that the Liberals in Canada are going to sound like this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:54 AM1) While McVeigh affirmed that the OKBOMB conspiracy began in September 1994, it remains a question if there was a meeting with Elohim radicals, including Strassmeir, on or after that date. What has been verified is that on that day McVeigh checked into a motel that day near Elohim City.2) Did McVeigh receive funds from the Midwest Bank Robbers?
3) Did Kevin McCarthy ever see Strassmeir with McVeigh or did he know of a friendship between them? For a time, McCarthy was Strassmeirs roommate in Elohim City. After being arrested, another gang member suggested McCarthy had helped McVeigh with the Oklahoma City bombing.
4) Why has the Department of Justice been unable or unwilling to help the subcommittee locate Kevin McCarthy?
5) Where was Hussain Al-Hussaini the morning of April 19, 1995?
6) Were the several reliable witnesses wrong when they claimed to have seen McVeigh with Hussaini?
7) Why was Terry Nichols concerned for his personal safety when he traveled to the Philippines in November 1994?
8) Why did Terry Nichols leave $20,000 in a package at his ex-wife Lana Padillas house before departing for the Philippines in November 1994? Where did Nichols get the money?
9) How did Terry Nichols, a man with no steady job or source of income, finance his five trips to the Philippines?
10) Why was an unaccounted-for leg found in the debris after the bombing?
11) Did Terry Nichols play a bigger role than he has admitted or has been thus far proven?
12) Why was there so little investigatory focus on Strassmeir and Hussaini?
13) Why the rush to rule out the existence of John Doe Two?
...The Subcommittee investigators are dismayed that there remains a lack of willingness by the Department of Justice and others to examine certain legitimate issues. The overall assessment is inconclusive on the varied theories.
The "investigation" (like that of death of Vince Foster) was, and remains, a travesty. In both cases, we may never know what really happened.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:42 AMPeter Wood, on the ongoing political theatrics of the left:
My account of how New Anger came bubbling up in Chaits 2003 article like the Texas crude in Jeb Clampits swamp, probably does not correspond with Chaits own view of the matter. In February 2006, when Ken Mehlman had characterized Hillary Clinton as having a lot of anger, Chait offered a rebuttal on Hugh Hewitts radio interview program. Hillary, he said, is just the opposite of angry. I think shes robotic, passionless, dull. Its a revealing statement. Some might think the opposite of angry would be warm, friendly, and engaging. But New Anger casts anger as an altogether enlivening force, so that the opposite of anger becomes lifelessness: robotic, passionless, and dull. Fortunately for George Washington, when we had a new republic, we didnt have Chaits version of The New Republic. What Washingtons contemporaries commended as his dignified self-control, would by these lights, be a woeful lack of zesty anger.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AMIn that interview, Chait went on to say that, The whole notion of anger [in politics] is just weird and misplaced. Hewitt, noticing that Chait seemed to be disavowing the notion and applying it at the same time, pressed him, and Chait added that he didnt let his feelings get in the way of his being cool and rational in analyzing what Bush does. He distinguished his own emotion from the rage he saw among Republicans. Hewitt then read back to him the opening of I hate President George W. Bush, and succeeded in getting only Chaits tepid admission that his language might have sounded like anger.
President Bush claims that he's concerned about spending.
Yeah, right.
The freepers aren't impressed, either:
Gawd, that's almost like Jeffrey Dahlmer pushing for a vegetarian diet....Bush control spending? Start with that prescription drug extravaganza?
...The biggest government spender since LBJ ask for spending limits? LOL
I'd like to think he's serious, but if so, it's too bad that it took a Democrat congress for him to get religion.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out if he is. If he vetoes appropriations bills, as Bill Clinton did in 1994 (when he didn't get enough spending from a Republican congress), who will get the blame in the media for "shutting down the government"? I think we know. As it was then, it will be the political party that starts with an "R."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 AMJames McCormick has a long, but useful review of Mark Steyn's book
Eating alone, in Iraq. Guess those troops aren't as dumb as the senator thinks they are.
[Update at 10 AM EST]
Here's more. You do have to give him some credit for being a good sport, though:
Before taking off, supposedly the helicopter pilot jumped out of the front seat while the rotor was turning (an extremely rare event), approached the rear of the bird, and asked Senator Kerry to autograph a copy of the photograph below.To his everlasting credit, Senator Kerry was a good sport and actually signed it!!!
[Update on January 5th, 2007]
This story seems to have been debunked.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:52 AMI picked up Jimmy Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid at San Francisco airport, and zipped through it in a day. It's a good, strong read by the only American president approaching sainthood.
Emphasis mine. I'll bet he typed this completely unironically. He also thinks that the Brookings Institution is a "right wing think tank."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 AMI'm hearing that Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) has suffered a stroke. No word yet on how serious it is, and here's hoping that it's minimal, and that he recovers soon.
But if it's serious, and he dies or has to step down for health reasons, Republican Governor Mike Rounds would almost certainly appoint a Republican in his place, giving control of the Senate back to them (or rather, if it happens before new Senators are sworn in in January, allowing them to retain control, since the new leadership hasn't been elected yet).
[Evening Update]
Good news for the Senator and his family (and yes, incidentally, for the Dems)]
It appears that it wasn't a stroke. Glad to hear it, Senator. Get well soon.
[Morning update]
Not so good news. Sounds like it was an aneurysm, or some other kind of brain hemmorhage. He just had surgery, which was reportedly successful. No word on the prognosis, but right now he's in critical condition.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:22 PMA four-year-old boy was suspended from school for sexual harassment--of a teacher's aide:
A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the student's parents said that the boy was involved in "inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment" after he hugged the woman and he "rubbed his face in the chest of (the) female employee" on Nov. 10.
Must be education majors.
With Pinochet now in the grave, Vladimir Dorta republishes his 2003 historical essay on Chile and the fantasies of the left.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:19 AM...and clueless kids are still cheering on vile leftist and academic fraud Ward Churchill.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:42 AMHere are two more appropriately caustic reviews of Jimmy Carter's viciously anti-semitic and clueless new book, from Jacob Laksin at the conservative FrontPage Magazine, and the liberal Michael Kinsley. Apparently, Carter is a uniter, not a divider.
[Update at noon]
Rich Lowry writes about our creepy former president:
Carter argues that more people would see the Middle East his way if it werent for the nefarious influence of the pro-Israel American-Israel Political Action Committee. He apparently believes that if only the Palestinian Authority had better lobbyists, then members of Congress would flock to the cause of this chaotic, corrupt, terrorist-supporting excuse for a governmental entity.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:01 AMIncredibly, given his media presence, Carter thinks that he is being silenced by shadowy forces. He makes this bizarre claim: My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment. Does Carter keep track of which schools have lots of Jews? And who does he think is keeping him from speaking at them?
Just as creepy is a passage in the book about Christians in Galilee who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost 2,000 years earlier. As New Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg notes, There are, of course, no references to Israeli authorities in the Christian Bible. Only a man who sees Israel as a lineal descendent of the Pharisees could write such a sentence.
From a surprising source (the WaPo) an editorial about dictators and double standards.
The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:51 AM
Dennis "Tinfoil Hat" (boy, now there's an old post...) Kucinich is running for president again.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:10 PMOur Anonymous Moron troll whines that I don't talk about Darfur.
Well, here's an editorial by Ralph Peters about Darfur with which I agree, though I doubt if Anonymous Moron does:
Europe wrings its hands - as Europe always does - but declines an invitation to the dance. After all, "responsible" governments can't play fast and loose with another state's sovereignty. No dictator or president-for-life would be able to get a decent night's sleep.So Sudan's Islamo-fascists continue to kill with impunity.
Our own left mourns theatrically for Darfur's dead - but no one has formed a new Lincoln Brigade to take on Sudan's Muslims fanatics. And the uncomfortable fact that Arab Muslims are slaughtering black Muslims goes ignored. It doesn't fit the left's comfortable worldview.
Oh, yes: Those on the left demanding that we "bring the troops home" from Iraq would be delighted to send American troops to rescue Khartoum's victims. But our military is occupied with other cases of fanaticism and genocide in the Muslim world this holiday season.
Isn't it curious that, when it comes to liberation, Iraq didn't count? For the endlessly hypocritical left, there's one magic difference between the half-million dead of Darfur and the 1.5 million people killed by Saddam in his internal massacres and neighborhood wars: Bush.
To be fair, I think that there's another one. In the minds of many deranged leftists, Arabs can do no wrong, because they're fighting against the evil West, capitalists and Amerikkka. And they only want us to liberate people when we have no national interest in doing so. And even then, of course, they're not truly liberated unless they're yoked to socialism.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:28 PMBy any rational measure, Castro is a much worse dictator than Pinochet ever attempted to be, but as Jonah Goldberg points out, when he dies, keep an eye out for the contrast in news coverage, and the silence from the left about his depredations against human liberty, relative to the cheering brought on by Pinochet's death.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:59 AMJeanne Kirkpatrick has apparently died. No details.
She was eighty years old (not unusually old these days). I hadn't heard that she was sick, but then, I hadn't heard much about her at all in a long time, so maybe the fact that she was sick was why she wasn't making much news.
Whenever Clinton defenders made the idiotic argument that conservatives didn't like Hillary because they didn't like strong women, she and Maggie Thatcher were always the two obvious rejoinders.
Like Oriana Fallaci, requiescat in pace to another fierce lioness.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Here's a memoriam from AEI.
[Update a few minutes later]
From her speech at the 1984 Republican Convention, about the time she changed parties:
They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do - they didn't blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians - they blamed the United States instead.But then, somehow, they always blame America first.
When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the "blame America first crowd" didn't blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.
But then, they always blame America first.
When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn't blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.
But then, they always blame America first.
When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago.
But then, they always blame America first.
And over two decades later, they still do.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 AMOne of many (good) reasons that John Kerry will never be president. A letter to him from the troops:
DEAR SENATOR KERRY:Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:39 AMWE ARE STILL LAUGHING OVER HERE IN IRAQ AT YOUR JOKE ABOUT THE TROOPS BEING DUMB. WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE A LOT SMARTER THAN WE ARE BECAUSE YOU WERE ABLE TO GET OUT OF COMBAT IN THREE MONTHS. THIS IS WHY WE ARE SEEKING YOUR ADVICE. PLEASE GIVE US GUIDANCE.
1.) WHERE IS THE LEAST PAINFUL AREA ON THE BODY TO INFLICT A WOUND?
2.) DOES IT HAVE TO BLEED OR WILL A SCRATCH DO?
3.) WHERE DO YOU GET THE FORMS TO FILL OUT RECOMMENDING YOURSELF FOR A PURPLE HEART?
4.) DO YOU NEED A WITNESS? IF SO, HOW MUCH DOES THAT COST?
5.) ARE THREE PURPLE HEARTS STILL GOOD FOR A TRIP HOME?
6.) WHAT IS A REALISTIC PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH TO ACQUIRE THESE WOUNDS? LESS THAN THREE MONTHS SOUNDS A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS EVEN TO US.
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP AND KEEP THE JOKES COMING.
JUST A DUMB G.I.
P.S.--WHAT ADVICE CAN YOU GIVE ME ON HOW TO MEET REALLY RICH WOMEN?
An emailer over at The Corner suggests Zell Miller for UN ambassador, to replace the unconfirmable John Bolton.
I've got a better idea. How about Joe Lieberman?
If he accepted, this would give control of the Senate back to the Republicans, since the governor of Connecticut is a Republican, who would appoint his Senate replacement. It would be a great way for him to get back at his Dem "colleagues" without going back on his promise to remain a Democrat.
And can you imagine the entertainment in the confirmation hearings, as the Democrat Senators tied themselves in knots trying to explain why one of their own, and a Jew, is not fit for the job?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:24 AMFrom La Postrel, here and here:
On the old political spectrum, socialism defined the left. That meant that the more you opposed socialism, for whatever reason, the further right you were. On the old spectrum, therefore, classical liberals were on the right, which makes us the right wing of the dynamist coalition.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:39 AMIt matters a lot whether we define our central challenge today as opposing socialism or as protecting dynamism. If we declare "the left" our enemies and "the right" our allies, based on anti-socialist assumptions, we will ignore the emerging left-right alliance against markets. We will miss the symbolic and practical importance of such cutting-edge issues as biotechnology, popular culture, international trade, and Internet governance. We will sacrifice whole areas of research and innovation to stay friendly with people who'll agree to cut taxes just a little bit, and only for families with children. We will miss the chance to deepen the appreciation for market processes among people who lack the proper political pedigree. We will sacrifice the future of freedom in order to preserve the habits of the past.
A noted historian has resigned from his long-time association with the Carter Center over Jimmy Carter's Middle East fantasies and lies:
President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook.
A lot of people can argue over who is the worst president, but Carter has to be the worst former President, hands down.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 AMIlya Somin has some further thoughts on Brink Lindsey's proposal. In fact he repeats an argument that I've made in the past:
Most of those who argue against a libertarian-conservative coalition focus heavily on the issue of civil libeties. It is indeed the case that even most pro-limited government conservatives differ with libertarians on social issues such as censorship of pornography and gay rights. These differences are not going to go away. As a matter of philosophical principle, these differences are very grave. However, they matter less as a matter of practical politics because the ability of government to seriously constrain these kinds of freedoms in the modern world is quite limited. All the efforts of social conservatives over the last forty years have had little impact on people's ability to consume pornography, nor have they significantly slowed what I think is the natural and inevitable evolution towards greater social and legal acceptance for homosexuals.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:29 AM
Brink Lindsey, on a potential alliance between Dems and libertarians.
Brink's a smart guy, but I don't think so. There are too many irreconcilable differences--on guns, on the role of the government, etc.--to put together a workable coalition. In addition, I continue to object to calling collectivists liberals. In many ways, they're the exact opposite. I'm a liberal.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:27 PMTaylor Dinerman writes about one of the many unfortunate consequences of a Democrat Congress--renewed (and more effective) efforts to prevent us from defending ourselves against missiles.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:32 AMThat's what Orson Scott Card is with Gary Trudeau and his comparisons between George Bush and Bill Clinton:
"The second president [Clinton] lies about hooking up with an intern."Aw, yeah, that's nothing. Now, if Clinton had sent her dirty messages by IM or email, then he should have not just been impeached, but convicted and thrown out of office. But actually getting her to perform sexual acts on him, and then lying about it -- heck, who doesn't do that with underage sex partners who are in an almost infinitely subservient relationship with the most powerful man on earth?
And the lying -- never mind that it was under oath in a court proceeding. Never mind that the lie was not to protect national security in any way, but merely to obstruct his opponent in a personal lawsuit based on previous sexual misconduct. It just doesn't matter because it's kind of charming that Clinton's insatiable sexual appetite could not be controlled even when he was in the White House.
Because that just makes him a "babe hound," to quote Trudeau's comic strip. And the Left finds "babe hounds" rather charming. Unless they're Republicans, in which case they must be hounded from office immediately.
This is the moral universe of Garry Trudeau -- and of thousands, perhaps millions of others who subscribe to the Smarty-Pants school of moral reasoning. President Bush, whose actions have obviously been motivated solely by the desire to protect America from a genuine danger from bloodthirsty enemies, is worthy of impeachment for the crimes of (a) not always being right, (b) doing what other presidents have done, and (c) having national media figures hate him so badly that they will happily believe any vile rumor his enemies spread about.
And lest the lefty wingnuts howl about this last, they should read the whole thing, in which their hateful loony rants are preemptively demolished.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:54 AMInstapundit and Radley Balko have been on the warpath for a while against "no-knock" raids.
They should be, and so am I.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:44 PMAll of the evidence in the London assassinations indicates that Putin is behind it. Means, motive, opportunity.
So naturally, Pat Buchanan thinks that this is proof that Putin is being set up.
It's amazing to think of how many people voted for this man for president.
[Update at 7 PM EST]
I didn't read carefully enough. Putin's not just being set up. He's being set up by the Jews!
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:18 PMSo I was reading this article by Michael Barone, about the Democrats' policy prospects, which started out with this:
What will the Democrats do with their majorities in Congress? The 2006 campaign was pretty much an idea-free zone and provides only a few clues.
Surely that can't be right?
I decided to do a search for innovative Democrat policies, though, and sure enough, they're scarce on the ground.
Maybe if we google bomb this enough, it will rise to the top of the list.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:56 PMYouTube joins the War on (Some) Drugs.
Bad on them. The DEA is certainly welcome to post whatever nonsensical propaganda they want on the site, but the suppression of dissent is odious. What kind of arm twisting went on for that?
[Update a few minutes later]
In reading the comments, I see that there's nothing unusual about this. Anyone who uploads a video can disable comments and ratings.
[/VOICE="Emily Litella"]
Never mind.
[/VOICE]
Still, as one of the commenters points out, this could end up backfiring on the drug warriors. First, who's going to go out of their way to look at anti-drug propaganda on YouTube? Second, expect dozens of parodies of the thing to appear very soon, which will get viewed and linked.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:30 AM...and blog comments at their finest. Here's a bunch of encomia to Bo Schembechler, including a lot of classy ones from fans of other schools, including Ohio State:
Bo Schembechler not only revived college football's winningest program, he also revived this rivalry.In the mid-sixties Michigan wasn't even the best team in the State of Michigan. Michigan State was the team that played "the game of the century in 1966, a 10-10 tie against Notre Dame. And the Nat'l Champion Buckeyes beat U-M 50-14 in Bump Elliott's final game.
Bo not only shocked the college football world a year later when his underdog Wolverines beat the heavily favored, unbeaten, and top-ranked Buckeyes 24-12 in his first try against Woody, he restored the winning tradition to Michigan Football and put the emotion back into what is now considered the sport's greatest rivalry.
He also ran an airtight program. No rules violations, no favors, no cheating. Period. And his teams were held to a much higher standard of sportsmanship than the norm. No trash-talking and no cheap shots by Michigan football players were tolerated.
Bo gets a bad rap on his bowl record. Bo always had a reputation for being such a tough guy that the nation never knew that he considered a bowl trip to be a reward for his players and thus didn't crack the whip for those games quite as hard. That, combined with the tougher competition led to a .500 bowl record.
Bo's stubborn, run-oriented offensive schemes may have cost him a few games, but that same stubbornness re-established and maintained a superior level of play on the field and conduct off the field that is the essence of Michigan Football.
And here's an example (and a sadly prophetic one) from a fan of tOSU:
Bo came to Ohio State and spoke at Woody's memorial at the OSU Stadium. His words of his love for Woody made me cry. Today I cried again at the news of his death.Someone sent me an interview comment where Bo was asked what he would like the most and he said to watch the game with Woody. I guess he got his wish.
Rest in Peace Bo.
Go Buckeyes!
May be.
Jim Tressel has a hell of a job getting his players up for this game tomorrow. My advice to him for a pre-game speech:
Men, you know that with Coach Schembechler's death yesterday, those Wolverines are going to be even more fired up than they were before. They were already motivated, and now they're going to be even more so, to "win one for Bo."
And Bo sure would want them to win. But he'd also want them to win against the best Ohio State team they could, because he could never stand a cheap win. In fact, the last thing that he'd want is for his team to win just because he died the day before the game. He'd want his team to play their best, but he'd also want you to play your best, and let the best team win.
There'll be more than one team on that field today who want to win one for Bo Schembechler. Let's go out there and do it for him.
[Update a few minutes later]
I hadn't thought about this, but as the 1968 Tigers healed a wounded Detroit, still reeling from the riots the year before, Bo also healed a war-torn and fractious late-sixties Ann Arbor (a place I knew, and loved, well, from visiting my sister who was attending college there at the time). John Papanek explains.
And for those who still don't understand the significance of this game to college football, here's some interesting trivia:
It is true that the late Ohio State coach Woody Hayes, who did more to pump up the negative feelings in the rivalry than any man, refused to fill up his car in the state of Michigan."I'll tell you why we don't," Hayes said, according to the seminal book, "Woody Hayes and the 100-Yard War." "It's because I don't buy one goddam drop of gas in the state of Michigan. We'll coast and push this goddam car to the Ohio line before I give this state a nickel of my money!"
It is true that Michigan, leading 55-0 late in the 1946 game, lined up and kicked a field goal.
It is true that in 1950, the teams played through a blizzard with 29 inches of snow and more than 50,000 fans sat through it. Michigan's Chuck Ortmann punted 24 times, and the Wolverines won 9-3, despite failing to make a first down. Buckeyes coach Wes Fesler quit a few days later. Ohio State hired the little-known Hayes away from Miami (Ohio).
It is true that in 1970, a local judge in Columbus dismissed a charge of obscenity against a defendant arrested for wearing a T-shirt that said, "F--- Michigan" because the message "accurately expressed" local feelings about the university and the state.
It is true that Hayes sometimes bunked his team in Toledo on the night before a game in Ann Arbor so the Buckeyes could sleep on Ohio ground.
And I found this interesting, too, partly because I'd never thought about it:
Hayes turned the rivalry with Michigan into his personal, 365-day-a-year war. Nearly two decades after his death, Hayes' obsession with all things maize and blue has become his legacy to the state. Hayes rarely recruited in Michigan. In 1969, perhaps the most famous game in the rivalry before Saturday, Ohio State had no players on its roster from Michigan. The Wolverines had 21 players from Ohio.
It really is an asymmetrical relationship, and I think a large part of that is due to Woody. It's been often pointed out that Michigan doesn't have anywhere near the negative passion and animosity toward Columbus that tOSU fans do to Ann Arbor, and I suspect that Woody is a major reason why. His legacy, for good or ill, lives on. Perhaps Bo's death can ameliorate it, at least to a degree. At least for a day?
[Update at 8:30 EST]
Jeez, is this really a global event?
Also, read the "subplots":
The stats might make you think Michigan is quite vulnerable to the pass: The Wolverines have allowed 11 TD passes and rank 65th in passing yards allowed (202 per game). That's a bit misleading. though. Because teams can't run at all against UM (fewer than 30 yards per game when all the sacks are factored in) and Michigan has had the lead almost the entire season, opponents have had no choice but to go up top often.Michigan's best pass defense is obviously a strong rush from the front four, but it's not as if Leon Hall and the gang in the secondary are stiffs!
Michigan has played with a chip on its shoulder this season. Ohio State has been the team on all the magazine covers -- almost wire-to-wire as a nearly unanimous No. 1. UM was picked between 10 and 18 in the preseason magazines I dug up this week. So, it's appropriate that an unbeaten team from mighty Michigan is arriving as an underdog (a bigger dog by the day, it seems). The Wolverines are very dangerous here.
OK, up to this point, I've made no prognostications on the outcome of the game. But now, with Bo's death, if I had money in the game, it would be on Michigan. And not just because I'm an alumnus.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:33 PMPaul Hsieh notes that his fantasy will come to pass tomorrow. And here's some backstory and prognostications from opposing fans.
Go Blue.
[Update at 12:30 PM EST]
What timing. It's an end of a era. On the day before this monumental game involving a team with which he was so closely associated, no mo' Bo:
Broadcast reports say Michigan coaching great Bo Schembechler has died at age 77 after collapsing at a television studio and being rushed to the hospital.
Wonder how that will affect the psychology of the game tomorrow? None of the players played for him, of course, but I'd imagine that they'd met him (he remained Athletic Director, I think), and knew what he meant to Michigan. If they weren't motivated enough, this may inspire them to go out and win one more for the old man. Hail to the Victor.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:33 AMCharlie Rangel has apologized for his slur against Mississippi:
There is no excuse for my having said that. I am fully aware that every American loves their respective state and city, and I'm afraid that my love and affection for New York got in the way of my common sense and judgment, and for that I sincerely apologize.
Well done.
It's a good think that he didn't get advice from Kerry. It probably would have come out something like this:
I'm sorry that the people of Mississippi are too stupid and crazy to realize the inherent and nuanced truth of my statement, when I asked who would want to live there. Of course, it hadn't occurred to me, or any other well-bred, educated people, that the place is full of ignorant inbred rednecks who probably love the place.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:17 AM
Dean Barnett is as unimpressed as I am with the election of Trent Lott as Minority Whip:
If theres one message that the electorate sent the Republican Party last week, its that we hadnt given them enough of Trent Lott....Is it just me, or is it becoming increasingly apparent that the Republicans and Democrats are determined to engage in a two year dumb-off? If it werent for the fact that there are some very determined lunatics out there trying to kill us, this would be funny.
And in honor of the pork-loving, segregation-missing helmet head, I bring you this reprise of my take on his downfall, which didn't happen soon enough, and now seems to have been stupidly reversed. (Hard to believe that was almost four years ago.)
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:01 AMJohn Wixted says that Europe is an economic and demographic failure--a cultural evolutionary dead end:
What's wrong with Europe? The same thing that was wrong with states that chose communism as an economic model, though to a lesser degree. The Europeans are not communists, but their generous social welfare state has moved pretty far in that direction. It is not an inherently evil economic approach -- it might even be morally superior in some ways. The problem is that it just doesn't work.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:10 AMIt is important for people to come grips with this reality because Western Europe is the embodiment of the liberal ideal. Even if you think that liberal thinking is morally superior, the empirical evidence would appear to suggest that it is not practical.
...The Europeans are driving off a cliff, but they don't see it coming because they spend so much of their time reveling in their own moral superiority. I believe that, in their own minds, they are on the cutting edge of societal evolution (to borrow a phrase from Rush Limbaugh), but the forces of natural selection would appear to be working against them.
John Fund has the lowdown (and it's pretty low) on potential incoming Majority Leader John Murtha:
Mr. Murtha has said his only interest in the purported Saudi sheiks' money was that he hoped it would be invested in businesses in his district. But the full tape makes clear that Mr. Murtha was primarily interested in talking about such investments as a possible cover should he later decide to have the money transferred."And what I'm sayin' is, a few investments in my district, a few you know, is big to me, to this guy apparently is not too big, to a couple of banks which would get their attention. And investment in a business where you could legitimately say to me--when I say legitimately, I'm talking about so these bastards up here can't say to me, well, why, in eight years from now, that's possible, we'd never hear a thing for eight years, but all at once, ah, some dumb bastard would go start talking eight years from now, ah, about the whole thing and say, '[expletive], ah, this happened,' then he, then he, in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people and then the [expletive] all falls apart."
The undercover FBI agent in the meeting then spoke up and said "You give us the banks where you want the money deposited."
"All right" Mr. Murtha responded. "How much money we talking about?"
"Well, you tell me" replied the FBI agent.
A few moments later in the tape, Mr. Murtha continues his discussion of how "a business commitment" in his district would be structured: "A business commitment that makes it imperative for me to help him. Just, let me tell you something. I'm sure if--and there's a lot of things I've done up here, with environmental regulations, with all kinds of waivers of laws and regulations. If it weren't for being in the district, people would say, 'Well that [expletive], I'm gonna tell you something this guy is, uh, you know, on the take.' Well once they say that, what happens? Then they start going around looking for the [expletive] money. So I want to avoid that by having some tie to the district. That's all. That's the secret to the whole thing."
...Crile reported that prior to Mr. Wilson's arrival on the Ethics Committee, it had largely given Mr. Prettyman, the special counsel, a free hand in his probe. That quickly changed: "Before Prettyman could fully deploy his investigators to move on the Murtha case, he was informed that the committee had concluded there was no justification for an investigation." The Ethics Committee chairman, Rep. Louis Stokes of Ohio, suddenly declared "This matter is closed."
Mr. Prettyman, who had already likened the Ethics Committee to "a misdemeanor court faced with a multiple murder," was furious at the dramatic change of course. He abruptly resigned his post the same afternoon the committee voted to clear Mr. Murtha. While Mr. Prettyman continues to refuse to discuss the case, he told Roll Call newspaper in 1990 that it would be "a logical conclusion" that he resigned over the committee's exoneration of Mr. Murtha. Crile's book notes that "a teary Murtha had confided to a colleague that Wilson's effort had saved his life."
Does Nancy Pelosi really think that this is the route to long-term power?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AMGlenn has a column today on how democracy is like sex:
My thought has been that elections play the same role for the body politic that sex plays for the body physical: Every so often, the voters throw the rascals out, and vote in a new set of rascals, meaning that the special interest groups, lobbying outfits, etc., that parasitize the body politic have to adapt to a shifting target. As scientist Thomas Ray has said, one rule of nature is that every successful system accumulates parasites. The American political system has been successful for a long time.It's not perfect, of course -- neither is sex, since parasites remain a problem -- but it does mix things up and help prevent special-interest relationships from becoming too fossilized. When the Democrats come in, Republican interest groups lose influence, and vice versa. The question is, does it mix things up enough?
He goes on to suggest additional anti-parasitical measures, such as term limits, but I still think that a sunset amendment to the Constitution could be very powerful in limiting government (since the growth of government power is the culture medium for parasitism). If we could keep the rascals busy renewing (and rejustifying) old laws, they'd have less time for creating new ones, and rent seeking. Unfortunately, it's probably infeasible, politically.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 AMJoe Katzman is trying to understand the selection of Gates for SecDef. Me, too. Bush has only made me unhappier with him (if that were possible) in the wake of the election.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:33 AMBoy, the folks at Red State are less than impressed (to put it mildly) with the new pick for head of the RNC.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:22 PMTranscript from Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Jim Jeffords of Vermont crossed over and joined the Democrats.SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: And they gavethey gave him his committee chairmanship.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Youre, youre not ruling that out at some future time?
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Im not ruling it out, but I hope I dont get to that point.
Sounds like a shot over the cut'n'run Dems' bow to me. If we don't see people hanging on to helicopters at the embassy in Baghdad in a few months, it may be because of Joe Lieberman.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:08 AMGlenn comments on Webb's classy behavior.
I hope, if not expect, that this is why the Dems victory will be short lived.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 PMIf I were the administration, I'd try to talk Joe Lieberman into becoming Secretary of Defense, and then replacing him with an appointee by Connecticut's Republican governor. Lieberman probably made a deal with Reid and Pelosi that he wouldn't switch parties, but I'll bet he didn't promise to serve out his term.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:22 AM...but I can sympathize with Montgomery Burns, who famously said, "Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you!"
Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:22 PMIf the Republicans lose tonight, they'll have gotten what they deserved. I hope that at least they'll do some soul searching.
Unfortunately, the Democrats will have gotten what they didn't and don't deserve--political power, in wartime.
We really need a new party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:38 PMN. Z. Bear (where does he find the time to program this stuff?) has set up a very readable page to track election results as they come in.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:22 PMGreg Mankiw has some thoughts. I don't believe that high voter turnout is an intrinsically desirable goal, which is why I'm opposed to "motor voter" and other means designed to increase participation. If people aren't willing to do a little work for their franchise, they don't deserve it, as far as I'm concerned. The goal should be informed votes, with quality, not quantity. Of course, that wouldn't work out well for the Dems.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:11 AMFrom Lileks. He seems a little pessimistic (perhaps with good reason--we'll find out as the sun goes down across the nation):
Its been an interesting election season, Ill grant that. Our would-be gubernator, Mike Hatch, called a reporter a Republican whore, and it yielded a piece in the paper about how stress and scrutiny lead candidates to make mistake in the final days. Any who knows Mr. Hatch knows the comment had nothing to do with stress or scrutiny, but rather with the fellows personality; he is a mean, small man. But if he wins, Garrison Keillor will write a column about how the ancient true Minnesota virtues of Decency have been reasserted, because Mr. Hatch will quite possibly raise the gas tax, and nothing confirms our essential decency like the ever-steady rise of state levies sloshed off to indistinct purposes....Those are my local races; I expect theyre mirrored one way or the other around the country. I expect the next two years to go poorly, Im afraid. Then again, Im often wrong; perhaps its possible for a country to win a war with apologies and investigations. Perhaps were not at war at all; perhaps Iran and the jihadists are merely an illusion conjured up by the puppetmasters, just as they turned Iraq the veritable Monaco of Mesopotamia into a Threat, and just as they defended Israel against the brave Defenders of the Apartment Buildings in Lebanon. I really should relax. I mean, if youre driving down the road and you see a car coming towards you head on in your lane, theres no reason to worry. Youre in the right. What else matters?
[Update a few minutes later]
And to continue on a downer note, Joe Katzman has a post on the road to atomic perdition:
Wretchard's famous 3 conjectures, and related posts, talked about the current window of time as equivalent to "the golden hour" during which a trauma patient can still be saved and death averted. This announcement tells us, very clearly and in no uncertain terms, that The Golden Hour has just about passed us by. Welcome to a future in which the use of nuclear weapons in war approaches certainty, followed by the inevitable responses. Welcome, in other words, to Fibonacci's propagating nuclear spiral of a multi-proliferation future. One that features nuclear weapons in the hands of death-cult barbarians, the vast majority of whom grew up in an atmosphere glorifying suicide-martyrdom as mankind's greatest moral achievement.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:06 AMThe world in which your children will live.
The CPUSA has endorsed the Democrats. And the libertarians are supposed to? Really? You'd have to have a real bad case of cognitive dissonance.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:18 PMNo matter how atrocious they've been on so many issues. Just to wipe the smile off of Chris Matthews' face. And of course, there's hardly an issue on which I disagree with the Republicans on which the Dems wouldn't be much worse.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:03 AMAustin Bay has written what I'd like to hope is John Kerry's political epitaph:
John Kerrys simply not ready for the YouTube world.Follow his career, such as it is. Kerrys made it to the lofty perch of Senator from Massachusetts by:
(1) planning a political career from the age of 15 (if not age 11)
(2) riding the coattails of the Kennedy political machine (ie, brown-nosing and carrying water for the clan)
(3) marrying rich women
This nifty route to power works for a mediocre, arrogant politico in a world where the friendly political machine and a friendly media mask his foibles, incompetencies, and inadequacies.
The friendly machine and media also blunt criticism. The arrogant mediocrity (backed by clan and family cash) can float along within a machine and media bubble, slowly rising from preening young poseur to Beltway Clerk to Senator.
The Internet and talk radio have burst that bubble. The bubble is a puddle of slippery soap. I suspect Kerry now knows it. His Tuesday (October 31) press conference was a dismal failure. He essentially pounded his chest like an eighth grade boy and shouted Im a man. That conference was designed to focus his (Kerrys) media enablers on the White House, and spin the story as a Kerry versus Bush conundrum rather than Kerry responding to the people hed slandered. The New York Times bought that meme, but the Internet didnt. Troops responded with the now classic Jon Cary halp photo, which Drudge slapped on his page. Kerry then went into seclusion as safe a place as any for a man insistently destroying himself. But seclusion sounds so un-manly, doesnt it? (Seclusion thats where Victorian ladies retreat after their latest affair becomes Londons topic du jour.)
[Update about 10 AM EST]
Mark Steyn has further thoughts on Kerry, and the extinction of the Henry Jackson Democrats.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 AMGrassfire.org says that we should apply the "Pelosi Standard" to Kerry's apology:
[Lott] can apologize all he wants. It doesnt remove the sentiment that escaped his mouth that day at that party. And I find it something that is unacceptable. I dont know what the remedy is to it but I do know what Sen. Lott said. I know that it was completely inappropriate. I dont know if any apology is adequate.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:12 AM
...of John Kerry. It takes a Brit to point it out:
US servicemen are revered in a way that the British squaddie can only dream of. Soldiers travel in uniform and are routinely ushered to the front of queues and given upgrades to business class with no questions asked. On an American Airlines jet from Dallas last Sunday, a flight attendant made a spontaneous announcement about "the sacrifice our young men and women are making to keep us safe". The whole plane applauded her.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AMThis is not just rah-rah jingoism. The aching reality of war is also apparent. At Houston airport on Wednesday night I pulled up behind a white hearse with two soldiers in dress uniform inside it. "That's one of our boys coming home from Iraq," said a sombre Avis representative, waving me past.
As Kerry has found out, you try to exploit this sentiment for political gain at your peril. The military is the most integrated sector of American society. Poor youths with a bit of get up and go about them use it to get funding for college to pull themselves up a rung on the economic ladder.
I have sat in Humvees and Bradley fighting vehicles with black sergeants from Alabama, marines from Mexico and good ol' boy snipers from Kentucky in places like Fallujah and Ramadi as they described their hopes with an affecting optimism that belied the mortal danger they were in. In many ways, they embody what is great about America.
He was probably just speaking from his own experience. After all, he didn't study that much, had lousy grades in school, and ended up in a hot-fire zone in Vietnam. He just figured that's the way it was for everyone.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:04 AMThough I'm not a conservative, I have to agree with this NRO editorial:
Conservatives have had plenty of cause to complain that Republicans dont deserve reelection this year. But deserve has nothing to do with it. This election does not provide a cost-free opportunity to punish congressional Republicans for their many sins. A Democratic Congress will have real-world consequences for taxpayers, the economy, the judiciary, immigration, Iraq, and the War on Terror. No matter how disappointing the GOP has been, the country doesnt deserve a Democratic majority.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:04 PMAre we saying that the case for the Republicans largely consists of the fact that the Democrats are worse? Yes, actually. Every election presents a choice, and voters have to decide which alternative is better than the other. For conservative voters, that is not as hard a call as it has been made out to be.
There are probably more loathsome human beings, but it's hard to imagine one that came as close to becoming president as Senator John Kerry.
And you know, this insulting-the-troops thing has to be driving him nuts, because he probably was taking a slam at Bush, but it backfired. A smart politician would apologize, and say that he didn't intend any insult to the troops themselves, but Kerry's not a smart politician. I don't think that going on the offensive (and I mean that in more than one way, with his comment about Tony Snow and Rush Limbaugh) is going to play well with the independent and moderates, regardless of how much it gives orgasms to the net roots. In particular, when he talks about how he's always supported the troops, it just provides another opportunity for his opponents to remind people of the 1972 Senate testimony, in which he accused them of being war criminals.
And if this story develops legs like a centipede, and extends for another week into the election, and the Dems don't do as well as they are currently drooling for, guess who will get the blame? Not that he ever had a prayer, but that will be the end of any hope, even on his own part, that he will get the Dem nomination again.
[Update a few minutes later]
Kerry obviously never learned the first lesson of holes (i.e., when in one, stop digging). Now he's insulted the troops again:
I am a retired US Navy Senior Chief who spent 21 years serving in the nuclear navy. I read Kerry's statement and took it as an insult. I just heard his press conference and now take offense that he thinks I'm "crazy" because I was insulted by his remarks last night.
As others have said, like Howard Dean, he's a gift to Republicans that just keeps on giving.
You have to wonder just how powerful Rove's mind-control beams are to get them to behave this way.
[Update]
For those wondering what this is about, here's the video on youtube.com. And as one commenter pointed out, if he meant to insult Bush, that's kind of ironic, considering that the president has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, with better grades than Kerry got.
[Update about 4:37 PM EST]
Bush is going to make a speech shortly that had been previously planned, but he will now take the opportunity to respond to Kerry's remarks. Time to put on some popcorn.
[Update a little before 6 Eastern]
Austin Bay has further thoughts:
Im listening to his latest statement (1:30 or so CST) and it is a re-hash of The Great Litany of leftish accusations. Reaction as I listen this guy knows he made a mistake and hes pedaling fast. Wait now he says he is a real man. Yeah, he basically said hes a real man. (Get a transcript!) If hes a real man, he has the chance to prove it. Senator Kerry needs to debate his Swift Boat veteran critics. Man to man. Now. Not later.In the spare space of 24 hours Kerry has resurrected the Vietnam Syndrome at least his and the left wing of the Democratic Partys Vietnam (losers) Syndrome. This is stupid but particularly stupid in the last week of a national election. Doubly stupid in the midst of a long, grinding war. Kerry is trapped, in an odd sort of amber. Hes stuck on stupid and stuck in the past simultaneously.
Judith Weiss writes about the asymmetry between blue and red:
People just assume youre a Democrat." Boy do they.Another thing they do which Kornblat doesn't give an example of, but which we all have experienced: They always start political conversations. None of us do. We have learned that no one wants to argue issues on their merits, that the room gets very quiet and unfriendly, that people start screaming at you, or rant the most loopy beliefs and conspiracy theories. We just assume that is not a topic anyone can treat in a dispassionate manner.
But they always provoke political conversations. Well, not conversations, which would be enjoyable and enlightening. They make pronouncements. And look around the room to see if anyone not only doesn't agree, but doesn't agree enthusiastically. As a friend deep in the closet in the theater world put it, you can't just sit quietly and wait for the topic to change. No, you are suspect if you do not vocally endorse the official opinion of the group. You thought you were in a project meeting or a coffee klatch or a dinner party, and all of a sudden it has turned into the Communist Youth League Self-Criticism Session.
And then, after they have assumed, because no one in the room has fangs or horns, that a political support group is what everyone wants (and they do, except for you) - if you express your difference of opinion, they are offended that you spoiled the intimate feeling in the room by being other than they assumed, based on their superficial reading of you. In other words, they brought up politics, but they are the only ones who get to play. If you join in, you are the one who soured the conversation by bringing up politics. Because they weren't trying to start a political discussion, they just wanted to commiserate with friends. You party pooper.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:35 AM
...to Dems and particularly to Nick Lampson if he loses the race for Tom Delay's seat to a write-in candidate? The Houston Chronicle says that it could happen. I'm assuming that whoever wins will continue to be a steadfast supporter of pork at JSC, including Orion.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:01 AMArmed Liberal has an offer for simpletons who think that fascism is descending on America, but things are great elsewhere.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:59 AMBut not quite, thanks to blogs:
..on July 19, 1958, several black teenagers, members of the local NAACP chapter, entered the downtown Dockum Drug Store (then the largest drug store chain in the state) and sat down at the lunch counter. They were ignored. They kept coming back and sitting at the counter, from before lunch through the dinner hour, at least twice a week for the next several weeks. They sat quietly, creating no disturbance, but refusing to leave without being served....They asked for help and support from the national NAACP, but the national organization refused to endorse or even acknowledge their actions. The confrontational tactic was against NAACP policy. The national newswires picked it up and the story ran nationwide, but quickly vanished.
On August 11, while the early arrivals were sitting at the counter waiting for their friends to show, a white man around 40 walked in and looked at them for several minutes. Then he looked at the store manager, and said, simply, "Serve them. I'm losing too much money." He then walked back out. That man was the owner of the Dockum drug store chain.
That day the lawyer for the local NAACP branch called the store's state offices, and was told by the chain vice-president that "he had instructed all of his managers, clerks, etc., to serve all people without regard to race, creed or color." State-wide. They had won, completely. Their actions inspired others, and the sit-in movement spread to Oklahoma City. By the middle of 1959, the national NAACP was losing disaffected members for refusing to endorse the scattered but spreading sit-in protests, gave in, and sponsored the Greensboro sit-ins.
Nineteen months before the Greensboro sit-ins that have been credited with being the start of the civil rights sit-in movement, it really began at a downtown drug store in Wichita, Kansas. The Dockum sit-ins were largely ignored by the NAACP in their archives, probably out of embarrassment, and were unknown even to many civil rights historians.
This is the kind of civil rights that everyone can get behind. No laws were needed to get the chain to do the right thing. The market did it, as a result of the demand of its customers. Jim Crow was evil, but most don't seem to understand, or remember, that Jim Crow was the government. When the government gets involved, in fact, history indicates (as evidenced by affirmative action, not even to mention much of the twentieth century in Europe, including Russia, and South Africa) that racial discrimination gets more, not less egregious, and that individuals take hindmost. And of course, the NAACP should be ashamed.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 PMYou know, I find it bizarre to read about fascism descending on America, when (as always) it always descends on Europe. Well at least of you consider the UK part of Europe, which the people behind these civil rights monstrosities would like to.
We live in a country where young boys - one was just seven - are taken aside and questioned for trying to knock conkers out of chestnut trees on public ground. Where a grandmother whose neighbour accused her of not returning a ball kicked into her garden was arrested, fingerprinted and required to give her DNA. The police went through every room in her house, even her daughter's drawers, before letting her go without charge or caution.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:12 PMWhere two sisters can be arrested after a peaceful protest about climate change, held in solitary confinement for 36 hours without being allowed to make a phone call, then told not to talk to each other as a condition of their bail. As this paper reported, their money, keys, computers, discs and phones were confiscated, their homes searched.
There is much more, all of it enabled by Blair's laws and encouraged by a vindictive and erroneous contention that defendants' rights must be reduced in the pursuit of more and quicker prosecutions. Our prisons are full, problem teenagers are, by default, exiled to a kind of outlawry and every citizen becomes the subject of an almost hysterical need by the authorities to check up on and chivvy them.
Heh.
Tell the base their votes won't be counted, then wonder why they won't vote - I will never be smart enough to be a Dem strategist.Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:59 PM
I've been a long-time reader (and a rare poster) over there. It's often a source for interesting news stories, and often quite amusing threads based on them. But Jim Robinson, the site founder and proprietor seems, to put it simply, to have gone nuts.
There have always been three topics that generate a lot of heat (and usually little light) over there: homosexuality, the War on (Some) Drugs, and evolution. It looks as though heretics who don't believe in creationism will no longer be tolerated over there. Too bad--it was fun while it lasted.
Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians are all facing deep schisms. The Libertarians have been splintered by the war, as have the Dems, but these social issues are breaking down the long-time useful alliance between small-government conservatives and libertarians, and social conservatives within the Republican Party. It's not clear whose split is worse, or what the long-term political consequences will be. I do think that it opens up room for a new political party of some type, perhaps by the disenchanted libertarians (e.g., me, Glenn Reynolds) who make up much of the blogosphere.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:14 AMLileks imitates Andrew Sullivan discussing the weather with Hugh Hewitt. Of course, you have to suffer through Hugh's actual interview with Andrew to truly appreciate it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:26 AMArnold Kling says that it's the nature of politicians.
We have to expect mediocrity from political leaders. They are selected by a very unreliable process. In general, I try to avoid contact with narcissists who spend their time pleading for money. Those are hardly the intellectual and emotional characteristics that make someone admirable, yet they are the traits of people who go into politics.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AM...The libertarian view is that private institutions, both for-profit and non-profit, are better at problem-solving than government institutions. Regardless of whether political leadership is wise or mediocre, our goal should be to limit the damage that public officials can do. Do not demand that they "solve" health care, "fix" education, or launch a "Manhattan project" for energy independence. Even for experts, those are impossible tasks. The harder we press our existing leaders to address these issues, the more trouble they are going to cause.
That's what it looks like the Australians have been doing with their gun buy-back program:
Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns, Mr Howard and others predicted the removal of so many guns from the community, and new laws making it harder to buy and keep guns, would lead to a reduction in all types of gun-related deaths....Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.
Yes, politicians assume all kinds of idiotic things.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:03 PMAs the US gets its 300 millionth resident, is Europe in one?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:08 AMKaus amusingly dissects some particularly stupid arguments against "the fence."
7. "[E]fforts to protect pronghorn sheep and encourage the jaguar to return to the United States could be seriously affected." We can patrol the whole border with high-tech cameras and "ground-based radar," yet we can't cut some holes for pronghorn sheep and patrol just them with cameras and "ground-based radar"? That would be something for the unionized border guards to do! But I guess we might have to give up the jaguar.... Oh wait, we don't have jaguars. We might have to give up re-acquiring the jaguar. OK. Which will it be: No new jaguars or no new illegal immigrants. Let's vote!Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:01 AM
Here's a post that the trolls can comment about to their black little hearts' delight. The lefty troglodytes once again display their fascist thuggish tendencies, and cognitive dissonance, in their threat to "take it to the streets."
One of the laughable things about the charge of Bush stealing elections is that on one hand, the majority of the left looks at Bush as a clueless wonder, and have done so from day one. To them, hes inept in everything he does - yet somehow Dumbya knows how to mastermind stealing elections! Theyve never been able to explain how on one hand hes the worlds biggest idiot, yet on the other hand has managed to orchestrate election fraud on a widespread scale. Probably because this, like so many of their other inconsistencies, is something they cant explain.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:26 AM
I'd like to ask Jim Webb, ""what has changed"?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:37 PMOne of the catch phrases of the Simpsons is when Reverend Lovejoy's wife, in response to some event requiring community action/some new law, is "What about the children! Won't anyone think of the children?"
Given human nature (particularly the maternal instincts of women, who are more often the target of such political tactics), it's an effective form of demagoguery. A very effective one.
For instance, it's often used by gun controllers, by using statistics talking about how many "children" are killed by guns in the inner city. Unfortunately for their case, the "children" killed by guns often turn out to be late teenagers (you know, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen?) and often people even in their early twenties, due to insufficient vetting of the actual ages of those killed in the gangland shootouts (no, tell me that it isn't so...).
Even more egregious is those who, like potential Nobel laureate (and the fact that she is even being considered for this is at least as devastating an indictment of the uselessness of that award as the actual awarding of it to the likes of Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter) Cindy Sheehan, talk about sending our "children" to fight and die in Iraq. This ignores the fact that no one goes into Iraq involuntarily--all who sign up for the all-volunteer military do so under the influence of their own will. (Note: If anyone can find a case in which someone delivered their "child" unto the evil maws of the Bushitler-Cheney-Rumsfeld war machine, with the infant kicking and screaming in protest, let me know pronto, so I can amend this post). Moreover, these "children" are old enough to drive, to vote, and (in many cases) to legally purchase alcohol. But it makes for much better anti-US (not anti-war--many of them are just on the other side) sound bites to bleat about the "children" that we are "sending" off to die.
So now comes the usually reasonable Representative, and aspiring Senator, Harold Ford, who reportedly said yesterday:
I'm just not going to take morality lessons from a party the National Republican Committee is running it from a party that took hush money from a child predator.
The usual morons in the comments section will continue to think that I am defending Republicans here, but I'm not. What Foley did was reprehensible, and he did the right thing by (at a minimum) resigning. But there is no evidence that he is a pedophile, or interested in children, and the continuing insinuations that he is says more about the desperation of Democrats than about him. He emailed and IMed young men, not children. Sixteen is an age at which it used to be common to marry. Looking throughout human history, it is only in our current infantilized, "failure to launch" society that such a person would be considered a "child."
It has gotten to the point with me that any time anyone uses the "for the children" argument on an issue, I now tend to assume that its proponent is pulling a fast one, and has no actual arguments in favor, and that it's probably something to therefore be opposed. I hereby call for a morotorium on the argumentum pro parvulis. Let it be heard no more in any political campaign.
Let's do it for the children.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:37 PMInstapundit has a roundup of links about a story that students are actually being taught to defend themselves.
All of them seem to miss a critical point.
There are few instincts to any life form, let alone humans, more fundamental than those designed for survival. If we have to tell people (yes, even children) to defend themselves, we ought to be asking why such advice is necessary.
If children have to be told to not hide under desks, to throw things, to not be passive sheep, why is that? Why is it that, in contravention of their genetic heritage, they would be expected to act as a herd, and not a pack? Why is it that, in opposition to their fundamental nature, they would have to be instructed in basic survival techniques?
One can only conclude that, because one of one of the more modern traits inherent in humans, it is because we have trained them to be passive, to submit, to go along with whatever program whatever terrorist has planned for them, because after all, The Man will come and save them, if they can only survive long enough for the actual negotiators to come along and offer whatever submissive supplications that the terrorists will demand to spare the lives of the tots.
After all, we all know that the way to peace is submission. Appeasement. Surely their demands must be reasonable--else they wouldn't make them. Wouldn't they?
So, every day, we inculcate our young'uns in the culture of appeasement, to protect them. If they'll be nice to their captors, their captors will surely be nice to them.
Well, actually, we learned a different lesson on September 11th. More specifically, the passengers on UL Flight 93 learned that perhaps going along with the program wasn't the ideal course of action. But they'd have never known it from their pre-flight instructions, or the constant barrage of propaganda from the peacemakers in the media and their supposed protectors in government agencies. No, they had to learn it from forbidden cell phones, from which they learned, illegally, that other planes, just like theirs, had been hijacked, and flown into skyscrapers.
They were headed for Washington, where there were no skyscrapers. There were only national monuments. And a White House. And a Capitol Building, with many representatives of the people inside. And a Pentagon...
They had been told not to resist, but they did. They were adults, with the faculty of reason, and the ability to change their programming as events, and information about them, required.
But the thought that we have to teach children to defend themselves should give us pause. How did they know to defend themselves when we were living in caves? How did they know when under seige? How did they know when on the frontier, against the wolves, and the cougers, and the bears?
They knew because they were bred to know. It is only today that we have to reteach them things they already know, because we've previously taught them nonsense. Let us hope that the unteaching of nonsense is easier than the teaching of it, and more enduring.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:46 PMMoronic comment trolls aside, this remains an interesting topic. Peggy Noonan wonders why the left thinks that they are entitled to a monopoly on free speech:
What is most missing from the left in America is an element of grace--of civic grace, democratic grace, the kind that assumes disagreements are part of the fabric, but we can make the fabric hold together. The Democratic Party hasn't had enough of this kind of thing since Bobby Kennedy died. What also seems missing is the courage to ask a question. Conservatives these days are asking themselves very many questions, but I wonder if the left could tolerate asking itself even a few. Such as: Why are we producing so many adherents who defy the old liberal virtues of free and open inquiry, free and open speech? Why are we producing so many bullies? And dim dullard ones, at that.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:11 AM
Just as torturing helpless animals as a child is a good sign of a psychopath, corrupt politicans usually cut their teeth on land deals.
And in an email, Dennis Wingo explains what Harry Reid did:
First, Harry buys the land for $400k in 1998.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:24 AMSecond, he sells it in 01 (before the Bush tax cuts) for $400k, with no net capital tax gain.
Third, he sells it again in 04 and pays personal capital tax gain at 15% the rate in 04.
This is a $165k tax on a $1.1M sale.
If that had been a sale through a company, the sale would have been taxed at the corporate tax rate of 35% or $385k. The difference is $220k in his pocket by the way that he accounted for the sale.
Number 13,765, and a continuing mystery. Why did Sandy Berger get off with such a light sentence from the Justice Department?
Frankly, I would love to see the Republicans lose power, because they deserve to. Unfortunately, there's no way to do that without having the Democrats win, which they don't deserve, and the country would suffer for it. And not fake, hysterical suffering like the fantasies of the Bush haters.
Oh, and if we had more Republicans like Dick Armey, who came down with both feet on idiotarian bully James Dobson, the party would be in a lot better shape. What we need is an army of Armeys.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:08 AMThe illustrator for The Flintstones, and many other classic Hanna-Barbera hit cartoons, has died. I'm dating myself, but I remember being allowed to stay up and watch, and if I was good, watching Jackie Gleason and Crazy Guggenheim.
Of course, back then, we didn't realize that Huckleberry Hound was so gay. But it seems obvious now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:09 PMIt would be a shame if the Republicans use this ad. It's so mean. It's valid, of course, but still...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 PMDave Kopel, who is apparently quite hot, writes about the folly that is the idiotic policy of making schools a free-fire zone for criminals.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:28 PM"Grim" has some thoughts on the dismal state of the federal government. I agree with most of them, including repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, except for this suggestion:
I suggest the elimination of Congressional districts, so that all representatives are elected in a single statewide election. If a state were to have ten representatives, then, a hundred people could run -- the top ten vote-getters would take office. That would restore the force of electoral pressure to the House, where it is designed to be. It would increase turnover of Representatives, and cut down on the corruption in the government.
It would do those things, and those are good things, but it would have undesirable consequences as well. Like eliminating the electoral college, it would effectively disenfranchise rural voters, leaving them at the untender mercy of the voters in the big cities who would elect all representatives, and not just their own.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:31 PM...to the school shooting problem. I predict it won't be adopted, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:08 AMAndy McCarthy writes about Democrat hypocrisy in the Foley matter:
Oddly, under circumstances where Foley is now gone because he could not last 30 seconds as an elected Republican once his conduct was revealed, we are now observing a frenzied call for Hastert's head for not doing enough to investigate behavior that actually pales in comparison to Clinton's. That frenzy, without a hint of irony or embarrassment, is being stoked by some of the very same people who affirmatively minimized conduct that was orders of magnitude worse than Foley's in order to close ranks around a much more consequential public official who, far from being gone in 30 seconds, was enabled by this support to cling to office for years, finish his term, and remain the Democratic Party's top star.
And as Dennis Wingo notes in comments, the irony abounds:
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaida solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.
I wish we had another party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:14 AMBad news for the likes of Hot Air America, though. Billionaire moonbat George Soros is giving up on politics.
Guess he decided that he's pissed away enough millions on a losing cause that deserved to lose. Too bad he can't come up with something useful to do with his money. I could have funded some interesting space ventures with what he wasted on Kerry and company.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 AMArnold Kling writes about his journey from leftism to libertarianism (similar to mine, except his took a lot longer), and the ways in which both philosophies are similar, and those in which they are different:
- Far Leftists and libertarianism have much in common.
- Libertarians know something that Far Leftists do not.
What I believe that Libertarians have learned is what social psychologists call the Fundamental Attribution Error. The error is to attribute behavior to a person's character when this behavior is in fact based on context. In one classic experiment, the subject is asked to watch a person read a speech that the subject knows that the speaker did not write. Subjects attribute to the person the beliefs contained in the speech.
The Far Left believes that bad policies come from evil motives. In this view, villains, such as powerful corporations, oppose good policies, and political incumbents lack the strength and courage to overcome the villains.
Libertarians believe that context is more important. We believe that government power is inherently corrupting, regardless of who holds leadership positions or how they are influenced. We believe that the market does a relatively good job of channelling self-interest toward socially desirable ends.
This encapsulates my views toward NASA. Contra the strawman views that I'm occasionally falsely accused of holding, it is not a diabolical, hegemonic government agency, run by evil people who want to Keep Humanity Out Of Space (though it's often hard to figure out just what it would be doing differently if it were). It's simply a blundering government bureaucracy seeking rent, as government bureaucracies are wont to do, with many good and smart people working for it responding to the incentives within. Sadly, the administrator seems generally to not understand this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:50 AMBush's refusal to relinquish power diabolically marches on.
First it was low unemployment. Then he made the gas prices fall, no doubt in connivance with his oil buddies. Then he got Rove to turn off the hurricane machine. And now, through machinations unknown, but probably having something to do with Skull and Bones, he's conspired to bring the Dow within fifteen points of an all-time high.
How much more devastation can we allow this evil man to wreak on our beleagered nation?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AMDick Morris writes that the public finally got to see the private Bill Clinton that those who worked for him saw. He also takes apart his disingenuous strawmen and falsehoods.
Apparently, the times that Clinton seems most angry and finger poking ("I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski") are the times that he's most vociferously defending his lies.
[Update at 4 PM EDT]
Paul Sperry recalls his own encounter with an enraged Bill Clinton:
What happened over the next 10 minutes was nothing short of a "scene." The party-goers collapsed in around us. I watched the blood rush to Clinton's gargantuan face as he launched into a tirade against ex-Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, the FBI, Bob Dole and Republicans in general, similar to his Sunday attack on right-wingers and Fox News and Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove during the Wallace interview. All the while, he tried to intimidate me by getting in my face, just as he did Wallace.Clinton's not just intellectually intimidating, he's physically imposing. He's tall (6 feet 2 inches) and big-boned. Luckily, I'm the same height and was able to stand toe-to-toe and eye-to-eye with him. I'll never forget the maniacal look in his bloodshot eyes. There was a moment, fleeting, where I sensed he wanted to try to take a swipe at me. His volcanic temper, hidden so well from the public by his handlers, erupted less than 12 inches from my eyes.
[Update at 6 PM EDT]
Myrna Blythe says that Bill is Hillary's biggest problem.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:07 AMDebra Saunders writes about the sham of the environmentalist liberal glitteratti:
Last week, they flew to their Mecca, the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York. For the left-leaning and loaded, this is the meet that has it all -- the mega-rich paying to be seen caring about poor people and the environment, while posing for photos with former President Clinton.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 PMYou see, they care so much more about the environment than President Bush because they support the Kyoto global warming pact, which they believe would save the planet from greenhouse gases, if only Bush had not rejected it. (Never mind that Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the pact, probably because senators voted 95 to 0 for a resolution rejecting any treaty that exempted China and India.)
Paul Krugman today attempts to answer the question, "Why is the insurance industry growing rapidly, even as it covers fewer Americans?"
In 2005, the percent of uninsured was 15.9%. In 2000, it was 14.0%. In 2000, private insurers covered 72.4% of Americans or 204 million. In 2005, they covered 67.7% or 201 million.
Total number of covered individuals increased from 243 million to 249 million. From 2000-2005, the number employed rose from 137 million to 142 million. The number unemployed rose from 6 million to 8 million.
Could it be that we were experiencing a boom in 2001 and coverage peaked as a percent and that it will rise again if we have another boom with 4% unemployment? The percent of the population working has dropped from 67.1% to 66%.
Could it be that people are feeling secularly more healthy and feel like they can go without health insurance? Between 1999 and 2004, life expectancy at birth has risen from 76.7 years to 77.9 years. At least average health overall is improving by that indicator.
Could it be that the sector is over-regulated? CATO estimates that about 1/6 of daily uninsured would buy insurance if it was less heavily regulated. That would allow health care deregulation to take us from 15.9% to 13.3% uninsured and allow everyone else to save a total of $170 billion a year or $680 per covered individual per year or about 1.4% of GDP.
In short, insurers are covering more people. They are helping increase the average lifespan of all Americans. They are doing it despite a substantial burden of regulation.
Many of the uninsured are immigrants and illegal aliens. There were 8 million immigrants with a little under half of them illegal settled in the US between 2000 and 2005.
I would prefer health savings accounts to insurance. If people shop aggressively because they get to keep the last dollar they would spend on health care instead of having it heavily subsidized and pay only $0.20 on the dollar for their care like an old fashioned blue cross/blue shield plan, people would get much more value for their money. Krugman should know as an economist that if something is free it gets overused and ends up in shortage. If it is heavily subsidized, the value of the marginal dollar of use is equal to the price paid, not the cost. That is, at the margin we are wasting up to 80% of our spending. Health savings accounts--not single payor--will get us to stop wasting health service and start imposing market rigor on providers.
Single payor is a monopoly. We can't exit any more if we switch to single payor. I want choice. Choice breeds research and development and pain amongst bad care givers. Was phone service better value for the money under Ma Bell? Competition is good. Don't squander it.
Krugman also states:
Every other wealthy nation manages to provide almost all its citizens with guaranteed health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do. And theres no mystery why: were paying the price for pointless, destructive reliance on private insurers. Medicare, which is a universal health insurance program for older Americans, spends less than 2 cents of every dollar on administrative costs, leaving 98 cents to pay for medical care. By contrast, private insurance companies spend only around 80 cents of each dollar in premiums on medical care; much of the remaining 20 cents is spent denying insurance to those who need it.
That 2% of every dollar on administrative costs is suspicious. Merely complying with the payroll tax code costs employers $100 billion or 6% out of $1.6 trillion collected. That's nearly 1% of GDP. I can attest as an employer that I do spend about a few minutes every week filling out federal tax, medicare and unemployment withholding amounts and some hours at tax time compiling them all. I would prefer if there were just one line for what the feds got instead of several for the employee and several for the employer.
What good are other countries health care "guarantees"? Canada has a life expectancy at birth of 80.2 according to the CIA World Fact Book for the entire population. That's over two years higher than the US at 77.9. So far so good. On the other hand, our per capita GDP is $42k to their $34k. Would you rather get an extra two years or an extra $500k to live on while you are alive? People vote with their feet. There are 678,000 in the US born in Canada. About twice as many people come to live in the US born in Canada as to move to live in Canada from the US. That makes a Canadian about 20 times as likely to come to live in the US as a US person to come to live Canada because Canada is 1/9 the population.
I agree with Krugman that bankrupting people to get them to qualify for free care is not such a good system. I would use market means to obtain provider of last resort health savings account services for the tweeners who don't qualify for government care. I would shift from extreme regulation to a free market and instead of free medicare services give people access to low interest government loans. The Government loans could survive bankruptcy and the payments on the loans deducted from tax refunds and social security payments.
One parting cheap shot. Krugman started with When Steve and Leslie Shaeffers daughter, Selah, was diagnosed at age 4 with a potentially fatal tumor in her jaw, they figured their health insurance would cover the bulk of her treatment costs. But shortly after Selahs medical bills hit $20,000, Blue Cross stopped covering them and eventually canceled her coverage retroactively. quoted from LA Times and later said "you do wonder how the people who cut off the Schaeffers can look themselves in the mirror".
The next paragraph of the LA Times article says "The company accused the Shaeffers of failing to disclose in their coverage application an undiagnosed bump on Selah's chin and physician visits for croup. Had that been disclosed, the company said in a letter, it would not have insured Selah."
Perhaps the doctor did know that the bump was potentially fatal and told the Schaeffers to go out and get insurance, wrote something inconclusive and told the family to get a second opinion. If so, can the doctor look in the mirror? It would be theft from the rich to give to the poor, just like if BC/BS employee violated company policy. How can Krugman look himself in the mirror for condoning grand theft? And what makes Krugman more special than BC/BS? How can Krugman look himself in the mirror for not writing the Schaeffers a check on the spot personally?
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 03:10 PMParticularly those on cable news networks struggling to get enough viewers to even count as being in last place. Do not exude idiotic commentary if there's any chance that James Lileks will hear of it:
Hear ye: if ever I announce that the lightning is sending me messages about how the government seeks to control what I think, please have me commited for paranoid schizophrenia.
He is also spectacularly unimpressed with Ahmadinejad coddlers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:08 AMRich Lowry, on the self-imposed economic woes of my home state. In a lot of ways, Michigan reminds me of California. A place of great national beauty, being run into the ground by its elected officials.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:51 AMBut they should:
"You did not treat my brothers with respect. You refused to acknowledge them, like you're refusing to acknowledge me. You mocked their southern accents. You literally turned your backs on them, like you're turning your backs on me tonight."You should be ashamed of the way you treated those soldiers. Ashamed! If that is what you think supporting the troops means -- turn your backs on them when they come to talk to you -- then you are either a fool, a coward, or a hypocrite. I leave it to each of you to decide which word fits you best.
"The charade is over. We all know that you do not support the troops. If you did, you wouldn't turn your backs on them. You disrespected my brothers, on our front porch. So let me be absolutely clear: You may have a slip of paper from the City of Washington recognizing your right to stand here, but you are not welcome here.
Speaking truth to...well, not power, but to self-righteous foolishness.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 AMThe Anchoress compares La Fallaci and Rosie O'Donnell:
So great is my respect for Fallaci, that to mention Rosie O Donnell in the same post feels like dipping roses into a land-fill. Both are fragrant but one rises in graceful beauty and the other simply emits noxious gas.Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:21 PMBut I must mention O Donnell, because while she claims herself a woman of the left, she is the polar opposite of Fallaci, and I cannot let Fallaci go without focusing for a second on how far the left as devolved. Where resistance-member Fallaci was intelligently confrontational, trendy-cause committed O Donnell is merely shrill. Where Fallaci dared to look at the effects of Christianity and Islam on civilizations and see real differences and moral distinctions, ODonnell casts a vapid, bigoted glance and calls them all cake, declaring: Radical Christianity Is Just As Threatening As Radical Islam.
After all, she doesnt have to think. The thinking has been done for her by her co-ideologues. All she has to do is fall in line and parrot.
Can anyone else figure out what or who Jon Goff is talking about here? Because I sure can't:
NASA figures that making our nation look like petty hypocrates regarding freedom of speech is a better plan. Inflammatory cartoons about another relgion? No problem. Publically calling for nuking another country off the map? No worries. Wearing the flag of your native land on a spacesuit that you bought for a spaceflight that you paid several million dollars of your own hard earned cash? Sorry, no can do boss.It's been sad seeing friends who have told me ithat they'd rather just see Iran and most of the rest of the Middle East nuked off the face of the map, all the sudden trying to turn Ansari's flight into some sort of political event. Let someone who actually cares about the Iranian people as an end, rather than merely a means, say what she wants to say. It'll probably do far more lasting good for the people of Iran (and the rest of us too) than all of the words that the spacenut side of Right Blogostan would prefer to put in her mouth.
First of all, there's an implication that the same people are advocating different policies under different circumstances (otherwise the talk about "hypocrisy" would make no sense). But NASA didn't publish, or approve the publication of any cartoons of which I'm aware, or publicly call for nuking any countries off the map. In fact, I'm unaware of anyone doing that, other than Jacques Chirac, but maybe I just missed it.
I'm also unaware that anyone who did publish the cartoons, or defended the right of the publishers to do so, has cheered, or even noticed NASA actions with regard to the Ansari flag issue.
(And I'm not sure what Jon's point is with regard to the cartoons--he calls them offensive, but that's only because some Muslims consciously decided to be offended when the cameras were around. What was much more offensive, as is the case with the Pope's recent speech, was all of the violence and death threats over cartoons. Is it only pictures of Allah that offend Jon, or is he also outraged by crucifixi in urine and pictures of the virgin painted with elephant dung?)
So who is it that Jon is kvetching about here? (I'm also curious to know which of his friends would like to see Iran and most of the Middle East being nuked off the map.)
Here's a suggestion. Don't blog when angry. You don't make much sense.
[Update on Saturday evening]
Jon, who is an extremely standup guy, has second thoughts, as I expected he would. I should be so reconsiderate.
I do think, though, that he should leave the original words up for posterity, with accompanying retraction. I correct stuff that I put up, but I don't delete it. Simply removing it (albeit with apology) seems a little too Orwellian to me...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:57 PMConsidering some of the things that she said about him, I thought that this was pretty classy:
The president said Richards "became a national role model, and her charm, wit and candor brought a refreshing vitality to public life."Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:45 AMHe concluded that "Texas has lost one of its great daughters."
Al Franken is finally getting paid close to what he's worth:
...you know things must be bad when even your top star can't get paid. "I don't know if that's true or not," Al Franken told Radar late Wednesday, when asked about the bankruptcy report. "We do know that there have been cash-flow problems. I haven't been paid in a while. Like, there's no cash flowing to me."
To really make it right, though, he'd have to send them big checks.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:35 AMBruce Gagnon is nuts:
I am now convinced, more than ever, that the Bush pirate crew is going to pull another 9-11 before the November elections. I think they are going to declare martial law. Then when the public hits the streets in protest, they are going to trot out these "active denial" microwave weapons for crowd control. And if anyone stands around too long they will be killed, just like is happening today in Iraq.They will use these weapons in order to "dissuade" the American people from thinking that we can non-violently protest to save our country from fascism. They are then hoping that activists will either give up and go home, or turn violent and then the military will be given the go-ahead to take people out - just like we see them doing in Iraq today.
The clamp down is coming. Folks had better come alive now before it is too late. The Bush team has decided that they do not intend to give up power. They are going to make a play for total control of the oil in the Middle East and Central Asia and will not be slowed down by elections.
[Via Thomas James, who reads sites like this so we don't have to]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:21 AMHere's a video of the recent PBS "debate" between the "Loose Change" wackos, and the Popular Mechanics editors on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Do these people really think that reasonable people are going to be convinced by continual accusations that their debating opponents are "liars"? This seems to be a much more prevalent tactic of the left. More projection, I guess.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:26 AMDisney is being threatened by the Democrat Senate leadership.
[Friday morning update]
Lileks has further thoughts:
I dont think this is the veiled threat some are calling it, because theres no way on earth the Democrats would introduce legislation to strip Disney of its broadcast license. Its like threatening to interrupt the broadcast with winged monkeys. Disney lawyers would say, correctly, well, you and what army of winged monkeys? But I dont recall Congress getting so deeply involved in the content of a specific television show before. Chilling effect? Heck no, not if the result is the truth. And who can possibly be against the truth.Just so you know: 9/11 reset the clock for me. All hands went to midnight. Im interested in what people did after that date, and if the movie shows that before the attack one side lacked feck and the other was feck-deficient, I don't worry about it. It's like revisiting Congressional debates about Hawaiian harbor security in November 1941. Y'all get a pass. The Etch-A-Sketch's turned over. Now: what have you said lately?
Indeed. Read entire.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 PMHere's a post, just for those morons who continue to believe that I'm a Bush shill, or parrot Republican talking points:
...as a proud Briton, I am not prepared to be a client of the United States. The coalition of the willing was, in effect, a coalition of two. Of course Britain is the junior partner, but she is a partner, and not a low-level employee. What is special about the relationship for us? America gets a European partner, world class intel, nuclear subs, men, whole regions pacified and many millions of your taxpayer dollars saved.What does Britain get? MFN trading status?
America is going to have to give something to this relationship, and I do not mean a standing ovation for the PM in Congress. We stand with you far more than any European ally, but receive no special treatment in dollars or in trade. Usually, we do not even receive respect.
Yes, Bush is incompetent, in many ways. But as Lincoln said of Grant, "he fights." At least occasionally.
Governments in general are incompetent. But a Kerry administration would have been even worse. We always have to choose between the less evil of two lessers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:50 PMBegins day after tomorrow:
Something almost without precedent in America will happen Thursday. Thats the day when McCain-Feingold aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 will officially silence broadcast advertising that contains criticism of members of Congress seeking re-election in November. Before 2006, American election campaigns traditionally began in earnest after Labor Day. Unless McCain-Feingold is repealed, Labor Day will henceforth mark the point in the campaign when congressional incumbents can sit back and cruise, free of those pesky negative TV and radio spots. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves.
If I were going to impeach Bush, signing McCain-Feingold would be a lot better grounds for it than any of the loony Dem conspiracy theories, to me. We have him dead to rights on that one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AMAre the Dems really going to be so foolish as to put out a report titled "The Neo Con"? I just saw a crawl on cable indicating that they will.
Way to play to your nutty fringe base, and turn off the sensible electorate. I hope they do it.
[Update in the early afternoon]
Robert Goldberg, on the increasing (and increasingly hard to hide) anti-semitism of the left. And I think that, at this point, most of us know what "neocon" is code for.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:32 AM"Hatewatch" over at Winds of Change has a nice roundup of links, including one called Idiotarian Seethings. Control-F twice on that phrase to get to the meat, though the whole thing is fun, as usual. I particularly liked this bit:
Early in July, NRO's Jonah Goldberg did his part to entertain the right-wing blogosphere by tracking down this piece of comedy gold, wherein an ambitious DU denizen attempts to demonstrate that 9/11 was a conspiracy by failing to collapse steel rabbit fencing. The true entertainment only starts, as is often the case in these swamps, when other budding scientists attempt to explain why they too are moved by his demonstration. By all means, enjoy yourselves.But there's a serious point here for political discourse, one that often gets lost in the growing populism on both the left and the right: experts are good. Not everyone can do or know the things that they do. It's not just that being an expert causes you to have the knowledge that you need to evaluate things within your field - it's that immersion in a way of thinking that seems to be related to particular objects gets you in the habit of thinking a certain way. It's why chess masters can 'see' a board and topologists can 'see' a knot. Not to be overly pedantic, but it seems like certain objects are easier to understand by thinking in certain ways. An expert has developed cognitive habits as well as broad knowledge. That why an amateur and an expert can know exactly the same amount of things and can be exactly as smart, and the expert might have insights that the amateur might never stumble into.
Of course, that's beside the point in two ways. First, this guy isn't an amateur in anything - he's just an tool (click through if you want some entertainment). Second, however, this anti-expert populism (most often expressed in blog triumphalism) isn't distributed evenly across the left and right of the political spectrum. To be more specific, when the right challenges ostensible experts, it seems that the people doing the challenging are actually better at the matter at hand than the people being challenged: Allahpundit and Dr. Shackleford are very, very good at Photoshop and that Reuters idiot is very, very not.
Meanwhile, on the left, we've got American Apparel checkout workers and Starbucks baristas going toe to toe with MIT architects on the weight that reinforced cross-sections can bear - a matchup hilarious but for the passion with which the checkout workers and baristas insist that they have an opinion that they're entitled to. The urge to debunk the reasoning of experts is dangerous across the board, a seed that can blossom into full-blown anti-intellectualism. It just seems that when the right does it, they end up being right. And that's a difference worth noting.
Of course, expect the usual idiotarian seethers in the comments section to seethe at this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:55 PM...how will we shoot the UN bureaucrats, who don't believe in an individual right of self defense?
Will Franklin has some thoughts:
The report goes out of its way to clear up any silly confusion about self-defense for States, including totalitarian regimes, as somehow also applying to lowly individual human beings:Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:25 AM"Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to the States acting in self-defence against armed attacks against their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situations of self-defence for individual persons."
How ironic, that the preeminent human rights organization in the world, the UN, gives the full panoply of protections and immunities under international law to someone like Kim Jong-Il, whereas if you engage in self-defense you are 'violating the rights of another.' This goes to the heart of an entire belief system rampant in the world today that thinks that all violence is bad regardless of circumstances and context, and that the problems of violence are caused by weapons and not those that wield them.
Unemployment is down to 4.7%.
I blame George Bush. Having a robust economy is just an evil Rovian plot to retain Republican control of the Congress this fall.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AMThe WaPo isn't very impressed with the noble Joe Wilson:
...it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
Indeed.
No doubt the fever swampers on the left will see this as more evidence of the right-wing agenda of the paper...
[Update in the afternoon]
To use an old phrase, I find the timing suspicious, as does a commenter over at Roger Simon's place (and Roger's post on the mental state of the left is worth reading, too):
I wish that the WaPo editorial would not have been published on a Friday before a long, holiday weekend. I hope it was not an intentional attempt to bury the message.
Intentional or otherwise, it could certainly have that effect.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 AMTed Stevens says that he was only (anonymously) holding up the bill until a cost/benefit analysis could be performed on it.
[Excuse me a minute]
[Sorry, give me another minute or so]
[Almost ready now...no, wait, another minute or two]
OK, sorry. Phew. Oh, gosh...man, my sides hurt.
I may have even moistened my pants.
Anyway, where was I?
Oh, right. So he wants a cost/benefit analysis? Here's a cost/benefit analysis.
[Evening update]
Mark Tapscott has additional thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:02 PMIdiotarian playwright Harold Pinter is "written out." What a non loss to the stage.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:08 AMIn this post, a commenter says:
...it is apparent that you hardly ever criticise Bush for anything. You are primarily concerned with the nuttier fringe of Bush's opposition and what they say. The end result is that although you claim that there is a lot to criticise about Bush, you never say what it is, nor spend much time on it.What you don't seem to acknowledge on your blog is that significant portions of the anti-Bush population is _not_ the nutcase moonbat fringe, but people who supported the president but changed their minds because of things that they found they did not like. But you seem to clearly divide the country into "us" and "them" and the only "them" that you acknowledge is the nutters.
A lot of people supported Bush up to the middle of last year, when several things happened. For one, it became clear that Iraq was not getting any better and Bush's pronouncements about it seemed to indicate that he was the only person who did not recognize this. Then there was the Harriet Miers Supreme Court choice, which convinced a lot of conservatives that Bush was more interested in helping friends than in making decisions based upon sound conservative (and intellectual) core values. And then there was hurricane Katrina and the aftermath, where the entire response seemed muddled and confused. For me, I could substitute "terrorist bomb" for Katrina and conclude that this administration would do as bad a job responding to a terrorist attack as it did responding to a predictable hurricane. That caused me to lose all faith in the president. (And the continuing deterioration in Iraq has not helped change my mind.)
Sure, there are a lot of crazies saying crazy things about Bush. But a) they are not the majority of his non-supporters, and b) they are not the ones who hold political power in this country. So why be so concerned about them, when the problems are with the people in charge?
I am concerned with that because the "nuttier fringe" seems to have become the mainstream of the Democrats, and it gets a lot of air time.
I have criticized the administration, and linked to others' criticisms with approval often--I suspect you just haven't noticed. I thought that the Harriet Miers nomination was one of the biggest blunders of his presidency, and I'm livid that amid all the out-of-control spending that he's actually encouraged, the first thing that he could find his veto pen for in five years was stem cells (not that I think that this should necessarily be federally funded). I think that it was a travesty and in fact a dereliction of duty and violation of his oath of office that he signed McCain-Feingold when he said himself that it was unconstitutional.
I remain furious that Bush didn't can George Tenent when he came into office, that he allowed Norm Mineta to remain in charge of Transportation for so long after he refused to profile, that he allowed the TSA to drag its feet for so long on arming pilots, that he allowed that idiot who insisted on dress codes for air marshals to remain in place for so long, only recently ending that inspired idiocy.
I think that the Department of Homeland Security was a disastrous mistake (and the reorganization that it entailed was one of the reasons that the federal Katrina response was laggard, though I never have high expectations of federal bureaucracies). Will it respond well to a terrorist attack? Probably not, but I don't blame George Bush for that. As I said, I have low expectations for big government, regardless of who's president, and losing faith in a president because a bureaucracy acts like a bureaucracy is silly, though people tend to do it anyway (it was one of the reasons that Bush's father lost to Bill Clinton). I wish that the administration had used 9/11 as a justification to refocus the federal government on the things that it's really responsible for and good at, and cleared the underbrush of a lot of the nonsensical things that have accumulated over the decades. Instead with the connivance of the Chuck Schumers of the world, it became an excuse to continue nonsensical things like the Drug War, and grow the government.
There are many other things for which I could criticize the administration, if I had time, and if there was a point. I have said these things, many times, over the years. As I said, for some reason people only notice when I bash the mindless Bush critics.
But my problem is that we are war, and much (even most) of the criticism coming from the left is purely partisan and unserious (if it were a Democrat doing many of the things that Bush, along with his "compassionate conservatism," has done they'd be praising him as a tough president, instead of vilifying him). I shoot down these spurious critiques in order to clear the field for rational criticism, of which he's quite worthy. I'm not a Democrat (though I was one once), but I'm not a Republican either (and never have been), and I can certainly understand why Orson Scott Card is upset with his party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:11 AMJonah Goldberg talks about the Democrats' latest amusing dementia. So does Rich Lowry.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 AMHe's replacing Rush Limbaugh today. Should be entertaining. You can listen live here, among other places.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:28 AMGlenn Reynolds' recent book gets a bad review over at Government Executive (what a shock...).
He cites the actions of the passengers on Flight 93 on Sept. 11, who used cell phones to find out what had happened at the World Trade Center and improvised their own heroic form of resistance to the terrorists on their plane within 109 minutes. "Against bureaucracies," he concludes, "terrorists had the advantage. Against civilians, they did not."In those limited circumstances, that might be true -- although one would assume a planeload of bureaucrats, under the same conditions, would have made the same decision as the civilians on Flight 93.
That's amusing, and irrelevant. Because they wouldn't be acting as bureaucrats in that situation--they'd be acting as passengers on an airplane, just as the...ummmm...passengers on an airplane acted.
It's useful to note that when people criticize big government (at this website, the target is often NASA), it's not (necessarily) criticism of the people who work for the big government. People, good people, respond to the situation in which they find themselves, and they also respond to the incentives inherent in that system. I've noted in the past that many NASA employees, once freed from their bondage from the agency, will say "how could I have made that decision?" As if awakening from a strange, and frightening dream. (I should add, with respect to the link, that I get a certain amount of gratification from the knowledge that the number one link for "emergent stupidity" on the search engines seems to be mine...)
So people on the plane, regardless of what they do at their day jobs, are going to do what people on the plane will do. It's not about the people--it's about the system in which they operate (something that I'm not sure that Mike Griffin, the new NASA administrator, understands...)
So his point in fact has no point.
I also find it interesting, and revealing, that he made the error of mistaking Glenn's employer. While (based on some recent commenters here) leftists (I refuse any more to dignify their beliefs with the term "liberals," which rightly belongs to classical ones) or "progressives" (another term I hate--it's kind of like Bolsheviks, in that it begs the question) hate the south, of which Tennessee is definitely a part, they seem to reserve special scorn and vitriol for Texas (perhaps because Bushitler and Halliburton come from there). If his eyes were impinged by the word "Tennessee" and he saw the other "T" word, that says something about his outlook, to me. But perhaps there's a more innocent explanation.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:46 PMThat's apparently what Larry Tribe thinks about yesterday's (appalling--at least, even by supporters of it, from the standpoint of the reasoning) judicial ruling.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:22 PMHeather McDonald has been steadfastly arguing over at NRO that political conservativism doesn't need to have a God, and that in arguing the success of Judeo-Christianity, many religious conservatives may be confusing cause and effect (I think there's a powerful Anglosphere angle here...). While I'm not a conservative, I agree with everything in this post.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:30 PMHow is Bush doing?
Not very well, according to Gerard Baker.
...the US could take the risk of alienating the world and discarding international law only if its leadership was going to be effective. Instead its leadership has been desultory and uncertain and tragically ineffective.It tried unilateral pre-emption in Iraq, but never really had the will to see it through. So with Iran, it went all mushy and multilateralist. In Lebanon, it thought it would cover all the bases start by aggressively supporting Israel, then go all peacenik, holding hands with the UN in a touching chorus of Kumbaya.
Now we have the worst of all worlds. Not only is the US despised around the globe, it cant even make its supposed hegemony work.
Its one thing to be seen as the bully in the schoolyard; its quite another when people realise the bully is actually incapable of getting anybody else to do what he wants. Its unpleasant when people stop respecting you, but its positively terrifying when they stop fearing you.
What we have now is a situation in which the worlds only superpower, with the largest economic and military advantage any country has ever enjoyed on Earth, is pinned down like Gulliver, tormented by an army of fundamentalist Lilliputians.
While a number of people idiotically think of me as a shill for the president (simply because I'm not as deranged with hatred of him as they are), I find it hard to disagree. If he and Condi don't get on the right track, and soon, he will have a catastrophically failed presidency. Of course, that doesn't mean that I would vote for a Democrat, because that would be even worse. I still find it frightening how close John Kerry came to being president. As always, I wish we had better choices.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:15 AMA lot of Hollywood stars have actually publicly condemned Hezbollah and Hamas.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:29 PMHey, everybody's got to be good at something:
A number of people have more than 500 arrests in the city of 226,000 people. The record was held by Edward Rooks, who died in 2004, with 652 arrests.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:47 PM
I think I see a candidate for president in '08 that the "netroots" could really get behind. Hugh Hewitt talks about their latest hearthrob:
"Even before the translation could be heard, I felt more assured of his intelligence and comprehension than I've ever felt about Bush speaking in mangled English. He's a very savvy politician, to be sure."And
"He is smart and is also media savvy or surrounded by people that are, as shown by the wardrobe, the mannerisms and likely even the pitch and tone of his chosen translator."
And
"He certainly has some of the same comments and questions of bush that we do. He raised many good points."
Plus, he's all for destroying the Zionist Entity! What's not to love?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:48 AMSarah Baxter, on the moral and intellectual confusion of the "anti-war" left (both "feminist" and otherwise).
The peace movement lost a foe in Reagan but has gone on to find new friends in todays Stop the War movement. Women pushing their children in buggies bearing the familiar symbol of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament marched last weekend alongside banners proclaiming We are all Hezbollah now and Muslim extremists chanting Oh Jew, the army of Muhammad will return.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 AMFor Linda Grant, the novelist, who says that feminism is the one ism she has not given up on, it was a shocking sight: What youre seeing is an alliance of what used to be the far left with various Muslim groups and that poses real problems. Saturdays march was not a peace march in the way that the Ban the Bomb marches were. Seeing young and old white women holding Hezbollah placards showed that its a very different anti-war movement to Greenham. Part of it feels the wrong side is winning.
As a supporter of the peace movement in the 1980s, I could never have imagined that many of the same crowd I hung out with then would today be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with militantly anti-feminist Islamic fundamentalist groups, whose views on women make western patriarchy look like a Greenham peace picnic. Nor would I have predicted that todays feminists would be so indulgent towards Iran, a theocratic nation where it is an act of resistance to show an inch or two of female hair beneath the veil and whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is not joking about his murderous intentions towards Israel and the Jews.
On the defining issue of our times, the rise of Islamic extremism, what is left of the sisterhood has almost nothing to say. Instead of I am woman, hear me roar, there is a loud silence, punctuated only by remonstrations against Tony Blair and George Bush the worlds number one terrorist as the marchers would have it.
I'm not sure what this means, but I think that Fidel is telling us that he's kicked the bucket. Too bad it couldn't have happened a lot sooner.
One of the down sides of life extension is that creatures like this will avail themselves of it, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:32 PM...to learn that Moonbat McKinney's supporters are blaming the usual suspects for her election loss.
Oy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:19 PMIf I had more time, I'd have more to write about the noble creatures who are concerned that we might interfere with continuing dictatorship in Cuba. As it is, I can only laugh. While crying.
By the way, while I'm sure that this crowd will profoundly mourn it if true, I think that the monster is probably pushing up palm trees.
And to my current leftist trolls, was that an "unlibertarian" thought?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:16 PMMartin Peretz on Ned Lamont and the "netroots":
Mr. Lamont's views are...not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran's nuclear-weapons venture: "We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I'd like to bring in allies when we can. I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate." Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamont continues that "Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table." And what is so plainly wrong with that? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:52 AM
Jonah Goldberg has an interesting political theory about dairy states.
Two possible partial historic explanations (i.e. guesses) come to mind. First, the sorts of people who historically went into dairy production were Scandinavian socialist types while the people who went into meat production were Scotch-Irish cowboy types.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:03 PMTwo: Perhaps dairy regulation occurred a lot earlier than meat regulation. This generated a culture of state-intervention and therefore a politics to match (or vice versa). Dairy also seems to be more about small-farmers and lots of labor, making it more prone to Populist appeals, while meat is run by wealthy ranchers and rugged cowboy types who have a more leave-me-alone ideology.
There's also a more metaphorical - i.e. b.s. - theory: dairy is nurturing. It's about sustainability. Dairy farmers can afford to fall in love with their cows. Making cows into steak, handburger and wallets requires more tough-mindedness. Dairy is soft America. Meat is hard America. Or Something Like That.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are going to campaign against him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:41 PMIt's the Joooossss:
Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinneys primary run-off opponent has tapped into the pro-Israel fundraising network that helped her virtually unknown challenger Denise Majette topple McKinney and Artur Davis beat then-Rep. Earl Hilliard (D-Ala.) in a pair of hotly contested 2002 primaries in black-majority districts.Hank Johnson collected at least $34,100 on Tuesday from individuals and political action committees (PACs) that supported Majette, Davis or both, including several pro-Israel PACs. Overall, Johnson reported receiving $63,100 on Tuesday.
I'll actually miss the loon. On the other hand, if the Democrat party is ever going to become sane, it has to purge these creatures.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:14 PMJonah Goldberg has some useful thoughts. And note that I'm using the word "liberal" in the classical sense.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:43 AM"Fjordman" says that Europe is becoming more oppressive. Unless you're a Muslim.
And he makes the important point that the Second Amendment should have been the first one, because it buttresses all the others.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 AMCan't you just feel the love from the left?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:43 PMWhy is this not a bigger story? Particularly in light of all the calls among many for the UN to do something about the current situation in the Middle East?
The Tongsun Park case has gotten remarkably little press, but it is both an important and a cautionary tale. It illustrates how easily the U.N., behind its veils of secrecy and diplomatic immunity, can be exploited by the most unscrupulous tyrants on the planet. And Mr. Park's conviction is a warning to beware any "back channels" now running between the U.N. executive suite and such rogue states as North Korea and Iran.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 PM
If the Democrats were smart, they'd listen to Evan Baye (Birch's son):
In his speech, Bayh said the party has focused most of its attention on the needs of lower-income Americans, but it also must address issues that matter to people on the next rung up the economic ladder."Without an agenda that speaks directly to the middle class and all who aspire to it, we will no longer be the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton. And we will not be a majority party," Bayh said, invoking the names of former Democratic presidents.
But they aren't, so they won't.
I once asked if Bill Clinton could have been elected in a world in which the blogosphere existed. I think the answer may have been "no." In fact, I suspect that it would have shredded the Sixty Minutes puff piece that Don Hewitt credited with saving his candidacy in a similar manner that it did the Dan Rather hit piece in 2004.
A similar question is whether or not it would be sufficient to overcome the MSM bias against Newt Gingrich.
He's said very little thus far that I'd disagree with. He seems to be more straight talking than even John McCain, and there's been a lot of implicit criticism from him of Bush on the war, which I think is badly needed, since most of that commodity has been provided by the brainless left, to date, and there is in fact much to criticize (in terms of the fact that he's been wobbly against the enemy, to the point of continuing to fear to name it).
If he runs, I don't think that the media will be able to get away with all the misleading hit pieces that they ran against him when he became Speaker in 1994. At the least, there will be an honest debate about his positions, instead of simple demonizing.
And of course, if elected, it's impossible to imagine a president more pro-space, and pro-free-enterprise-space, than Newt.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:05 PMJokes were an essential part of the communist experience because the monopoly of state power meant that any act of non-conformity, down to a simple turn of phrase, could be construed as a form of dissent. By the same token, a joke about any facet of life became a joke about communism. There have been political and anti-authority jokes in every era, but nowhere else did political jokes cohere into an anonymous body of folk literature as they did under communism. With the creation of the Soviet bloc after the war, communism exposed itself to Czech and Jewish traditions of humourmutating viruses to which the system never developed the right antibodies.
I wonder if there are anti-Mullah, anti-Islam jokes in Iran?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:00 AMThe day the Fitzmas died.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:08 PMSome commentator on Fox just noted that in Germany, and the UK, a higher percentage of people have a favorable opinion of China than of the US.
I suspect that this is primarily a result of ignorance, as promulgated by their media (about both us and China). The alternative, which is that they no longer share our western values, is even more frightening.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AMOur naive young blue-state blue blood Joel Stein makes an ass of himself in print again. Lileks comments (scroll down, if you want to get right to it).
I, too, look forward to the cross examination by Hugh Hewitt. But I suspect that even Joel isn't that naive, after the last time.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:10 AMBrit Hume and Drudge are both reporting that Bob Novak is going to reveal that his source for Valerie Plame's identity was her husband. Doesn't seem like that great a source to me, but I guess at the time it wasn't apparent what a liar he was.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:58 PM...are being cruelly mocked. By the cruelest mocker of all, Mark Steyn.
...other celebrities rushed to show their support for the anti-war movement: ''I'll not have what she's not having." Winona Ryder is telling waiters, ''Hold the haunch of venison.'' Keira Knightley is saying, ''Hey, I'll just go with the short stack this morning. And the low-fat simulated-maple syrup substitute.'' Ice T has given up iced tea. Disgusted by the callousness of the Bush war machine, William Powell and Myrna Loy have decided to go without the olive in their fourth martini. Willie Nelson is said to be gaunt and sounding croaky. Michael Moore, hovering dangerously at 300 pounds, has told friends, ''You can never be too rich but you can be too thin.''
[Update in the afternoon]
People magazine, of course, reports this as though it were a real hunger strike. Would it hurt them to point out that no one, in fact, is going to be truly hungry, at any point of this laugh fest?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 AMGays working at the Boston Globe must now get married, or lose their partner's benefits.
It will be interesting to see what kind of logical pretzels they warp themselves into to explain why this is unfair, when unmarried heterosexual couples don't get benefits. I also wonder what Andrew Sullivan thinks? Not enough to actually link to him, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:56 PMThe argument seems to go that the "religious right" is attempting to impose its morality on the rest of us. If that's the case, you'd think that "conservatives" would support blue laws against alcohol sales on Sunday, right?
Go read this thread at Free Republic, in which the vast majority of the posts are opposed to them. And the overwhelming reason is that, even for the professed Christians, small government is more important to them than government attempting to enforce morality.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:29 PMOver at the Sunlight Foundation:
For once my answers were in the majority. An overwhelming majority...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:31 AMPolitically incorrect Joe Biden:
Sen. Biden touts how Indians are the fastest growing immigrant group in Delaware and says, "You CANNOT go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without an Indian accent."
Freepers comment, with hilarious results.
Oops. Sorry, Keith. Guess that was another venomous attack on Democrats
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AMI have no sympathy for the people of New Jersey (well, at least the ones who voted for the current gang of collectivists running the place, from Corzine down to the legislature). This is an excellent example of the people getting the government they deserve.
The good news: this will result in even more flight from New Jersey to Florida, keeping my house price up. The bad news--many will miss the cause and effect, and they'll bring their idiotic voting habits with them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AM...care what this moron thinks?
Cindy Sheehan, who is leading a hunger strike against the war in Iraq, tells Norah ODonnell she would rather live under Hugo Chavez than George W. Bush.
About what one would expect from an idiot who thinks that going without food for a day is a hunger strike.
And I should add, that my title is obviously indicative of my opinion of MSBNC producers and (for the most part) talent. Though I have to admit that Norah O'Donnell is easy on the male eyes. Particularly in contrast to Mother Sheehan.
And warning, if you don't have the latest in Microsoft Insecurityware (i.e., Explorer 7.0, and the latest Media Player) you won't be able to view the video. Good thing that Microsoft and NBC teamed up to make a cable channel...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:05 PM"There has been much speculation as to whether or not we destroyed some, if not all, of the North Korean missiles launched yesterday, in explicit violation of requests from all of the five parties in negotiation with it to not do so. In the interests of the security of the US and the region, we can neither confirm or deny such speculation."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:12 PMThat's what I'll be doing tomorrow. A nice slab of back ribs and some fresh wild Alaskan sockeye salmon.
And watching Mother Sheehan stupidly go hungry makes it taste all the better. Particularly given that she's just written a poem (such as it is) expressing her love of her country (such as it is) on its 230th birthday.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:21 PMAren't you glad you have smart people like this (note: for those morons thinking that I'm a Republican, this is a Republican) making decisions about your Internet?
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:15 PMBecause it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.
Why can't this happen in Washington?
New Jersey Government Shut DownPosted by Rand Simberg at 07:51 PM
Isn't it amazing?
The Times is a good target. People who believe in the "left-wing media" believe that the New York Times is the leftiest of them all. The people who believe in the "mainstream media" believe that the Times is the mainest of them all. Hardly anyone has a good word to say about it, except that it's the best newspaper in the country. But really, how important is that?Also, the name of the New York Times contains the word "New York." Many members of the president's base consider "New York" to be a nifty code word for "Jewish." It is very nice for the president to be able to campaign against the Jews without (a) actually saying the word "Jew" and (b) without irritating the Israelis. A number of prominent Zionist groups think the New York Times is insufficiently anti-Palestinian, so they think the New York Times isn't Jewish enough.
Particularly considering that the latest left epithet of "neocon" seems to often really mean "Zionist Jew."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 PMA boy who died on a roller coaster at Disney World turned out to have a congenital heart problem, unrevealed until the ride. This is sad, but statistically inevitable, when you provide entertainment to millions of people. How could Disney possibly be responsible for the death of a kid whose parents didn't even know about his condition?
There's a lesson here for the space tourism industry, but I'm not sure what it is, other than to not operate in the US.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:04 PMMother Sheehan is going on a two-month hunger strike. It would be nice if she could keep her mouth shut for other purposes, too.
And no, before the idiots start commenting--that comment didn't violate her First-Amendment rights. She has a right to say anything she wants, and I have a right to say I wish she wouldn't. Ain't the First Amendment great?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:54 PMJosh Trevino says that Kos and the Bush-deranged "netroots" are following an old, paranoid model:
Consider the average member of this group. He (or she) remembers the era of leftist dominance of American politics and he remembers the beginning of its end, on election day 1980. He is around 50 years old. He is professional living in a coastal enclave, mostly on the Pacific coast or the northeast. His political consciousness was formed by the McGovern and Carter campaigns and of course the American retreat from Vietnam. He may have grown up in Iowa, or Texas, or Missouri, or Utah but he went to college elsewhere, and fell in love with the people in California, or New York, or Boston, who were so much more progressive and intellectual than the hayseeds back home. His initial concept of conservatives, which hes never really abandoned, was formed by Nixonian malfeasance: theyre all crooks and corrupt, in his mind. The ascent of Reagan in 1980, and later the 1994 revolution, came as a profound shock how could America forget so soon? He is well-off: and the bulk of his working career and hence the font of his personal prosperity was spent in the boom markets of the 1980s and 1990s, under Republican national governance in one form or another. He doesnt think about the implications of that much.But for all his generally good circumstances, hes been on the political and cultural losing side all his adult life. Hes tired of it. And hes found a website which, at last, makes him feel empowered. He is, in short, the typical member of the so-called netroots: the left-wing movement, organized around blogs, that seeks to take back this country from its usurpers. The netroots is a movement born of desperation and a sense of embattlement at being on the losing side of historical forces. It sees itself as the inheritor and the guarantor of true American tradition and identity, and it seeks to restore those things to their rightful primacy in national life. Critically, it choose to not merely fight its foes, but emulate them. It sees the prime virtue of its enemies as their ability to win, and if they can just crack the code if it can grasp the very methodology of victory then they will turn the tables, and victory will be theirs.
The comparison will, of course, have them frothing. Which makes it all the more appropriate and apparent...
Here:
Hmm. From "finances" to "astrology" into "politics" in a seemingly easy progression. What is the common element in Armstrong's blogging efforts in these three successive areas? Answer: BS! Armstrong defended bad stocks, then he defended junk theories of the universe, then he conned a generation of Democrats into thinking they were going to win the 2002 midterms! Now he's promoting Mark Warner.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:02 AM
That I hope that Mitch McConnell is the next Senate majority leader.
I revere the American flag as a symbol of freedom. But behind it is something largerthe Constitution. The First Amendment, which protects our freedom of speech, is the most precious part of the Bill of Rights. As disgusting as the ideas expressed by those who would burn the flag are, they remain protected by the First Amendment.Our Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment because they believed that, even with all the excesses and offenses that freedom of speech would undoubtedly allow, truth and reason would triumph in the end. And they believed the answer to offensive speech was not to regulate it, but to counter it with more speech.
No act of speech is so obnoxious that it merits tampering with our First Amendment. Our Constitution, and our country, is stronger than that.
Weakening our First Amendment could also set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the Bill of Rights. If we successfully carve out an exception to one basic freedom, perhaps those who seek to curtail our Second Amendment rightsthe right to bear armswill carve out another. Or the right to own private property, as expressed in the Fifth Amendment, could come under assault.
We also must realize that even a constitutional amendment will not instill proper respect for the flag in any scoundrel who would burn it. On the contrary, by invoking our sacred constitutional amendment process, we would give such a person just what he seeks: attention. Why tamper with the First Amendment to solve a problem that thankfully is not widespread?
Flag burning is an abominable act. Were lucky to live in a country where the overwhelming majority of people not only reject it, but honor the American flag and the freedoms it stands for. These freedoms are Americas source of strength.
Not to mention, of course, the steadfast opposition to the true anti-First-Amendment types, particularly McCain and Feingold. There are too few members of either house of Congress who actually believe in free speech and the First Amendment.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:14 PM...that the Democrats won't have a nationally televised convention this year. If they did, this is what the public would see (and here's the whole thing for non-subscribers):
...in bigger-than-life projection was an extended trailer for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, which played to a nearly instantaneous standing ovation. In addition, the conference screened other documentaries, some innocuous (The Motherhood Manifesto, featuring Rosie the Riveter balancing a baby on her bicep) and others not (Iraq for Sale, whose name is self-explanatory).Down below, on the concourse level, signs flanking entrances into the Hilton's 45,000-square-foot exhibition hall and its vendor booths read, "We know what to do: Impeach him." On top of NOW, NARAL, ACORN, and the ACLU (which still contends it is nonpartisan), there was the Backbone Campaign, which sold miniature spines to discourage purchasers from engaging in yes-man, convictionless support of their politicians.
Attendees cautious of "establishment politicians" also seemed to be looking for signs of spinelessness at 8:15 a.m. Tuesday in the Hilton's International Ballroom, a classy combination of contemporary architecture bathed in florid adornments. That's when Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. John Kerry, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi were to begin their back-to-back-to-back speechmaking.
Before the main event, two graying, hippie-looking men in the third row hoisted a handmade banner that read, in all caps, "IMPEACH BUSH." (This was becoming the unofficial theme of the week.) Wild applause erupted, and several people nearby, energized by their proximity to this agitation, felt compelled to stand in solidarity and raise peace signs. This horrified the conference leaders, who discouraged such displays and constantly reminded attendees, whom they treated like mischievous children, to "be respectful."
Not a pretty picture. That's why I suspect that the Donkeys are going to be disappointed again this fall.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:40 PMDavid Bernstein discusses:
I'm not exaggerating when I say that I've had several correspondences along these lines, none challenging the points I raised (though not necessarily assenting, either), but simply arguing that any such points are completely irrelevant, because all that matters is whether or not Israel violated international law.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:23 AMIt has struck me that debating such people is just as frustrating and unproductive as arguing with a religious believer about some matter within the scope of his religious belief--just substitute "God says so" for "international law says so."
Kos:
"It was a time that was very stifling for liberal voices in the American landscape," he remembers. "No one could criticize the president because it was considered treasonous to criticize the president in time of war." But as an Army veteran who served in artillery logistics in the first gulf war, he felt he could question the rush to combat with impunity. "I vowed my life for the right to criticize our leaders. Nobody was going to tell me I could or could not criticize anybody."
Yes, I recall well the night all the dissenters were rounded up and sent to the work camps, with just the scraps of clothes on their backs--the wails of anguish, the cries for missing loved ones. Just a few brave souls, veterans like Markos Zuniga, were willing to stand up to the man, and speak truth to power, in defiance of the storm troopers.
--
It's funny, he probably said this with a straight face, and the Newsweek reporter sees no need to align it with reality. Other than Ann Coulter, I recall very few people being accused of "treason" for "criticizing the president" (and even in her case, I think that the charge was a little more involved than that). Hell, I criticized the president--I still do. What he means is that he (and many others) weren't allowed to spout inanities and insanities issued from the depths of their dementia and Bush derangement without being criticized for it.
Sorry, Kos, but the rest of us have free speech rights, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:57 AMWell, actually, the Age of Varuna. The hits just keep coming.
How long is Kos going to drag this anchor? I mean, it's not like he doesn't have enough problems of his own...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 PMIt's all about the money. And, errr...the astrology.
And this is one of the guys who's going to lead the delusional Donkeys to the political promised land?
[Saturday morning, back in Florida, update]
But wait! There's more:
Astrologer Jerome Armstrong notes that Ixion and Quaoar are following close in Pluto's wake in early Sagittarius, and connects the rise of the political version of religious fundamentalism with the astronomical exploration of the Kuiper Belt in 1992. He cites incidences as disparate as the rise of Osama bin Laden onto the world stage and the Republican Revolution of 1994, fueled by Christian fundamentalist voters and culminating now with all three branches of government in Republican control. In addition, he cites the ascendance of political Hinduism in India in 1996 with the election of the BJP. One might add to this list the emergence of Conservative majorities in Israel and the UK.
As one commenter notes, this is the gift that just keeps giving. Obviously, Rove must be behind this. All part of the Republican war on science.
And yes, this does bring a whole new meaning to the term "moonbat."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:46 AMIt's been half a century, and many good people died or were imprisoned in the attempt to liberate themselves from one of the great totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. But they won, eventually, no thanks to the US State Department. Or perhaps even the CIA, which seems in many ways to be our greatest enemy these days.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:08 PMBy Mark Steyn:
...it wasn't until Ann Coulter pointed it out that you realize how heavily the Democratic party is invested in irreproachable biography. For example, John Kerry's pretzel-twist of a war straddle in the 2004 campaign relied mainly on former senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee from a Vietnam grenade accident whom the campaign dispatched to stake out Bush's Crawford ranch that summer. Maybe he's still down there. It's gotten kinda crowded on the perimeter since then, what with Cindy Sheehan et al. But the idea is that you can't attack what Max Cleland says about war because, after all, you've got most of your arms and legs and he hasn't. This would normally be regarded as the unworthy tactic of snake-oil-peddling shyster evangelists and, indeed, the Dems eventually scored their perfect Elmer Gantry moment. In 2004, in the gym of Newton High School in Iowa, Senator John Edwards skipped the dreary Kerry-as-foreign-policy-genius pitch and cut straight to the Second Coming. "We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases . . . When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." Mr. Reeve had died the previous weekend, but he wouldn't have had Kerry and Edwards been in the White House. Read his lips: no new crutches. The healing balm of the Massachusetts Messiah will bring the crippled and stricken to their feet, which is more than Kerry's speeches ever do for the able-bodied. As the author remarks, "If one wanted to cure the lame, one could reasonably start with John Edwards.""What crackpot argument can't be immunized by the Left's invocation of infallibility based on personal experience?" wonders Miss Coulter of Cleland, Sheehan, the Jersey Girls and Co. "If these Democrat human shields have a point worth making, how about allowing it to be made by someone we're allowed to respond to?"
Why not, indeed?
I will note that I haven't read Coulter's book, and don't intend to. It's sad that she couldn't make her many legitimate points about the secular religion of the left without dragging science and Darwin into it. Unfortunately, though, it's the inevitable pushback from evangelizing against God by the likes of Dawkins and Dennett.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:59 AMAfter a long hiatus, Bill Whittle has a new essay up. Well, actually it's the introduction to a new book. About the American civilization.
I have a mental map of the world. So do you. So did Lenin, and al-Zarqawi, and Winston Churchill, and Attila, and Ronald Reagan. Everyone has an internal map of how the world works.The problem is that we get rather fond of these maps. Some people get so fond of these maps that they do nothing but sit around in the dark depths of the chart room and compare maps. If they see something on another map that seems to agree, more or less, with what they have sketched out on their own, they feel vindicated. This is human nature. I do it, and you do it too.
People will sit in the chartroom, and argue about their maps, while the ship of history rips out her keel. But as the arguments rage hither and yon down in the chartroom, as maps and cartographers are bandied back and forth like trading cards and people come to blows over mapmakers dead a century or a millennium before, there does remain one small, unassuming little token of hope. Not much really -- just an action so simple and obvious that we overlook it time and time again. What can we do to end this arguing about which way to sail and on what map? How can we tell where the reefs and channels really are? Dear God, is there nothing we can do to get an answer among all these authorities?
Well, there is something we can do. We can get up from the chartroom of theory, this dungeon of pointless debate and argumentation, and go and stand on the bridge. We can look at the world as it really is, and draw new maps as we go on.
When you use your common sense, your personal experience, over any of the so-called social theories being sold at fire sale prices, you are looking out the window and seeing whether or not the map matches the coastline. If it does not, then it doesnt matter how credentialed or tenured or respected the cartographer is or was - he is wrong. He says river delta; there sits a barrier reef. Wrong!
Next map!
These people, down below, arguing endlessly in the chartroom - they have a word for themselves that they find flattering. They call themselves intellectuals. A friend of mine referred to me as an intellectual the other day, and I nearly knocked him off the bar stool. What a repellent thing to say to a man who tries on a daily basis to pre-flight his facts to make sure his theories his map is as accurate as it can be. Things change. Things that were once true sometimes no longer are. The map has to change or you are in deep yogurt. It is that process, not my map, that I am trying to teach to the best of my ability.
Its sad but true: there are people who are deathly afraid to go up on deck, face the sunshine, and realize that the maps they have so lovingly and painstakingly crafted over decades are essentially worthless scraps of paper. They are so wrong, in so many places, that they are far worse than no maps at all. They draw all manner of hazards where there are none, and disastrously, they show open seas and smooth sailing in the most treacherous and deadly places. Such maps are not merely worthless; they are dangerous.
There was a time when intellectual meant someone who uses reason and intellect. Today, people who call themselves intellectuals are in a form of mental death spiral: they search for, and find, those index cards that support their world view, and clutch little red books like rosaries in the face of all external evidence. They are ruled by appeals to authority. Their self-image and sense of emotional well-being trumps any and all objective evidence to the contrary.
How many students today believe what they believe because they met someone who knew a guy whose girlfriend turned him on to an article by Noam Chomsky? Noam Chomsky predicted, in his even, intellectual, authoritative, tenured manner, that if the US went to war in Afghanistan after 9/11, the result would be 3 million Afghan casualties. How many of these students who worship St. Noam independently ask themselves why he had come up 2,999,500 bodies short? Noam is not wrong by a factor of one or two; Noam is not wrong by an order of magnitude. Noam is not wrong by a factor of a hundred to one. Noam is wrong by more than three orders of magnitude. Noam is wrong by a factor of 6,000 to one. Noam says the reef is three miles off the port bow, when in fact it is barely ten feet away. Thats six thousand to one. Noam says the ocean is a thousand feet deep when in fact the keel has been ripped out and is sitting on the sandbar back yonder: thats a 6,000-to-one error. Extrapolating this accuracy rate, if Noam writes 6,000 pages on the evil of the United States, how many pages of truth might there be in such a twenty-volume set?
Does this mean that everything Noam Chomsky writes is nonsense? Not at all. He is a professor of Linguistics. I am not qualified to say how accurate the work in his field of expertise is. I can however make a stab at how accurate he is in the field of US foreign policy, and if you have a handheld calculator at home, you can make the same comparison and achieve the same results.
Listen, Im all in favor of reading and studying all manner of philosophy and literature. And while social studies evidence cards cut both ways, there are not too many expert physicists out there claiming objects regularly fall up off the table and into the air. People are not pool balls. Their behavior is not as predictable. Both intellectual studies, and expert opinion, have their place. It is only when they are used beyond their limits that problems come thick and heavy.
Dont take my word for this. Lets not sit down in the bilge arguing about whether Karl Marx or Adam Smith had the best course to freedom and happiness. Lets just go up the ladder, open a hatch, go out on deck, get out the telescope and have a look at what actually happened to the lives of the people impacted by one map, and what happened to those subjected to the other.
We are not blind, and we are not crippled, and the world is not a novel or a treatise or a theory or a manifesto. It exists. We can go look for ourselves. And on the way up, when those desperate elitist bastards start clutching at your ankles and implore you to stay below where its safe and argue some morebe sure to kick those sons of bitches right in the teeth. Their blind obedience to their Big Ideas have killed more people in history than anything except disease. Boot to the teeth, I say.
But thats just me. Youve been around. Youre no sap. What do you think?
Go ahead and read it all. You know you want to.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:13 PMJust listening to Fox News Sunday, and Juan Williams is wondering why William Jefferson (you know, the guy who had ninety grand in his freezer?) lost his committee post when other Democrats weren't treated similarly. He used as an example Gary Condit (remember him?--Just before September 11th?), who was investigated for months but was never punished by the party (though he did lose his primary in the next election, IIRC).
I wish that Brit Hume or Bill Kristol had asked Juan what he thought would have happened had Chandra Levy's body been found in Condit's freezer.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:16 AMWith Greg Gutfeld:
How do you define your politics? When and why did you become a conservative?I was a lefty in high schoolwhich is normal because its a romantic thing to dobeing a crusading lib makes everything in the world about YOU and YOUR FEELINGS. Which coincides nicely with being a teenager. Its all about speaking truth to power, which translated, means, LOOK AT ME. Its OK when kids do itbut its gross when adults do it, because you really should have grown out of that stage. This is why so many celebs become lefties when they hit their 27th birthdaytheir growth was stunted. The celebs who are righties tend to have lived a lot more than the others.
Anyway, I was in a debate in high school, on the pros and cons of mutually assured destruction. I took the con side, since I was anti-nuke. This guy Jeff Philliber took the pros. Jeff was kind of a nerd. I wasnt. Sorry Jeff, but it was true. But anyway, I breezed through my opening remarks. Then Jeff wipes the floor, the windows, the lockers, and the small of his back with me. Its really weird to be in a debate, and to realize the other person is dead right. So I did something cheap and sleazy. I played to the crowd with wisecracksand I cant remember how I did this.
I had a friend of mine send a note to the classroom to say I had an emergency at home. So I was able to leave. I came back in the end, and the class voted on the outcome and I won the debate. This is 23 years ago, and I still remember the whole thing. I bet Jeff Philliber doesnt! But at that point I realized I was an imposter. And if an imposter can hold liberal beliefs so easily, then they arent really beliefs. I prove that at the Huffington Post daily.
That's not the funny part. Read the whole thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:08 AMFor left-wing nostalgiasts. As Michael Barone says, no matter how fervently they may wish it, Iraq is not Vietnam, "Plamegate" is not Watergate, and Bush is not Nixon redux.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:57 AMNatalie Maines continues to inflict her ignorant political opinions on an indifferent world:
"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country I don't see why people care about patriotism."There can be no rational explanation of how Maines's remark came to drive a red-hot poker into America's divided soul, but it's only now that some of the poison has begun to dissipate.
No, of course not. No rational explanation at all.
And of course, they'll continue to whine about their lack of record and concert sales. They've obviously never heard the old saying about holes, and what to do when in one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 AMJonah Goldberg says that we should have installed liberalism in Iraq, not democracy. There is a confusion between the two, and as he points out, introducing democracy in an illiberal society will not necessarily provide helpful results.
...many on the left see no problem singing the praises of leftwing regimes which put "equality" ahead of democracy. As Derb once put it, "Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy." But regimes which put liberty and the rule of law ahead of democracy and the like are always immediately derided as dictatorial "strong-man" regimes. I'm not saying that such criticism isn't sometimes accurate. After all, democracy is good and tends to innoculate against tyranny and without democracy enlightened regimes often go bad. But I would still have preferred to live under Pinochet than Castro or Lee Kuan Yew instead of Hugo Chavez (or, heh, the Hapsburgs than the Soviets).
As someone who still considers himself a classical liberal, that makes a lot of sense to me, given the often ugly choices of the real (as opposed to ivory-tower) world. It's easy to overrate and overemphasize democracy. As Churchill once said, it's the worst possible system, except for all the others.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AMThis anti-pork proposal by Frist is better than nothing, but I'd still like to see a sunset amendment (which would include sunsetting entitlements).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:25 PMThat's common sense to most people who've been following this case, but it's a shocking statement from an academic committee.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:52 PMAnd the windmills aren't even real. Speaking as a supposed skeptic about God (he's actually an atheist--that is, someone who not only doesn't believe in God, but who actually believes that there is no God), Michael Newdow is an idiot:
Michael Newdow, the Sacramento, California lawyer and doctor who had previously launched a court challenge on behalf of his daughter over the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance said in schools, had argued that "In God We Trust" on monetary instruments violates his rights.Newdow claimed that by using coins and currency bearing the phrase, he is forced to carry religious dogma, proselytise and evangelise for monotheism.
He needs to get a life.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:17 PMAnd a happy new year to all, except the leftist loons. Patrick Kennedy has pled guilty to DUI. Will miracles never cease?
If Cynthia McKinney is actually charged with assault today, I'll think that we've entered a parallel universe.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AMDrudge is laughing at these loons, and their failed Fitzmas. He's particularly hard on nutball MSNBCer Keith "Tinfoil" Olbermann.
[Update at 10:45 AM EDT]
The black crepe is out at Kos. Read this, and particularly the second comment:
I don't think I've ever seen such a look of misery and dejection on the face of my daughter as I just did a moment ago. She just couldn't understand why the President would be going to Iraq when so many things are wrong in this country. "Doesnt Mr. Bush care about us anymore?" she asked pitifully.I sat down with her on the sofa and (as calmly as I could) tried to explain to her why the President seems to be abandoning his country. "Honey, I think his boss, Mr. Rove, sent Mr. Bush out of the country in order to keep himself out of the newspapers. You see, he wasnt sure if he was going to be arrested today or not, and so he planned Mr. Bushs trip ahead of time just in case...
I tried to keep my voice steady, but it became increasingly difficult - the rage and feelings of helplessness were just too much. I think my daughter could tell something was wrong. I found myself at such a loss for words - nothing made any sense; nothing makes sense anymore. I finally had to admit, "Honey, I just don't know - I don't know what's going on in this country anymore..."
When I finished her lower lip started to tremble and her eyes began to fill with tears, "Daddy" she said, "why are the Republicans doing this to the country?" Well, that was it for me: I finally fell apart. She just fell into my arms and we both began sobbing for several minutes.
For once she had to comfort me and get me back on my feet. Sometimes I just think it's too much, but seeing the strength in my young daughter's voice helped me to get through.
You know, you have to have a heart of stone to be able to read this and not laugh out loud. I'll confess, regretfully, that I wasn't up to the task.
Consider--odds are that this is not a troll parodying the site--it was almost certainly typed with a perfectly straight face. You can't parody these people any more. It really raises the bar for us Internet satirists.
[Via Wizbang]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:51 AMAnne Bayefsky writes about the latest scam that the UN has come up with to institutionalize anti-semitism and support for tyranny.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:36 PMMichael Barone says that Dems are winning everywhere except the polls.
To paraphrase Golda Meir, they'll start to win elections again when they learn to love their country and its military more than they hate George Bush. Which probably means that they're due for a long sojourn in the political wilderness.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:12 AMWe're getting the first bits of wind and thunderstorms from it here. I guess Al Gore's killer hurricane season has begun. I'm sure that he'll be thrilled to have the first storm named after him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:23 AMA lot of Dems aren't happy about the prospects of Hillary running for president. But they have no one but themselves to blame:
I hope she wont run, and I dont know whether Id support her, said Jean Lloyd-Jones, a veteran Democrat from Iowa City, Iowa who was the partys unsuccessful Senate nominee in 1992.During the 1992 campaign Lloyd-Jones spent a day and half with Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al and Tipper Gore in Iowa on their now-famous bus tour.
I think she should stay in the Senate a bit longer, said Lloyd-Jones, who chipped in $1,000 to Clintons 2006 Senate re-election fund. I dont think this is the time for her to run (for president). I dont quite understand why she is such a polarizing figure, but she is.
OK, let's ignore her cluelessness about why Her Highness is such a polarizing figure. Does she not realize that when she gives a thousand dollars to the Senate campaign of someone whose Senate reelection is a cakewalk, that the unneeded money will be transferred to the presidential campaign? Sorry, no sympathy for this particular koolaid drinker.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:17 PMI'm sorry (though, on reconsideration, there's no obvious reason to be), but I thought that the latest issue of bloggingheads TV was hilarious. It starts out with Bob Wright dissing Ann Coulter's ignorant screed on evolution. But I really like their letters to the editor.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:31 PMArnold Kling has an interesting essay on libertarianism and poverty, in which he notes:
If the tendency of government were to expand on its successes and cut back on its failures, then I probably would not remain a libertarian.
Much of his thesis is, of course, applicable to government versus non-government space programs as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:02 AMThe Washington Post says that there's a growing and effective backlash against Hugo Chavez among his neighbors.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:32 AMAce Of Spades writes about the fragile egos of leftists.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:32 AMI hope you're sitting down, so you won't fall down in amazement when I tell you that Michael Moore has been accused of using an interview out of context. The interviewee is unhappy to the tune of eighty five megabucks. It should be an entertaining trial. Unless, of course, it's settled out of court.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:45 AMThe LA Times wants Bill Clinton to take charge of Turtle Bay. The up side is that they at least realize that we don't need a President Hillary.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:00 PMMark Steyn writes about the new aristocracy on Capitol Hill. I'd love to see ballots printed with "None of the above" as an option. If that option wins the election, we start over, with no incumbents, and new primaries. Call it the American form of lack-of-confidence vote.
Sadly, the old libertarian cliche that there are far more similarities than differences between two parties seems all too true once again, particularly when it comes to corruption and lust for the acquisition and maintenance of power. Equally sadly, we continue to suffer from the phenomenon that while everyone dislikes Congress, they all love their own congressman (of a kind with the notion that everyone thinks that the economy is doing poorly, though they're doing fine). I'd love to see a lot of Congresspeople lose their seats this fall, but this phenomenon, coupled with the entrenched positions resulting from gerrymandering by both parties, still militates against it, I suspect.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 AMFrom (non-citizen) Mark Steyn. Brief, but correct:
My wife and the kids had their Green Cards stolen the other day. Cost of replacement of legal permanent resident cards: $1,040. Fine for 20 years of law-breaking within the United States: $2,000, less Social Security and EITC entitlements. Hmm.Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:11 PM
I told the missus to hold off filling in the form for the replacement card. Having been rendered inadvertently undocumented, she may at last be in the winning category.
...show them this rambling, incoherent interview by the leader of the House Democrats. I think that it would be a very effective campaign ad to show video of John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at their worst (and their worst is pretty bad), saying "Do you really want these people running your country"? It might even make a lot of donkeys think twice.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:15 AMWhat part of "Congress shall make no law" do the these morons not understand? It's right up there, in the first words of Amendment Numero Uno.
Allen "co-sponsored legislation in March that would bring political Web sites under campaign finance rules if they spend $5,000 or more on their operations," the paper wrote. "He said he would watch how blogs factor into the 2006 races under the FEC rules before deciding whether to press the issue."Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:08 PM
Yeah, I know the title's almost redundant. Anyway, Glenn Reynolds has a roundup of links on new-found respect for freedom from search and seizure on the part of the House.
And no, I'm not a born-again critic of the NSA (though there's always been much to criticize them for, particularly when it comes to wasting the taxpayers' money on failed black programs and spending sprees). I just think that Newt and others doth protest too much in support of their obviously corrupt colleagues. As Glenn notes, I'll bet you'd find a lot more nefarious doings with unannounced searches of Congressional offices than from 435 random citizens.
[Late evening update]
For those who don't think that Congressman Jefferson is getting fair treatment, here is Byron York's response.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:41 PMI have to say that I agree with almost every word of this (hint: it's not because we think that Bush is a great president). For instance:
I didn't vote for Kerry because in every domestic policy with which I disagreed with Bush, Kerry seemed to be worse. I deplore Bush's immigration policy, his lack of commitment to free trade, his wishy-washy position on gun control, his big government spending, his unrealistic environmental policies, his generally anti-science positions, and so on and so forth. But in every way, whenever Kerry could actually be pegged down as having a position it was even worse than that of Bush.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:47 AM
I haven't had a very high opinion of Kevin Phillips for a long time, but he seems to have recently gone completely nuts:
I realize that this is still pure speculation, by legal yardsticks entirely premature. However, the succession aspect is extraordinary. Under the Constitution, the resignation of Bush and Cheney would hand the presidency to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, at present Dennis Hastert, a former high school wrestling coach, well liked but manifestly less than qualified for promotion. Wise Republicans, however, would be aware of a critical anomaly: the person elected as Speaker of the House does not, as a matter of law, have to be a Member of the House. If Bush and Cheney were obliged to resign this summer, the House GOP could elect as Speaker a plausible interim president and have the presidency devolve on him. Someone like Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, the respected Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, comes to mind.
Another tragic victim of BDS.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:42 PMDid the ideals of The New Frontier die with Jack Kennedy? It's an interesting explanation of how many Democrats seem to have become Oswalds, rather than Kennedys, and why JFK would probably be unable to get the presidential nomination of the party today.
Also, some interesting related thoughts by a commenter at Dr. Sanity's place. The totalitarian impulse of the communists didn't die--it just became subsumed into the Democrat Party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 AMAppointments like this.
Unfortunately, there's nothing better on offer. Any Dem that could win the nomination would be far worse.
[sorry, link's fixed]
[Update at 5 PM Pacific]
Here's another reason. The administration doesn't even seem to be trying to win its ongoing war with the CIA. The agency needs to be abolished and rebuilt from scratch.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:49 PMJonah Goldberg has a good essay on the nonsense that is populism:
It should be no surprise by now that populism has always been a fundamentally left-wing phenomena. Indeed, just looking around the world to see which countries call themselves peoples republics should be evidence enough of that. Throughout history, populist movements, no matter what their ideological origins, ineluctably devolve into socialist enterprisesand most of them start out that way. Right now, were witnessing the growth of classically populist movements across Latin America. The president of Bolivia just last week essentially appropriated the nations oil and gas reserves. Venezuelas Hugo Chavez has been posing as the voice-of-the-people-made-flesh for years now as he systematically dismantles the market economy in explicit homage to Fidel Castro. In America, Populists have invariably championed socialistic policies. The Populist Partyalso called the Peoples Partypushed for the nationalization of railroads and other industries, and demanded popular control over natural resources. (You can peruse the U.S. Populist Partys 1892 platform here. Note its call for mandatory unionization, the seizure of lands from corporations and aliens, and the nationalization of the telephone companies.) Father Charles Coughlin and Huey Long were explicitly socialist (though they didnt always use the word) in their economic policies. Patrick Buchanans move toward populism coincided withindeed, requireda steady rejection of free market principles (see Rameshs A Conservative No More).Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AM
Thomas James vivisects his favorite moonbat.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:28 AMJacob Sullum, on the absurdity and ongoing misjustice of the War on (Some) Drugs:
"Perhaps the only way for draconian drug laws to change," says Drug Policy Alliance Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann, "is for people like Limbaugh to join other nonviolent drug offenders behind bars."Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:22 AMOne of those nonviolent drug offenders is Richard Paey, who faced allegations remarkably similar to those against Limbaugh. Both men suffered severe back pain for which they underwent unsuccessful surgery, and both were accused of fraudulently obtaining more narcotics than they really needed. But while Limbaugh remains a free man and will not even face criminal charges if he continues to attend drug treatment for the next 18 months (something he was planning to do anyway), Paey is serving a 25-year sentence in a Florida prison.
Well, OK, not never, but I'm often amazed at which posts resonate with the readership, and which don't. Why was getting rid of the penny such a hot item, in terms of comments, when other posts that day, of serious, war-related nature went uncommented? I expect this when I get an Instalanche or something, but as far as I know, no one has even linked to it.
Is this a hidden issue in the elections this year? All politicians in tight races, take note--down with Lincoln!
Oh, and yes, for those interested, I'm now safely in California, but remain busy. Keep those cards and letters pouring in!
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:52 PMI'd like to think that this polling result is as significant as Instapundit thinks:
Among all Americans, a 39% plurality say the single most important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is curtailing budgetary "earmarks" benefiting only certain constituents.
Sounds like a political tsunami that will sweep away earmarks, right?
Probably not. First of all, though the number is high, it's not a majority. And even if it were, there's a familiar phenomenon, in which large numbers disapprove of Congress, but like their own Congress(wo)man. It's all those other clowns that are the problem. I suspect that they'll have the same attitude toward pork. They oppose it in principle, but when it comes to benefitting them, I suspect that most people will take the money and let their Congressman run. One man's pork is another man's vital district need.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:37 AMOne more post before I get on the plane. This post over at Hit'n'Run, in which Jesse Walker hits Instapundit, looks more like a Kos post in the comments section than what I used to expect from a magazine called "Reason" (to which we continue to subscribe).
Much has been made of how the war has split the Dems, and the war has split the Republicans, but it's really splintered the libertarians. I used to consider myself one (and in most ways that I consider important, still do). I suspect that Glenn does as well. But as Ronald Reagan once said about the Democrats, "I didn't leave the party--the party left me."
[Update, from LA]
Well, that set off a lively debate, though not as much as yesterday's post.
[Update on Thursday morning]
In response to it looking Kossian, Jesse Walker emails:
That's because it got linked by Atrios and a bunch of his readers came over. The comment thread is basically a bunch of visitors from InstaPundit arguing with a bunch of visitors from Eschaton -- and complaining that the commenters at Hit & Run are nuts.Hey, some of the Hit & Run regulars are nuts. But they aren't that crazy. Most of them sat out that particular debate.
Fair enough. But many of the comments here are about deeper concerns with the direction of the magazine, to which it might behoove both Mssrs. Walker and Gillespie give at least some consideration. The post seems to have struck a chord, both in comments, and in some emails that I've gotten.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 AMAnyone still fantasizing that this is a conservative administration should note this particular appointment of a woman who wants to set up quotas for men and women in math and science classes.
At least they put the kibosh on it. For now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:30 PMJames Carroll has a nutty column today in which he agrees with the psychoanalytical diagnoses of Iranian mullahs:
An Iranian official dismissed the talk of imminent US military action as mere psychological warfare, but then he made a telling observation. Instead of attributing the escalations of threat to strategic impulses, the official labeled them a manifestation of ''Americans' anger and despair."The phrase leapt out of the news report, demanding to be taken seriously.
And amazingly (at least to me), he does just that.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:12 AMSpeaking of the Euston Manifesto, David Weigel has a libertarian take on it, that rapidly and humorously devolves in comments into a debate on tee-shirt icons:
You think Che makes an attractive T-shirt? He looks like something from Planet of the Apes......The problem with the right wing T-shirts is that the right is mainly about ideas, while the left is mainly about the 'cult of personality', the sound bite and the pretty face.
And one commenter reminds me that I hadn't checked in on Communists for Kerry since he lost the election. It's amusingly turned into a "museum of the failed revolution."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:01 AMAmidst another piece on the Taliban Man at Yale, which John Fund has been all over, I was struck by these three grafs:
Even some who defend the right of Yale to make its own admissions decisions now say it went too far with its Taliban Man. Mark Oppenheimer, a Yale grad who edits the New Haven Advocate, an alternative weekly, says he has "finally come to the conclusion" that "Yale should not have enrolled someone who helped lead a regime that destroyed religious icons, executed adulterers and didn't let women learn to read. Surely, the spot could have better gone to, say, Afghani women, who have such difficulty getting schooling in their own country."Mr. Oppenheimer attributes his prior reluctance to realize Yale had erred to "basic human stubbornness" and says he finds it "awfully upsetting to agree with jokers like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly," both of whom have discussed the Yale story on Fox News Channel. "The harder they flogged this issue, the more I became convinced that they had to be wrong. I just feel better across the fence from them. . . . I think it's utterly fair to blame the right wing for making me so desperate to dissemble."
James Kirchick, a Yale senior, wrote last month in the Yale Daily News that he was disturbed by the refusal of liberals to be outraged over the religious fascism the Taliban represent. Echoing Mr. Oppenheimer, he noted that "a friend of mine recently remarked that part of his and his peers' nonchalance (and in some cases, support for) Hashemi has to do with the fact that the right has seized upon the issue. Our politics have become so polarized that many are willing to take positions based on the inverse of their opponents'. This abandonment of classical liberal values at the expense of political gamesmanship has consequences that reach far beyond Yale; it hurts our national discourse."
Indeed.
I recall that when the president announced his new space policy a couple years ago, many on the port side of the debate opposed it purely because it was his proposal. Chad Orzel even admitted that if a Democrat president had proposed it, he'd be supportive.
While irrational, it's only human to do this sort of thing, of course, and I'm guilty of it myself, but only to this limited degree--I will use peoples' opinions as a counterindicator in the absence of any other information. For instance, when I was living and voting in LA, and there would be a long roster of judges, and I didn't know anything about them (as was usually the case), my philosophy was to look at who the LA Times endorsed, and vote the other way. But if Michael Moore came out in favor of wine, I'm not going to stop drinking it.
It's beyond perverse to oppose something for this reason and this reason alone, and ignore any other knowledge you have of the situation (and refuse to consider any). But that's exactly what these students and alumni were doing. For them, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly's opposition to the Yale Taliban was sufficient, in and of itself, to support him. It was more important to them to be on the opposite side of an issue with those two people than it was to stand up for western liberal values.
This is of course a microcosm of the larger political debate since George Bush took office (though it happened on the starboard side of the spectrum when Clinton was president, but I think to a much lesser degree). Much of the Democrat Party has come to define itself almost solely as opposition to George W. Bush (and for the left, opposition to American foreign policy in general). That was in fact Kerry's primary campaign plank--he wouldn't be George Bush. Fortunately, the politics of the nation haven't (yet) become so poisoned that this was quite sufficient to get him elected. But it's very sad when a left that is supposed to be in favor of human rights and liberal values ends up objectively supporting regimes that are some of the worst on earth in that regard, simply because, in their Bush-hating derangement, the enemy of their enemy is their friend.
Which is why I found this so encouraging. I don't agree with everything in it, but I could sign on to much of it. I hope that much of the current loony left can come to embrace it as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:17 AMI don't know if this is true, but given the loony bins that modern universities have become I can easily believe it:
Scott Savage, who serves as a reference librarian for the university, suggested four best-selling conservative books for freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU Mansfields First Year Reading Experience Committee. The four books he suggested were The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Yeor, and It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Savage made the recommendations after other committee members had suggested a series of books with a left-wing perspective, by authors such as Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver.Savage was put under investigation by OSUs Office of Human Resources after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel unsafe. The complaint came after the OSU Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges against Savage. The faculty later voted to allow the individual professors to file charges.
Amazing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:39 PMWhen I read this story, all I could think was WTF? I mean WTFF?
The White House is looking at a list of cost-cutting candidates to head the Office of Management and Budget, and Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, may be on it.
Would that be the same Tom Delay who said that there was no fat left in the federal budget? That "cost-cutting candidate"? That appointment would indicate that the administration is completely unserious about cutting spending (not that there hasn't been abundant evidence of that over the past five plus years).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:06 AMThe good news for each party is that they only have to run against the other, and not against a competent one. The bad news for each party is that the same thing is true for their opposition. As I've noted before, it's like the Special Olympics of politics or something.
Yes. Whenever I see these approval ratings, I'm always amused at the thought of how many people will draw false conclusions from them. There is no point during his administration at which, had you asked me, I would have expressed approval of George Bush. I've thought that the country is on the "wrong track" my entire life (to cite another stupid poll question). Yet I was glad he won both times, because the alternative was much worse. I strongly disapprove of the Republicans in Congress. I disapprove of the Dems even more. I don't know how many are like me, but if there are a lot, then one can't draw any grand conclusions about the Dems' electoral prospects from simple approval ratings of either the president or the Congress.
I wonder how much support there would be for a party that was generally libertarian, except with a sane (i.e., not isolationist) foreign policy. I know I'd sign up in a New York minute.
[Update at 4:30 PM EDT]
Russ Mitchell has similar thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:22 PMArthur Brooks says that liberals are heartless. Errrr...sort of. Anyway, you might be able to say they're mean spirited.
Let's dispense with righteous rhetoric and look at what really counts: behavior, starting at the level of heart in personal relationships. Consider two groups of people under age 30: those who say they are liberal or extremely liberal, and those who say they are conservative or extremely conservative. According to General Social Survey in 2004, liberal young Americans are significantly less likely than the young conservatives to express a willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones. For example, progressives under 30 are significantly less likely than young right-wingers to say they would prefer to suffer rather than let the one they love suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for the one they love. (The practical implication of this is that you might want your daughter to marry a Republican.)Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:00 PM
Even after forcing the government to back down, and guarantee them jobs for life (if they can get them), the students in France are still protesting. Give them a centimeter, and they'll take a kilometer.
France--a country run by college students. All is now explained.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:13 PMSenator Coburn has put up a government web site to track government waste and overspending.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:35 AMWhat does Spiderman creator Stan Lee have to do with Hillary?
"Doug from Upland" has the answer:
Yesterday morning I had the pleasure of speaking on the phone with legendary superhero creator Stan Lee. The creator of Spiderman acknowledged to me information that could become a sticky situation for one Hillary Rodham Clinton, the smartest woman on the planet.On the link above - 4th false FEC report - turn to page 34. You will see that a $225,000 in-kind contribution is attributed to Stan Lee personally.
Lee was very surpised when I told him that, on the 4th FEC report from the Hillary 2000 campaign, he is listed as the largest donor -- $225,000. He could not understand how that could be. He has testified under oath that he never gave any money. He didn't have any money to give. He told that to the FBI, to the FEC, and to the Justice Department.
Treasurer Andrew Grossman, Hillary, and, of course, David Kendall, know very well that this is the fourth fraudulent report. They know very well that Lee gave no money. This continuing crime is being pulled off in broad daylight, and the Justice Department does not seem to want to do anything about it.
That report is the 4th time that Andrew Grossman and Hillary Clinton have had the opportunity to tell the truth to the FEC. Four strikes and you're out? Apparently, not in Hillary's world.
As someone over there points out, if I were Stan Lee I'd sue her Highness for defamation of character, for accusing me of such a thing.
This is amusing as well:
Note: although Hillary has been removed as a defendant (it will be appealed) in the case Paul v. Clinton, she will be ordered to testify. She and her defendant husband are expected to be in Los Angeles for a sworn deposition in as soon as 60 days. Does anyone remember the last time William Jefferson Blythe Clinton testified under oath?
No, actually. I have no recollection of that...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:04 AMWhat happened to Hillary's books?
...here is a FASCINATING observation I have made. I have thus far seen NOT ONE of the Hillary books at either flea markets or thrift stores. Have you? Think about it. This book supposedly has MILLIONS of copies floating around out there and yet somehow they just don't make their way thru the normal book recycling system like other books. So what happened to all the Hillary books?...Could the vast majority of the Hillary books (except for the autographed copies sold for profit on eBay) end up in warehouses? That is my suspicion and most likely they are still SITTING there. And who bought those books only to warehouse them? Labor unions? Other organizations? Using Freakonomics observations makes me suspicious that Hillary has received campaign contributions via PHONY book sales.
Someone might want to look into this. But most won't.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AMAmidst all of the media hyperventilating over the Bush "leaks," the WaPo actually has a sensible editorial today. The post title is its first three words:
Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:52 AMAs Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby's indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.
...as a campaign theme for the Donkeys. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Alan Mollohan, Democrat:
The National Journal, distinguishing between the Abramoff-DeLay nexus and the Cunningham bribery case, opined that The danger for Dems in the Mollohan case is that they may not be able to make the argument . that this is merely an isolated incident. The actions taken by Mollohan and we must remind that he has not been charged with wrongdoing have nothing to do with a culture of corruption or a K St. Project. Instead, they are representative of how some in Congress do business and how, in particular, those who sit on the Approps committee are, how shall we put it, uniquely situated to do that business. In other words, it says that the whole system is rotten and it ain't just one side of the aisle that milks it.
Yup. If there's a "culture of corruption," it's a bi-partisan one, and a natural one in a city of great power with little accountability. Lord Acton wasn't fooling.
And note the irony that he's the ranking member of the House Ethics Committee. I'm not sure whether that says more about him, or the state of House ethics.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:19 AMIn the parlance of Usenet, IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but even still, I'll bet I could have offered her better legal advice than her lawyer did (if she was sufficiently competent to have one--not a safe bet). Of course, I'd be a lawyer who doesn't buy into her legal theory of "play the race card at the beginning of the game." So it's also unlikely that she'd hire me, given the nature of the lawyer she would choose.
Anyway, if I were her lawyer, in addition to advising her to not hire a private thug to accompany her on Capitol grounds, here's the speech I would have written for her yesterday.
Esteemed colleagues, and the American people.I wish to apologize for my actions last week in striking a Capitol police officer who was simply doing his job, and doing it well.
I was in a hurry and distracted, and didn't hear verbal requests to stop, or realize that they applied to me, because I thought that I had clearance to pass, as a member of Congress, and didn't realize that I didn't have my required lapel pin on. I was surprised when he grabbed my shoulder, but that is no excuse for my behavior, and I realize now that there was no other way for him to get my attention.
Our Capitol police force has a great responsibility to ensure the safety of Congresspersons like myself, our staff, and this historic and priceless building in which we all work for the American people. As a result of this incident, in these troubled times of threat against our great nation, I also now realize that careless behavior like mine, in both neglecting to wear my pin, and in paying insufficient attention to security locations and procedures, simply makes their job that much harder.
I want to apologize not only to the officer that I carelessly struck, but to this body as a whole and to the American people whom they represent. I understand that I violated the law, and that such violations are not vitiated by apologies--nonetheless, I am deeply sorry.
Moreover, I also wish to apologize for my accusations over the past few days of inappropriate behavior and racism against the Capital police force. They are hard working, and diligent, and undeserving of such, and as they follow their orders in enforcing the rules, so should I have in following them. I was upset about the incident and fearful of its potential consequences, but again, that is no excuse for this unjustified slander against them.
I hope that they, my colleagues, and the American people can forgive me, as I will have difficulty in forgiving myself. I can only promise that having said all this, that I will not repeat this offence, and that I will go before the courts and accept whatever penalty the law demands for my thoughtlessness. As a member of Congress, who makes the laws, I realize that I must set an example for other citizens, and now fully intend to do so.
Thank you for this time, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, if she'd had competent legal advice (doubtful, because she's not the sort of person who would solicit such), that's what I'd advise she'd say, and if I were really competent, I'd persuade her to say it.
Such a speech would have completely defused the political situation. Such a speech would guarantee that in whatever court proceeding resulted, she would do no time, and get off with an admonition and at worst a probation. Such a speech would remove the situation that has been such a gift to the Republicans, removing the distraction from what the Dems have thought was a political advantage over the past several days. Such a speech would remove the possibility of even a censure by the House, let alone an expulsion (which they remain perfectly within the authority of the Constitution to do, because there's little conduct more disorderly than hers, both in the original event and in the demagoguery that has followed it). Such a speech would have at least temporarily stopped reminding people of everything that is despicable about the race-baiting wing of the Democrat Party.
Unfortunately, such a speech is one that Cynthia McKinney is constitutionally incapable of delivering, and one that her fellow Democrats (or her lawyer, chosen precisely because he'll pander to her base political creed) is incapable of persuading her to deliver. Such a speech would be rare for a politician in general, but for a person like Cynthia McKinney, it is inconceivable. Hence we got instead the utterly predictable, "he started it," "I regret that it happened" (not "I did anything wrong") speech she gave yesterday.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:57 PMCynthia McKinney apparently just apologized on the House floor. Maybe she's realizing that the security and integrity card may trump the race card.
[Update]
It's a non-apology apology:
"There should not have been any physical contact in this incident," McKinney said in brief remarks on the House floor. "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."
Translation: "He started it."
I'm sure she's sorry that it happened, but only because she may have to answer for it, not because she really believes that she did anything wrong. I hope that the GJ returns an indictment, but if not, there's always the Constitutional option. Unfortunately, this "apology" will give Dems the cover they need to not support even censure, let alone expulsion.
[Update at 3 PM EST]
Then again, maybe not. This woman is like the Energizer Bunny of stupidity. She has hired a personal body guard, who apparently shoved a reporter outside the Capitol Building. Was he going to accompany her through the checkpoints, in case the Capitol police gave her any more trouble?
Amazing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:40 AMSenator Grassley thinks that private tax preparers aren't up to the job:
"Its incredible that we have legal requirements for a barber to cut your hair, but there are no requirements for someone to prepare your taxes. Americans have a right to expect that when they hire a tax preparer theyre going to get honest, straightforward advice.
I wonder if he's going to insist on the same requirements for IRS personnel? Don't Americans have a right to think they'll get good advice from the people who are supposed to be running this bureaucratic monstrosity?
Two decades ago, Ralph Nader's Tax Reform Research Group prepared 22 identical tax reports based on the fictional economic plight of a married couple with one child. Identical copies were submitted to 22 different IRS offices around the country.Each office came up with an entirely different tax figure. Results varied from a refund of $811.96 recommended in Flushing, N.Y., to a tax-due figure of $52.13 demanded by the IRS office in Portland, Ore...
...In a 2005 test of the system by the Treasury Inspector General, 35% of answers were incorrect. The Treasury Inspector General tested the system again to measure the quality of the taxpayer assistance during the 2005 filing season.
The bad news, according to a Nov. 15 Government Accountability Office report: The accuracy rate for responding to tax law questions was basically unchanged from 2004.
The poor performance was attributed to the representatives not using the prepared guide scripts or not interpreting the law correctly.
Not interpreting the law correctly is what defines a wrong answer.
Here's an idea. Let's blow up this welfare-for-accountants system entirely, and go to some kind of consumption tax. But I guess that wouldn't allow us to punish the productive, and do social engineering, would it?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 AMDenis Boyles has some answers to frequently-asked questions about just what the heck is going on in France.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 AMCynthia McKinney's home town paper doesn't think much of her assault and moonbattery.
McKinney's haughty position that every Capitol employee ought to know her by sight and that she should never have to endure checkpoints like the riffraff evinces the arrogance and ego that voters expect from elected officials. It may be inconvenient for self-important people such as McKinney to stop and show their IDs, but it's essential in these scary times of terrorist bombings and anthrax attacks......In the past, McKinney has complained that she's mistaken for the "hired help" in Washington. In the next election, DeKalb residents can help clear up that confusion by putting an end to McKinney's employment with them.
I wonder who they endorsed when she ran?
[Update, after a little research]
I thought that I recalled something like this. Even if no charges are filed, this might be even better. Article I, Section V says:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
If assaulting a congressional cop isn't "disorderly Behavior," what is? I doubt if they could get enough Donkey votes to actually toss her, but it would be entertaining to force the Dems to take a vote on it. They'd have to choose between offending their black base (though I don't know how much general black support she gets) and the rest of the country, who can see that she's a loon. It could be a "Sista Soulja" moment for them, though.
[Wednesday morning update]
Cynthia Tucker is unimpressed as well:
If you're going to call a press conference and muster such prominent supporters as Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover, you ought to be sure the issue is important enough to command national attention. You should save that sort of clarion call for the most serious matters renewing the Voting Rights Act or raising the minimum wage so that more black men can support their children. The precious spotlight of national news coverage should not be wasted on a spoiled and demanding congresswoman who thinks she's the Soul Queen of Capitol Hill.Nor should the Abrams tank of political warfare the charge of "racism" be rolled out to fight every minor battle. Racism is a shadow of its former self, but it lives yet. You see it in the high rates of harsh discipline meted out to black boys in public schools. You can also see it in the disproportionate numbers of black men sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit.
Certainly, the legacy of racism is alive and well. You can see it in the self-destructive behavior of so many young black men the internecine violence, the distorted self-esteem, the worship of thug culture. You can see the legacy of racism in the enduring rates of poverty and poor health among black citizens.
But McKinney's trumped-up charge of racism merely cheapens the term, so that it's less effective when it's needed to discuss genuine discrimination.
Yup. And this is hardly the first time that this has happened, by either Ms. McKinney, or her partners in crime, such as Al Sharpton.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:38 PMCongressman Rohrabacher is calling for a new investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing:
"The official position today, defended by the FBI and Justice Department, is that the OKC bombing, which left 168 persons dead, was planned and executed solely by two disgruntled veterans, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, with the limited involvement of Michael Fortier," writes Rohrabacher. "After my inquiry I have concluded that others were involved and that information about the bombing is being kept from the public and from the Congress. The jurisdiction of my Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations extends only to the possible international and foreign involvement in the crime. Even within that framework there is ample evidence to justify an investigative hearing."...Rohrabacher concludes in his memo to Hyde: "(I)t is highly likely that the Arab connection and or the Strassmeier connection played a significant role in the planning and execution of the murderous bombing of the OKC federal building. In both possible scenarios, the official investigation fell short and further investigation has been discouraged ever since."
He's been working with Jayna Davis (who, in my opinion, should get a Pulitzer, particularly in light of all of the official noncooperation she's encountered). This botched investigation (and continuing coverup) is one of the many things for which the Clinton administration has never been held to account.
[Update a few minutes later]
After a phone conversation with Jayna Davis, "Doug from Upland" has some questions for Congressman Rohrabacher.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:23 AMApparently the Secretary of State is quite the diplomat:
A few hours earlier, Mr Armstrong had been declaiming the war in Iraq in forceful tones in front of the nation's media. Now, he appears to have undergone a quasi-religious conversion. But you can't blame him. This, it seems, is quite simply the Condi effect.However much people might dislike the thought of Condoleezza Rice, 51, one of the key architects of the Iraq war, defender of Guantanamo Bay and staunch ally of George Bush, it seems that they cannot help but be won over by the reality.
I don't know if she can win an election, but as SecState, so far, she seems to be a hit overseas.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:50 PMRamesh Ponnuru writes about them.
When the National Review is pointing this stuff out, you know that the elephants are in trouble. I hope they can get their act together, because the thought of the donkeys being in charge, given their recent (and not-so-recent) behavior is (still) even more frightening. It's depressing, really.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:25 PMCynthia McKinney's lawyer has finally played the race card. Well, at least she's not blaming the Joooos.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:23 PMInsert both feet. Do they really think that this is going to help their cause? I think that this event is going to guarantee a harsher immigration bill.
[Late morning update]
A flag burning. Of a Mexican flag. In Arizona.
Things are heating up.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AMI heard an interview with Morgan Spurlock on NPR when his crdocumentary on McDonald's came out, and thought him a fool as a result. The basis of the movie (as I understand it, based on the interview--I haven't actually seen it) was that fast food was bad for you. He apparently, and admittedly demonstrated this by ordering the worst possible things from the McDonalds menu for weeks on end, and foregoing exercise. I leave the illogic of his thesis, and means of proving it, to the reader.
Now we find out that he's been giving insulting and obscene speeches to high-school students, including making fun of the special ed students. His "apology" is pathetic, as many of his commenters note.
[Via Joanne Jacobs, whose important new book on education
"Baghdad Jim" McDermott has been ordered by a federal court of appeals to finally, after a decade, pay up:
In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that McDermott violated the rights of House Majority Leader John Boehner, who was heard on the 1996 call involving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.The court ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.
It's always nice to see a little justice come from all the Democrat dirty tricks of the nineties, even if much of the Clinton corruption and criminality went unhindered.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:25 AMOne wonders if such things are just coincidence, or copycat deaths. Two Reagan administration officials have died in as many days. First, Lyn Nofziger yesterday, and today (according to Fox News--no link yet) Cap Weinberger, one of the architects of the downfall of the Soviet Union. RIP in both cases.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:50 AMThe FEC has decided that campaign finance "reform" doesn't apply to the Internet.
Bloggers would be entitled to the same exemption from the campaign finance law that newspapers and other traditional forms of media receive."There will be no second class citizens among members of the media," Toner said.
I fearlessly predict that McCain and Feingold, and some "members of the media," who do in fact think of the unannointed as "second-class citizens," and don't want to give up their monopoly on political speech, will be up in arms to get new legislation to end this "loophole."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:21 AMJohn Fund has found a more worthy student for a Yale scholarship than a former Taliban propaganda minister.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 AMA lecture on democracy, at Columbia University, from Moammar "Looneytunes" Gaddafi:
He touted Libya's political system as superior to "farcical" and "fake" parliamentary and representative democracies in the West.""There is no state with a democracy except Libya on the whole planet," Gaddafi said to the conference at Columbia University in New York.
Libya's Jamahiriyah system, under which Libyans can air their views at "people's congresses," is genuine democracy, said Gaddafi, who spoke through a translator and was dressed in purple robes and seated at a desk in front of a map of Africa.
I loved this:
Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, one of two U.S. moderators, said some of Gaddafi's comments might have sounded jarring to Americans.
Gee, ya think? Talk about an ivory tower.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:30 AMWith his precious EU project in tatters, and unemployment rates in "old Europe" (i.e., Germany and France) at all-time highs, and students rioting because they won't be guaranteed employment for life, Jacques Chirac decided to walk out of an economic conference of the EU because one of the French industrialists had the temerity to speak in the "language of business." That is to say, English.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:00 PMA series of debates between David Horowitz and "Chuch" (aka Ward Churchill, about whom, by the way, it should be asked--why does this creature continue to suck money from Colorado taxpayers?).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:08 PMIn continuing to report on the apparent injustice in the case of Cory Maye, Radley Balko reminds us of the ongoing war on our civil liberties in the name of the War on (Some) Drugs:
On my first day in Prentiss I met Debra Brooks, a 28-year-old white woman who says that in March 2004, officers from the Task Force raided her home after a confidential informant said she and her family were running a meth lab inside.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:39 AMAt around midnight, police kicked down her two outside doors without first announcing themselves, then stormed her home when her boyfriend opened the inner door to see what what going on. They trained their guns on the three young children inside, still in their beds, and held Brooks in a bedroom at gunpoint while they searched the house for contraband. They found no drugs, or evidence of meth manufacture. They did find a bong, brand new and unused, and a bottle of vodka, illegal in dry Lawrence County (Lawrence is adjacent to Jefferson Davis County). Police never produced a search warrant.
Police arrested Brooks' boyfriend at the time, Landas Pate, and her brother, James Wesmorland. Pate would be held in prison for several months before his family could post bond. Wesmorland's family couldn't make the $40,000 bond. So he was held in the Lawrence County jail for 280 days, until December 2004. Remarkably, on December 30 of that year, Wesmorland was released. No charges. No explanation. He had been held on suspicion of selling meth and pills within 1,500 feet of a church. Police told him they had video surveillance of these alleged sales. They never showed him any video.
"...Words and music by Scooter Libby. From a true story about a D.C. trainwreck and the half-cocked engineer who failed to brake in time."
A great description of (see comment #33) the current state of the l'affaire Plame/Wilson, based on the latest reporting from Byron York. It looks like Libby is going to force the trial to be about what Fitzgerald was originally hired to investigate--who gave Plame's affiliation to the press? I have a hunch that the press and the Dems won't be happy with the outcome (as the man once said, they can't handle the truth).
Worst. Fitzmas. Ever.
And Tom Maguire has further thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:18 AMI'd love to see a class-action suit against Elliot Spitzer.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:04 PMThat's what a supposed spokes(wo)man for the Donkeys says:
It was thus curiously refreshing to hear a Democrat admit what everyone knows: the Dems have no policy and see no reason to offer one. The particular context was the war in Iraq. Interviewing Rosen on this evening's Hardball, Chris Matthews asserted: "I don't think your [your?] party has a policy."Acknowledged Rosen: "It doesn't have a policy. It doesn't need to have a policy. What's the point of a Democratic policy?"
Going to break, a palpably shocked Matthews exclaimed: "I can't believe you said that!"
Believe it, Chris.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:58 PMWhy, when one is looking for this site on Google, does one get the following message?
Sorry, no information is available for the URL thepeoplescube.com
They'd like to know, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:34 AMJason Zengerle isn't impressed with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga's attitude about "winning":
If there's one animating idea that's shared by liberal bloggers like Kos and Atrios and all the others, it's, as Wallace-Wells called it, "the ideology of winnerism."Which is why it's bizarre that these very same bloggers are always so eager to celebrate moral victories. After Howard Dean went down to defeat, they boasted about how they took a virtual nobody to the precipice of victory. Ditto for Paul Hackett. And the same thing is happening today now that Ciro Rodriguez--the former Texas congressman who became a blog darling after his Democratic primary opponent, incumbent Congressman Henry Cuellar, was shown hugging President Bush at the State of the Union--has apparently lost...
...But more often than not, these liberal bloggers (especially Kos) act like they already have taken over the world--writing manifestoes, issuing threats, and engaging in all sorts of chest-thumping behavior. But, like I said, their batting average is still a big fat zero.
What was it I called people who win "moral" victories? Oh, now I remember...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:05 PMSo I was looking at the Amazon page for Kos' and Armstrong's book, Crashing The Gate
But I saw none of that among the reviews for Crashing The Gate
I'm going to keep an eye on it, and see if my prediction is born out, over the next few days. And if it is, what does it say about the civility level of the two sides of the political spectrum?
[Update a few minutes later]
It's not at Amazon, but here's an example of a negative review by someone who has actually read the book. It's certainly not laudatory (though Trevino does have some good things to say about it), but it's also not the mindless feces flinging that often passes for many "progressive" reviews of "non-progressive" books at Amazon.
[Late evening update]
There's one other interesting characteristic of these drive-by trolls. They not only haven't read the book, but they aren't prolific reviewers in general. For example, consider the reviewers for Glenn's latest book
This seems like something that Amazon could do something about. It's almost like spam, except it's a lot more personal.
Ideas as to how Amazon could (fairly and objectively) do something about it are welcome.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:16 PMEconomist Vernon Smith, 2002 Nobel Laureate (and my thesis advisor) said in "Trust the Consumer!" in today's WSJ:
Health-care costs doubled over the decade ending in 2004, in fact reaching an all-time high measured as the share -- 16% -- of GDP; and they continue to greatly outpace inflation. Similarly, education costs from primary levels up through college continue to grow faster than other categories of national spending. Why?Here is a bare-bones way to think about this situation: A is the customer, B is the service provider. B informs A what A should buy from B, and a third entity, C, pays for it from a common pool of funds. Stated this way, the problem has no known economic solution because there is no equilibrium. There is no automatic balance between willingness to pay by the consumer and willingness to accept by the producer that constrains and limits the choices of each.
I am not sure that an education subsidy is a bad idea. The nation's take from higher tax revenues from graduates may well cover the cost at the margin. Graduates earn $25k/yr more than non-graduates mid career. If we can get the health industry to extend work life, a subsidy might be justified there too. But paying 60% of what the service costs instead of a 20% co-pay or a politically-set tuition would surely create a higher quality, lower cost product.
a) I'm busy tearing down walls and removing cabinets in the kitchen (though I could still listen while doing that, amidst the noise of the hammering and reciprocal sawing).
b) I haven't seen any of the movies that are up for awards.
c) I have no interest in the glitterati--I think that for the most part they're pompous, pretentious pseudointellectuals, attempting to make up for what they know are largely lucky breaks (surely there are many more great actors and directors than are given opportunities in Hollywood--just look at how much it helps to be have a family member in the business) in their success, by "giving something back" in the form of wacko progressive politics. I've also lived long enough in LA to have met many of them in real life, and for the most part, they're not even people you'd particularly like to know.
d) I have no interest in listening to their inevitable ignorant digs, or outright rants, at the president, or Republicans (though I'm no big fan of the president or Republicans myself--I just find the Bush-hating derangement tiresome, when there are so many real things that they could be criticizing both for).
[Update a few minutes later]
It just occurred to me that I did see "Pride and Prejudice."
But I'm still not watching.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 PMI don't know how history will rank Jimmy Carter among the presidents (my guess will be pretty low, definitely in the bottom quarter), but there's not question in my mind that he's absolutely the worst ex-president we've ever had:
Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America's ambassador, John Bolton. "My hope is that when the vote is taken," he told the Council on Foreign Relations, "the other members will outvote the United States."...Asked yesterday about his views on religion, Mr. Carter said, "The essence of my faith is one of peace." In a clear swipe at Mr. Bush's faith, and to a round of applause, he then added, "We worship the prince of peace, not of pre-emptive war." Mr. Carter then went on to attack American Christians who support Israel.
Shameful.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:23 AMWhile I thought that Harry Browne went off the deep end in the last few years on foreign policy, he was a great, and I think good (if occasionally misguided) man in advancing the ideas of liberty. I always thought it a shame that he wasn't allowed to participate in the presidential debates--he would have mopped up the floor with both candidates, at least in being coherent and articulate. And passionate (unlike Al Gore, who considers bellowing absurdities and wonktalk with a red face and bulging veins to be passion).
Brian Doherty has a tribute over at Reason's Hit'n'Run.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:59 AMTibor Machan writes that Hollywood only finds villains nuanced when they're anti-American:
Let us not forget that most of the writers and producers in Hollywood -- the ones who make a quintessential American institution, namely, business, look so terrible in their various vehicles -- are politically sympathetic with the Left. They have been that for a long time. (Even today, after the true nature of communists has been clearly demonstrated -- based on, among other things, KGB and similar archives -- there is still far more hostility shown from much of Hollywood against Joe McCarthy than against Joe Stalin -- for instance, in George Clooney's movie, "Good Night and Good Luck".)Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:50 PMNo, there is no sudden discovery of subtlety and complexity within the minds of evil people by Hollywood writers and producers. Rather what we have here is apologetics, plain and simple. The folks who put out this stuff just cannot work up a genuine disgust of terrorists because, well, most of the terrorists share their anti-American point of view. That seems to suffice for them to place most terrorism -- which, one must keep in mind, consists primarily of killing people who are innocent, among them civilians and many children, and whose only "crime" is to be Americans or Westerners, meaning, they belong to the tribe the terrorists want to wipe out -- into a sympathetic light.
Anne Bayefsky points out the latest reason that the UN is not just useless for human rights, but an ongoing disaster.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 AMJim Geraghty isn't impressed by the response to the Danish cartoon controversy by the left regions of the blogosphere:
The one common refrain on the blogs of the left has been to compare the rioters, the imams threatening violence, and embassy-torchers to prominent members of the religious right. Oliver Willis huffed, Weve certainly learned that religious fundamentalism is the domain of the truly insane, whether thats Pat Robertson and the Family Research Council, or Muslims rioting over a cartoon. At the Huffington Post, Harry Shearer wrote, Itd be fun to ask Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan what they think of this fuss, and how theyd react to similar cartoons of Jesus, and Mary.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:10 AMThey would probably react similarly to the way they responded to Serranos art Piss Christ or the controversial painting depicting the Virgin Mary in feces. They would complain, protest and perhaps boycott the publication. But this facile comparison is the mark of a mind incapable of detecting distinctions, as it is hard to imagine Christian riots, burning down embassies, or large demonstrations full of banners saying BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT JESUS.
...Since the 2004 election, the Democratic Party has embraced liberal bloggers as a source of energy, excitement, campaign donations and grassroots support. They are reaching out to a motley mob of simple-minded fools whose touchstone is an irretractable belief that President Bush is the root of all evil.
...if the judge grants Scooter Libby's request for dismissal? The Merry Fitzmas would be officially over.
Filing such things is pro forma, of course, and I'll be surprised if it's granted, but Fitzgerald's stonewalling on the evidence doesn't make his case look very good. It also seems to be on novel grounds.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:49 PMNick Gillespie and Gerard Venderleun on the Democrats' latest PR folly.
Amazing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 AM...at Harvard (or anywhere else), doesn't work. Larry Summers is resigning:
I've been disappointed by Summers' repeated apologies for raising legitimate intellectual questions in a fair and respectful way. I consoled myself with the thought that, if Summers remained in place, he might ultimately do more for reform than he might have by standing up for principle. Now even this second-best consolation is gone, making it all the more obvious that Summers ought to have stood up to the Harvard's dictators from the start, even if it cost him his job. Now Summers must either remain silent, or hit back and implicitly acknowledge that all those apologies were bogus.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:01 AM
I didn't note this article by Lee Harris on the "father of our country" yesterday, when it would have been more appropriate (though it still wouldn't have been his actual birthday), but it's still certainly worth reading today, or any day. And I wholeheartedly agree with this:
Today we now call it President's Day, and no longer celebrate Washington's Birthday. This is a pity. For without the greatness, wisdom, and humanity of our first President, the office of the Presidency would almost certainly have become something radically different from what any of us are familiar withindeed, it might well have become something that none of us would feel much like celebrating. It was not the written document called the Constitution that protected us from tyranny; it was the shining example of a single man.
The notion of "President's Day" is a travesty, and one that Congress should amend. Lumping all the presidents together, as though they're all somehow worthy of honoring on the same level as Washington and Lincoln--even the Buchanans and Hardings and Carters--just to create another three-day weekend, is a blight on those men's memory.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:50 AMI...errr...don't blame John Ashcroft:
To my knowledge, not a single Democratic office-holder, in Minnesota or elsewhere, has disassociated himself from the Minnesota Democratic Party's position that it is "un-American" to support our government's policies in Iraq, and that expressions of such support should be banned from the airways.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:14 AM
Posner proposes a set of firewalls with criminal penalties and post intercept review in today's WSJ:
It is a mistake to think that the only way to prevent abuses of a surveillance program is by requiring warrants. Congress could enact a statute that would subject warrantless electronic surveillance to tight oversight and specific legal controls, as follows:1. Oversight: The new statute would --
(a) Create a steering committee for national security electronic surveillance composed of the attorney general, the director of national intelligence, the secretary of homeland security (chairman), and a senior or retired federal judge or justice appointed by the chief justice of the United States. The committee would monitor all such surveillance to assure compliance with the Constitution and laws.
(b) Require the NSA to submit to the FISA court, every six months, a list of the names and other identifying information of all persons whose communications had been intercepted without a warrant in the previous six months, with a brief statement of why these individuals had been targeted. If the court concluded that an interception had been inappropriate, it would so report to the steering committee and the congressional intelligence committees.
2. Specific controls: The statute would --
(a) Authorize "national security electronic surveillance" outside FISA's existing framework, provided that Congress declared a national emergency and the president certified that such surveillance was necessary in the national interest. Warrants would continue to be required for all physical searches and for all electronic surveillance for which FISA's existing probable-cause requirement could be satisfied.
(b) Define "national security" narrowly, excluding "ecoterrorism," animal-rights terrorism, and other forms of political violence that, though criminal and deplorable, do not endanger the nation.
(c) Sunset after five years, or sooner if the declaration of national emergency was rescinded.
(d) Forbid any use of intercepted information for any purpose other than "national security" as defined in the statute (point b above). Thus the information could not be used as evidence or leads in a prosecution for ordinary crime. There would be heavy criminal penalties for violating this provision, to allay concern that "wild talk" picked up by electronic surveillance would lead to criminal investigations unrelated to national security.
(e) Require responsible officials to certify to the FISA court annually that there had been no violations of the statute during the preceding year. False certification would be punishable as perjury.
(f) Bar lawsuits challenging the legality of the NSA's current warrantless surveillance program. Such lawsuits would distract officials from their important duties, to no purpose given the new statute.
Destroying the negative data would be the only thing I would add to assure that Posner's robot searchers don't tell their tales to humans. I would subtract the barring of lawsuits. We need some catharsis. I would also subtract the Congressional declaration. Why should we expect the targets to give us any notice that they are on the war path?
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 06:36 AMAm I the only one who thinks that this is an hilarious story?
Prosecutors can't read Libby's handwriting
Ex-Cheney chief of staff asked to decipher notes in Plame case
Talk about Keystone Kops.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:49 AMRichard Epstein weighs in on the wiretap issue on the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal with Executive Power on Steroids. While claiming to be for legal wiretaps, he is strongly against illegal ones:
The major danger with presidential surveillance does not lie in this particular overreaching of executive power. It's what comes next. If President Bush can ignore FISA, then he can disregard a congressional prohibition against the use of nuclear force.
Perhaps too melodramatic to be convincing. When I did Oxford debate in high school, every plan from water quality to farm policy ended with nuclear war. But there are myriad ways that presidential powers could become tyrannical if a Jacksonian president took the law into his own hands. I may not like Jackson as chief magistrate, but he sure knew how to give a good speech.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 03:28 PMI'll bet that some Senators wish they'd been a little more reasonable about Senator Coburn's medical practice. It was surely just one more reason to be unwilling to play ball (though I suspect that in fact it probably wouldn't matter).
When Coburn disparaged an earmark for Seattle -- $500,000 for a sculpture garden -- Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., was scandalized: ``We are not going to watch the senator pick out one project and make it into a whipping boy.'' She invoked the code of comity: ``I hope we do not go down the road deciding we know better than home state senators about the merits of the projects they bring to us.'' And she warned of Armageddon: ``I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next.'' But Coburn, who does not do earmarks, thinks Armageddon sounds like fun.
I hope he has lots of fun.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:48 PMFrench winemakers are suffering the consequences of their government's defense of Saddam, EU policies that keep the Euro high, and resting on their own laurels. There are too many good wines in the world now to expect to sell it just because it's French:
Riot police will be on standby this week for clashes, expected to involve up to 16,000 winemakers. Many of the demonstrators feel they have nothing to lose, since up to half of them are expected to go to the wall in the next five years unless the French government - or the Europe Union - bails them out.Critics say French wine producers have brought the crisis on themselves by arrogantly overproducing wines of indifferent quality that do not sell.
Last year Mrs Montosson did not sell a single drop from her 50-acre vineyard for eight months because she refused the price offered by her agent. "He offered me only half of what I'd got for my wine the year before," she said. "I said it was too low and refused to sell. But afterwards the prices just fell lower and lower."
It's not all about the boycott, but that has to be a major factor.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 PMI get very irritated when people, even intelligent people, who I respect greatly, use the phrases "tax cuts" and "tax-rate cuts" interchangeably, and one of the things that I'd do if I were King would be to outlaw this.
But because so many are unfamiliar with the difference, the administration has managed to pull a fast one on the Beltway. They are going to require an analysis of tax proposals by scoring them dynamically, rather than (absurdly) they've done in the past, statically. What does this mean?
In the past, any time the CBO or GAO did an analysis of a proposed change in tax rate changes, they assumed that said rate changes would have no effect on the growth rate of the economy, either in the general economy, or in the specific economic sphere in which the tax change would take place. Anyone familiar with economics knows that such an assumption is...to put it gently...nonsense.
We can't necessarily know what the effect of a tax rate change will be on an economic sector, but to assume that it will be nil is ridiculous.
So, people who are "scoring" (that is, attempting to estimate what the revenue effects of a proposed tax change will be) will now have a more difficult job--they will have to attempt to estimate what the effect of the tax change will be on the affected economic sectors when coming up with their estimate of revenue change for the federal government.
Will they get it right? Who knows. But at least now, they'll have to make the attempt, instead of absurdly assuming that the effect is zero. It will also provide one more thing to argue about when we attempt to reduce tax rates, but since it will also have that effect on attempts to increase them, that's a wash, in my opinion. At least it will force a debate on the subject, and make it a respectable topic of discussion.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:27 PMCindy Sheehan won't be running against DiFi (whose intellect I'm also unimpressed with, though she's nowhere near the moron that Cindy Sheehan is). Too bad. It would have been an entertaining self-immolation among CA Democrats.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:12 PMHillary's presidential poll numbers at Rasmussen are at a low:
...just 27% of Americans say they would definitely vote for the former first lady while 43% would definitely vote against. Still, 59% of Americans believe it is somewhat or very likely that she will be the Democrat's nominee in 2008.Among Democrats, the number who would definitely vote for Clinton dropped 11 percentage points over the past two weeks.
This is a microcosm of the Democrats' problem. Their base won't allow them to nominate anyone who can win a general election, whether Hillary (who is a powerhouse of the party but politically unappealing to much of the electorate) or someone who will have to tack too far left to win the nomination to find their way back to the center in the fall.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:52 AMEven brobdingnagian. Lileks comments on the latest federal budget:
You can expect the news stories to fasten on that 5.5 percent cut, since the media seem to operate with three unspoken and largely unexamined assumptions: We don't spend enough on education; conservatives don't want to spend anything on education anyway since it leads to godless rational beliefs like "the Earth is round"; and a reduction in the overall rate of increase is tantamount to a reduction in funds.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:45 AMReally? If you find two $5 bills and lose one, are you $5 ahead or $5 behind? The latter, if you work in Washington.
A reduction in the projected rate of growth is always a cut. Note the headlines about the `07 proposals: "Bush's $2.77 Trillion Budget Plan Calls for Medicare Cuts," said The New York Times. The Washington Post had the same idea, and graciously upped the budget total: "Bush's $2.8T Budget Proposal Cuts Domestic Programs."
To which Democrats say: But of course. To which Republicans say: If only.
Conservatives will still, for the most part, vote Republican, even if they weep and rend their garments before checking off "R." Why? Because they see Democrats as the ones more likely to tax everything that isn't nailed down, levy "gravity user fees" for things that are, take away private health care, strangle school choice and want SpecOps to get a warrant before sabotaging Iranian nuke factories.
There are a lot of dim bulbs in the Senate, and there's a lot of competition for the dimmest (Patty Murray, Babs Boxer, Jim Jeffords, Susan Collins come immediately to mind, and I'm sure that there are others), but my impression from every interview with him that I've ever heard is that Lincoln Chafee is not qualified (in Jonah Goldberg's famous quip) to be a spell checker in an M&M factory. The Conways have a roundup of his political prospects this fall, including some other oatmeal-brained commentary from him:
Laffey described Chafee's views on the region as "two standard deviations outside of American and Rhode Island thought." In an effort to make the point, he quoted Chafee's own words questioning the legitimacy of what the senator termed American "gripes" with Iran's nuclear program...Chafee, he said, "doesn't get it at all" that "there are some really bad people in the world."
They're upset that the National Republican Senatorial Committee continues to support him against the much more conservative Laffey, presumably on the assumption that he's the only Republican (to the infinitesimal degree that he is) that can win Rhode Island. But here's where the dim bulbedness comes into play. According to them, if even with the support of the NRSC, he loses the nomination, he'll run as an independent.
But that would seem to me to result in a Republican win, because an independent (and liberal) Chafee would split the liberal vote with the Democrat candidate, whereas the Republicans would coalesce around Laffey. So this really is a fight worth waging, and it not only doesn't necessarily risk a Senate seat for Republicans, but it might be an opportunity to replace Chafee with a real Republican, and provide a lesson to the other RINOs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AMHe should be. John Bolton has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. By a Swede.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:22 PMBoy, that one's going to piss off the TSA...
It shows a woman TSAer faking a wanding at the security line to steal a passenger's soft drink.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:05 PM...that John McCain is trying to rehabilitate his image with conservatives, in preparation for a run for the White House, this should put it to rest:
Sen. John McCain, who is to endorse Rep. John Shadegg for Maj Leader at a 3:15 Capitol presser, has already started calling around to some of his GOP pals in the House.Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:25 PMOne thing to offer an endorsement to his fellow AZ'an and pork-buster, but quite another to actively whip support for his bid.
A Canadian who doesn't hate the US has a response to Michael Moore's idiocy:
Michael, even though you are highly political and rub some folks on the other end of the political spectrum the wrong way, we do appreciate your unabashed enthusiasm for our country.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:26 PMYou might be surprised to know that there are a considerable number of us who have kind thoughts and feelings toward Americans and America, even when we differ on some the policies coming out of Washington.
We wanted to elect people to national office who reflect that view and not the American-bashing one that the Liberals have spewing out for 13 years. That is why we sent the Conservatives to Ottawa.
Brian Anderson has a long, but frightening essay in today's Journal about the steady deterioration of our First Amendment rights to free speech under the steady pressure of campaign finance "reformers," spending millions of their own money to ensure that we won't be able to express our political opinions on line.
If we don't do something to arrest this, the political blogosphere will be shut down by the election season of 2008. I, for one, say that they'll take away my keyboard from my cold, dead fingers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:48 PMJim Bennett has some advice for the incoming Canadian Prime Minister:
...the Prime Minister's office is a pretty good bully pulpit, and he would be smart to use it to start deconstructing the Trudeavean deconstruction of the old Canada. He should make sure the Canadian troops in Afghanistan are decorated in a visible and public ceremony, exactly what has been denied to them to date. He should make a show of honoring the Canadian WWII veterans conspicuously and repeatedly, and having a substantial ceremony on every one of the big Canadian military anniversaries: Vimy, Dieppe, D-Day, etc. He might bring back the Red Ensign in a historical context -- ordering it flown as a "veteran's memorial flag" on select days like D-Day, and for Canadian ships to fly the Blue Ensign on a suitable day as well, maybe November 11th. It would be very hard for people to criticize him for remembering the veterans more conspicuously. And perhaps he might even consider a surprise visit to the forces in Afghanistan.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:42 PMIn foreign policy, he and his external affairs minister can do a lot to change the tone without legislation. Rather than being conspicuously closer to Bush, (which the media is waiting to jump on him for) he should become buddies with John Howard of Australia and to a lesser extent Tony Blair (while inviting the new British Tory leader Cameron to Ottawa for a visit. Cameron might spend some time thinking about why his party is now the only major Anglosphere right party to be out of power.)
From Mark Steyn.
The Conservatives have won, though it looks like it will be a coalition government. And it looks like Belinda will keep her seat, so she may have some bargaining leverage to keep her cabinet post if she wants to ditch her new-found Liberal friends and become a Conservative again.
Also, this will give Alberta and Saskatchewan a lot more clout in Ottawa.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:11 PMArnold Kling talks about folk Marxism, and its unfortunate hold on much of the public, particularly in Europe, but also, sadly, in the US.
Under folk Marxism, the oppressed class has inherent moral superiority to the oppressor class... Class membership trumps individual character in determining moral standing. It should be no surprise that this belief could lead to tyranny and wanton murder by government. It should be no surprise that this belief has failed to improve the lot of those regarded as "oppressed." It inverts Martin Luther King's call to judge people by the content of their character.Even when Marxism does not lead to tyranny, it retards economic growth, as the stagnation of continental Europe indicates. If you believe that the poor are oppressed and the rich are oppressors, then your impulse is to penalize work, risk-taking, innovation, and saving -- the engines of economic progress.
Well, at least the Canadians are on the verge of throwing off their true oppressors today.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:10 AM...Joe Biden, usually a fixture on Sunday morning, wasn't on any of the political talk shows. Maybe he's figured he already said enough on television this week to last for a couple weeks. The questioning from Chris Wallace or Tim Russert would have no doubt been amusing, and not of much value to his presidential ambitions. I suspect he'll lay low for a while, and hope that people forget.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:11 AMFor busting the pork. I'm not now, and never have been a Republican, but I sure hope that they can get their act together. It would be nice to have at least one serious political party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:21 PMPolls indicate that the Conservatives have a chance of getting a majority in the Canadian parliament. At the least, they may be able to get a governing coalition by peeling off just a few members, rather than having to do a grand deal with the Block Quebecois. As is the case down here with the Democrats, I'm less thrilled with seeing the Tories win than I am in seeing the Liberals lose big. Sic semper tyrannis corruptis.
I'll bet Belinda Stronach is having a big-league case of buyers' remorse now, for her thirty pieces of silver. What a difference a few months makes. Maybe she and fellow turncoat Jim Jeffords can start a club.
On the other hand, if it's that close, she'll no doubt be one of the MPs that they peel off to form their majority. She knows she doesn't have much future with the current Liberals, and we already know what she is--it will just be a matter of haggling over the price. Simply letting her keep her current cabinet position would probably suffice, considering the alternative.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:13 PM...that Ted Kennedy is satire challenged?
The 1983 essay "In Defense of Elitism" by Harry Crocker III included this line, read dramatically by Kennedy: "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic..."The essay may not have been funny, D'Souza acknowledges, but Kennedy read from it as if it had been serious instead of an attempt at humor.
"I think left-wing groups have been feeding Senator Kennedy snippets and he has been mindlessly reciting them," D'Souza said. "It was a satire."
Emphasis mine.
Well, I can understand why. I mean, the guy's practically a walking (well, staggering) gasbag parody of himself.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:13 AMJust ask her:
The great thing about Joe Biden during the Alito hearings, the reason he is, to me, actually endearing, is that as he speaks, as he goes on and on and spins his long statements, hypotheticals, and free associations--as he demonstrates yet again, as he did in the Roberts hearings and even the Thomas hearings, that he is incapable of staying on the river of a thought, and is constantly lured down tributaries from which he can never quite work his way back--you can see him batting the little paddles of his mind against the weeds, trying desperately to return to the river but not remembering where it is, or where it was going. I love him. He's human, like a garrulous uncle after a drink.In this, in the hearings, he is unlike Ted Kennedy in that he doesn't seem driven by some obscure malice--Uh, I, uh, cannot, uh, remembuh why I hate you, Judge Alioto, but there, uh, must be a good reason and I will, um, damn well find it. When he peers over his glasses at Judge Alito he is like an old woman who's unfortunately senile and quite sure the teapot on the stove is plotting against her. Mr. Biden is also unlike Chuck Schumer in that he doesn't ask questions with an air of, With this one I'm going to trap you and leave you flailing like a bug in a bug zapper--we're going to hear your last little crackling buzz any minute now!
Actually, she's not very impressed with the denizens of the upper house. Me, neither, but that's nothing new.
[Update at 11 AM EST]
More Biden love from Jonah Goldberg:
... He says interesting things, from time to time. I think he makes a fair point here and there. He was correct, for example, that Congress needed to have a real debate over the war. I think he has some obvious verbal intelligence. But, again, what's fascinating -- and what might be distracting some folks from seeing his underlying-yet-occassional smarts -- is that he lets his ego and vanity get in the way. The man loves his voice so much, you'd expect him to be following it around in a grey Buick, in defiance of a restraining order, as it walks home from school. He seems to think his teeth are some kind of hypnotic punctuation marks which can momentarily disorient the listener and absolve him from any of Western civilization's usual imperatives to stop talking. Listening to him speechify is like playing an intellectual game of whack-a-mole where every now and then the fuzzy head of a good point pops up from the tundra but before you can pin it down, he starts talking about how he went to the store and saw a squirrel on the way and it was brown which brings to mind Brown V. Board of Ed which most people don't understand because [TEETH FLASH] he taught Brown in his law school course and [TEETH FLASH] Mr. Chairman I'm going to get right to it and besides these aren't the droids you're looking for....Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:35 AM
So says Rich Lowry. He's right, but of course not because there's something uniquely corrupt about Republicans per se (though there is something uniquely hypocritical about their corruption, because they were supposed to be the party of smaller government, and present fewer opportunities to seek rent, as George Will eloquently points out). It's because Lord Acton had it largely right--power does indeed corrupt.
The Republicans should view this as an opportunity to get back to their small government roots. Unfortunately, they probably won't. Not that I'm inclined to vote for Democrats in preference, of course, because we know they'd be even worse. There is a "culture of corruption," but it's a culture of power, not of party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 AM...when I read that there is now a federal law against annoying people via the Internet. I mean, I'd probably get fifty to life. Or consecutive life terms, to judge by some of my commenters.
But then I saw the loophole, that says it's OK to do it, as long as you don't do so anonymously.
But what will Atrios do?
[Update on Tuesday morning]
A lot more discussion on this here.
It seems to be possible to read the law as applying to Internet telephony only (perhaps to extend existing anti-harassment laws that apply to phone calls to VOIP, but it's vague enough that we can be assured of some pretty broad prosecutions that will result in court interpretations (hopefully interpretations that the law is unconstitutional nonsense).
[Late morning update]
Orin Kerr confirms that it is a VOIP issue.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:20 PMAn interesting article from a history professor:
Clinton, however, had no...lofty ideals in his self-made scandal. He brought sex into the arena by first lying to the public during the campaign over Jennifer Flowers; then again by attempting to hush Paula Jones in her civil suit; then finally by giving false testimony to a Grand Jury. In the process, he managed to become the only president ever to be disbarred by allowing his attorney to submit a false statement to a federal judge. (There must be a standing joke here to the effect that if you arent moral enough to be a lawyer...) Clintons Lewinsky scandal was also worthy of historians treatment because it possibly marked the demise of the mainstream media as a journalistic monolith. The key stories were broken by Matt Drudge on his Internet site, and indeed, the mainstream media sought to contain the story that would damage the Democratic Party. Talk radio, the Internet, and Fox News all took center stage for bringing new information to the attention of the public. Teachers might examine the rise of these alternative news sources with the rapid and steady decline of the circulation of so-called mainstream papers and the incredible drop in viewership of the Big Three nightly news shows.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:53 AMIn light of the revelations by the 9/11 Commission that Clinton, with almost wanton disregard for the evidence, dismissed warnings about al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and terrorism; that he turned down three offers by the Sudanese government to hand over bin Laden; and that his Justice Department, courtesy of Jamie Gorelick, erected the wall between the CIA and the FBI that later had to be torn down after the horror of 9/11, the central question that many students will have about the Clinton impeachment is, Why was lying under oath all that the prosecutors could indict Clinton for? It will take good teaching, indeed, to explain why laundering campaign money through sources of a hostile Chinese government, or why insisting on a law enforcement model of pursuing terrorists as opposed to a wartime model, were not themselves impeachable offenses. When these issues are addressed in detail, it might well be concluded that, in fact, the Clinton years not only included impeachment, but that the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was, in the big picture, the most important thing that occurred in his two terms.
I'm sure that all the people (many of whom were no doubt self-styled feminists) who were wailing and keening about Tookie Williams will be protesting this any minute now:
An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.
[crickets chirping]
Well, maybe tomorrow.
But it's probably not the Iranian government's fault. I'm sure they just do things like this out of an inferiority complex, and in response to the evil Western influences, and McDonalds, and Britney.
I'm sure they'll behave better when they get nukes.
[Sunday evening update]
Just for the record, I don't agree in any way with the commenter who is pining for a "Curtis LeMay type, who won't care who's in office."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:18 AMIn today's New York Times, the article "Go Ahead, Try to Stop K Street," an argument is quoted from Newt Gingrich that you have to shrink government to curb lobbyists. "There is $2.6 trillion spent in Washington, with the authority to regulate everything in your life," he said. "Guess what? People will spend unheard-of amounts of money to influence that. The underlying problems are big government and big money."
Curbing the budget will only reduce the acceleration of lobbying, not reduce lobbying. It is a bargain. The Indian tribes are just smart to get in on it (if not in their choice of representation). In my joint paper with Livingston and Jurist, we say the following:
National lobbying of Congress and the President in 2004 totaled $1 billion. That may seem like a lot, but it is a pittance compared to the $2.3 trillion in Federal outlays. Congress and the President also pass laws and make executive orders that implicitly subsidize through loan guarantees, forbid activities altogether, impose work and investment rules that implicitly tax certain activities, and establish through the courts and federal agencies how property rights are defined. Thus, it is possible that Congress and the President influence perhaps twice as much of the economy as the Federal Government spends. Given that, $1 billion to buy influence on Capitol Hill is surely a bargain. With 589 bills passing both houses of Congress (enrolled) in the 108th Congress, that works out to about $3.3 million of lobbying per enrolled bill. Adding in campaign contributions per enrolled bill (about $400 million per session for the Presidentcontributed to both partiesand $900 million in Congressional campaign contributions) the total is $7.5 million per enrolled bill....Posted by Sam Dinkin at 08:37 AMOne concern is that lobbying and contributions are like an all-pay auction where the contribution is non-refundable even if someone else contributes more and seeks the opposite policy outcome. A more equitable system would give refunds to contributors who do not get their policies adopted (otherwise known as honest bribes). We wonder what would happen if people posted prizes that they would pay directly to the Federal Government if they adopted certain policies.
Congressman Murtha, the Dems' new favorite war hero (now that they've given up on Senator Kerry), is concerned that it might look like a victory for us in Iraq. Yes, that would be terrible. How would the Democrats make gains in the House next year if that happened?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:17 AM...I don't recall all these Democrats complaining about a "culture of corruption" then.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 PM...from Mark Levin, for all those Democrats and journalists (and both) who are hypocritically hyperventilating about presidential power and eavesdropping.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:18 PMI know you'll be shocked to hear this, but the UN has been wasting tsunami relief funds.
Glenn has more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:29 AMRobert Reich in today's Marketplace Morning Report ("Spies Like Us") talks about how unchecked executive power is a concern for business. We can argue about whether Congress authorized any means necessary with its vaguely worded declaration of war. We can argue about whether the ends justify the means. But if the President can designate anyone an enemy combatant with no judicial check, that suspends habeus corpus. Holding people without charge is not supposed to happen in America especially not to American citizens on American soil.
If the President can tap anyone's US-overseas calls without judicial review and use the evidence against them, that suspends the 4th amendment protections on unreasonable searches.
If the President can search my library book record, that nullifies the first amendment right to freedom of the press as surely as staking out people's bedrooms nullifies their right to privacy.
Innocent until proven guilty is being whittled away as people like Walt Anderson are being held without bail based on their reading list.
Reading unclassified information is not illegal. A free press requires that anything that is legally published should be read without legal consequence.
I believe that authorities have overstepped here. There are antibodies society should create to check an executive or Congressional majority tinkering with the Constitution.
I propose that libraries be reorganized to hide reading lists from authorities. In particular, books should be checked out anonymously. The main business problem this causes is that the library doesn't know who to send an overdue notice to. To solve this problem, readers should be allowed to pay a substantial deposit in cash to check out a book anonymously which would then be returned when the book is returned.
Let the Executive Branch go to Congress for money and get a warrant for staking out the library if it is so all-fired important to find out what we are reading.
So check the Executive. Check the wire. Check out the books without Big Brother looking over your shoulder.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 10:21 AMAs his first Christmas behind bars approaches, serial space entrepreneur Walt Anderson is looking like a political prisoner. Michael Mealing has a Christmas card for him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:41 AMBob Novak says that the Dems remain irrationally obsessed with sixteen words.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:50 AMMark Steyn describes the Dems' Iraqi quagmire:
The Iraq election's over, the media did their best to ignore it, and, judging from the rippling torsos I saw every time I switched on the TV, the press seem to reckon that that gay cowboy movie was the big geopolitical event of the last week, if not of all time. Yes, yes, I know: They're not, technically, cowboys, they're gay shepherds, but even Hollywood isn't crazy enough to think it can sell gay shepherds to the world. And the point is, even if I was in the mood for a story about two rugged insecure men who find themselves strangely attracted to each other in a dark transgressive relationship that breaks all the rules, who needs Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger when you've got Howard Dean and Abu Musad al-Zarqawi? Yee-haw! And, if that sounds unfair, pick almost any recent statement by a big-time Dem cowboy and tell me how exactly it would differ from the pep talks Zarqawi gives his dwindling band of head-hackers -- Dean arguing that America can't win in Iraq, Barbara Boxer demanding the troops begin withdrawing on Dec. 15, John Kerry accusing American soldiers of terrorizing Iraqi women and children, Jack Murtha declaring that the U.S. Army is utterly broken. Pepper 'em with a handful of "Praise be to Allahs" and any one of those statements could have been uttered by Zarqawi.The Democratic Party have contrived to get themselves into a situation where bad news from Iraq is good for them and good news from Iraq is bad for them. And as there's a lot more good news than bad these days, that puts them, politically, in a tough spot -- even with a fawning media that, faced with Kerry and Murtha talking what in any objective sense is drivel, decline to call for the men with white coats but instead nod solemnly and wonder whether Bush is living "in a bubble."
RTWT
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AMI agree with Glenn--it's hard for me to get very upset about the failure to extend the so-called Patriot Act. And as with the idiotic "assault weapons" ban, it demonstrates the value of having sunset clauses in legislation. I still think that there would be few constitutional amendments as powerful, and beneficial, as this one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:23 PMIt seems to be a bi-partisan effort.
The level of my disgust with politicians in Washington continues to plumb new depths.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:25 AMFormer Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire, long-time nemesis of NASA, and budget hawk (something that we could use a lot more of, these days, though he always made an exception for dairy price supports), has apparently died.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here's the story. I hadn't realized that he suffered from Alzheimers. At least his suffering is over.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:35 AMLileks has the must-read low-down on 2005. Warning: some snark, irony and sarcasm involved.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:05 AMDoes anyone else see the irony inherent in a woman who married a closeted gay man calling someone--anyone--a "deluded cockeyed optimist"?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:29 PMOne of the dozen or so people to protest Tookie Williams' execution in Denver was Ward Churchill. Which reminds me--what's the status of the investigation into the plagiarism and other charges against him?
Hmmmm...according to Wikipedia (for whatever that's worth), the investigation is still ongoing.
And on the subject of the late Mr. Williams, how is that the Hollywood types are so consistent at being on the wrong side of almost every issue?
[Update a few minutes later]
Ahhh...we must have done the right thing--we've upset the Europeans...
[Update after noon]
Iowahawk has discovered one of Tookie's unpublished children's stories.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:04 AMThat's become Nancy Pelosi's latest catch phrase about the administration and the Republicans, but Rich Lowry says it's true.
Of course, I don't think that it's any worse than it was when the Dems were running the Hill. But we've come to (or at least we used to) expect better of Republicans. He's right--they need to clean up their act before someone does it for them.
Oh, and while we're on the subject, for those who nonsensically persist in thinking that I'm a conservative, or a Republican, or even a great fan of George Bush, just because I don't believe that he's a retarded Chimpy McHalliburton, I agree with Andrew Roth, who has a list of grievances.
The problem is, as it was in last year's election, that as unhappy as I am with this administration and Congress, there's no reason to think that putting Democrats in charge would improve any of the things that I'm unhappy about, and most of their rhetoric and policy statements lead me to think that it would make most of them even worse.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:43 AMOf course, by the standards described by Nick Schulz, so are many of our own government policies (such as sugar subsidies), despite platitudes to the contrary.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:56 PM...they're taking this kind of beating in the Village Voice.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:18 AMHelen Szamuely is less than impressed with the new Conservative Party leader:
Somebody obviously told him half-way through the leadership campaign that maybe, just maybe, the Conservative Party should be for individual freedom and small government, so those words did occasionally crop up in his later speeches but these were overshadowed by the mellifluous sound of modernization, forward looking, compassion and so on. And we are none the wiser as to what any of it means.Putting everything together: Camerons background, for which he feels he has to apologize, if half-jokingly, his lack of experience (his career has been entirely in politics except for a few years as Director of Corporate Affairs in a media group), his emphasis on the personal in politics, his references to the state as the purveyor of the compassion that he is so keen on, one is left with a cold feeling. The Conservative Party is going to be led by somebody Margaret Thatcher would have unhesitatingly described as a wet.
Emphasis mine. Note also that Lady Thatcher is in hospital. It's not clear how serious this is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:14 PM...but very entertaining. Johan Goldberg is making mock of idiotarian Barbra Streisand.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:45 AMOne of the favorite tactics of Democrats is to whine about being called "traitors" and "unpatriotic" when they criticize the administration or the war. Or the troops. And what's frustrating about this is that for the most part it's a strawman, because I've always perceived that in fact few supporters of the war and the administration actually do this.
But it turns out I was wrong. I have found an actual instance of it:
I say to you, all of you...there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.
I want to go on the record, however, and say that (as is usually the case) I disagree with him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:27 AMIf true, this could explain Congressman Murtha's recent behavior:
Zieve...dug up a recent editorial appearing in Investors Business Daily that stated: The newspaper Roll Call reported that there might be a House ethics committee investigation of Murtha's apparent improprieties. But, is that possible now that Murtha has become the media's hawk with a conscience? Come to think of it, could Murtha have been thinking about a possible ethics investigation when he decided to throw himself into the public limelight last week?My own BS meter is showing that Murtha conducted a calculated and probably successful operation to neutralize Republicans if they should make an issue of his ethics deficiencies. The LA Times article in June was written while Murtha was considered a war hawk. Now that he's become an "enlightened" anti-war spokesperson don't expect to see followup articles about any ethics violations or criminal acts by Rep. John Murtha.
It would be ironic if he's opposed to preemptive war, but is all in favor of preemptive political spin (as long as it benefits him).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:30 AMSounds like a huge improvement over the current leadership, to me. Here's hoping.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:15 AMJulia Gorin expounds on dumb Jews:
Ever hear what tough Jewish negotiating sounds like? Here's a page from the Oslo Land-for-Peace process:Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:00 AM
Jews: "Ok, so we're giving you Gaza, the West Bank "
Palestinians: "Death to Israel!"
Jews: "East Jerusalem, Golan Heights "
Palestinians: "Kill the Jews!"
Evangelicals: "Stop, this isn't going well; you can't kill the Je "
Jews: "Hey we're negotiating here! Will you stay out of it?"
Evangelicals: "But you're signing your death warrant!"
Jews: "Stop trying to convert me!"...Jews may have been the Chosen People once, but somewhere between Monica Lewinsky and Chandra Levy, I think G-d gave up.
I wonder how many people give credence to public opinion polls? I never see any polls on that issue.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:14 AMDebunking Mao, in Berkeley:
The husband-and-wife team of Chang and Halliday supported their archival research with interviews with 150 former Mao lieutenants, concluding that Mao was not only bloodier than Hitler or Stalin but worse in his destruction of culture.
The unrepentent commies and Maoists who (sadly) still infest the place are, needless to say, upset.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:32 AMThe Supreme Court's Raich ruling last year was a disaster not just for federalism (and freedom), and the founders' original notion of limited government, but for coherent judicial philosophy in general. Professor Reynolds (and Brandon Denning) explain explain why:
As a practical matter, of course, Supreme Court control over the lower courts has been notional for some time. Lower court caseloads have been exploding, while the Supreme Court is actually hearing fewer cases than it did decades ago. But the Supreme Courts power has always stemmed more from example than from its ability to directly overturn lower courts. Yet the more unclear and hesitant the Supreme Court seems, the less likely it is that lower courts will follow its lead.That poses rather serious problems for the justice system. The legitimacy of lower courts rulings, after all, stems largely from the notion that they are supervised by higher courts. In the absence of such supervision, decisions at the court of appeals level, if they are both effectively unreviewable (or at least unreviewed) and not really guided by principles from above, are simply ad hoc judgments by those who happen to have gotten hold of the case. These decisions are not much different from the decisions of faceless bureaucrats in the Executive Branch, with the exception, perhaps, that those faceless bureaucrats are under the authority of elected officialsthe President and, to some extent, Congressand hence subject to more public scrutiny and supervision than the courts.
A system of ad hoc decisions guided more by institutional expediency and personal preference than by overarching principle may or may not be a bad thing, but it is not a system of justice as we know it. Yet the Supreme Courts retreats this term, coupled with its self-imposed caseload reductions in recent years, suggest that the Court is less concerned than it should be with its role in overseeing the lower courts...
...With the demise of the doctrine of enumerated powers as a restraint on federal power, the only protection remaining for the liberties of citizens not sheltered by powerful lobbying groups is that provided by the positive limitations on government embodied in the Bill of Rights. Those provisions were inserted by pessimists who did not believerightly, as it turns outthat the doctrine of enumerated powers would be enough to restrain the federal government over the long term. There is no reason to believe, however, that the Bill of Rights itself will survive over the long term if the rest of the plan is abandoned. As National Aeronautics and Space Administration engineers say, once you start relying on the backup systems, you are already in trouble. But that is where we are today.
This is the consequence, over decades, of court appointments, by both Democrats and Republicans, who refuse to take the Constitution seriously. And if the excerpt isn't enough to interest you, it has zombies, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:18 AMJohn Weidner has a review of an old science fiction book, and of contemporary society.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:25 AMI want a new congressman. He's one of the three brave morons who voted for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. It's pretty bad when your rep is on the same page with Cynthia "Moonbat" McKinney. Particularly considering that he's Jewish, and she's made many anti-Israel and anti-semitic statements.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:06 PMLexington Green says that the Anglosphere needs one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:08 AMI just went and watched the latest GOP commercial, which is pretty devastating against the Donkeys who are currently trying to rewrite history about their own beliefs about Saddam. But I'm not sure it's totally fair. Has Hillary been backtracking on this, or Evan Bayh? If not, I'm not sure they should be lumped in with the others. And it's too bad they don't have a clip of Kennedy.
Not that I'm a Hillary fan--there's plenty of reason to oppose her and fear her ascendance to power, but I think she's been playing the war pretty smart all along (as would behoove her if she wants to win the presidency, though it may cause her grief in the primaries).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:20 PMI'm hearing on the news that Chirac made a speech (his first public appearance since the riots started) in which he said that France was in a malaise. No word if he was wearing a cardigan at the time, or beset by rabbits. Or what his daughter thought about the world situation.
Anyway, is it time for the French Ronald Reagan?
[Update at 9:15 PST]
Here's the link.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:59 AMGlenn is glad to see Senator McCain defending the president from the accusations of lying us into war. Me, too.
But the Senator goes too far. In turn, he is in fact guilty of the same thing of which he accuses the Democrats (and the same thing of which many of them falsely accuse the president).
I don't know when it became common in public discourse to completely erase the crucial distinction between making a false statement and lying. It probably goes back further than this, but the first time I noticed it was when the president's father went back on his pledge ("read my lips") to oppose new taxes, and then acquiesced to them under pressure from the Democrats who ran Congress and some "moderate" Republicans. As a result, many charged President Bush the elder with "lying" at the convention.
But going back on a pledge isn't a "lie." It's certainly deplorable, but there can be good reasons for doing so (though I don't think they were valid in this case). But to break a promise is not a lie, unless the person intended to break it at the time it was made. It is in fact not reasonable to talk about "lies" about future events, since ultimately the future is unknowable to anyone--it is merely possible to be wrong (again, unless the prediction is made with the knowledge that the event will be different than the prediction, and is fully within one's control). It may be that the first President Bush had no intention of keeping his pledge, but I certainly have no way to get into his mind to know that. Absent some "smoking gun" memo ("Ha, ha, ha...I certainly put it over those anti-tax rubes last night"), I doubt if anyone else does either.
And that's what it comes down to. It is not sufficient to make a false statement and be a liar. It has to be made in the knowledge that the statement is false, with the deliberate intent to deceive.
Now, I believe that in fact many accusing the president of lying, pace McCain's accusation, are in fact telling lies (that is, they don't really believe that he is lying, and are simply saying this to politically damage him, and are indifferent to, or in some extreme cases, happy about, the degree to which this damages the war effort). But it's certainly possible to make such an accusation and not be a liar, which is to say that the accuser actually believes the accusation.
We've certainly seen enough people suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome to find it credible that people believe such nonsense, so it's unfair to brand them all intrinsically liars. It should be sufficient to call them deranged, unless the Senator has some personal knowledge that they know what they are claiming is false. Accordingly, he should, in the interest of defending the principle, apologize for his own overly broad accusation.
[Update a few minutes later]
Hey, and speaking of deranged, here's the head of the DNC:
Asked what the president withheld, Dean charged that Bush withheld proof that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks [The president never made a claim of such a connection--ed]. Dean claims Bush deliberately corrupted intelligence reports and sent them to Congress."The intelligence was corrupted, not just because of the incompetence of the CIA; it was corrupted because it was being changed around before it was presented to Congress," he said. "Stuff was taken out and not presented. All of this business about weapons of mass destruction, there was significant and substantial evidence passed from the CIA and the State Department to, perhaps, the office of the vice president -- we don't know just where -- in the White House that said, 'There is a strong body of opinion that says they don't have a nuclear program, nor do they have weapons of mass destruction.' And that intelligence was not given to the Congress of the United States."
Dean repeatedly characterized the Bush administration as "corrupt."
Well, maybe he's lying, but after the scream, I have to go with deranged.
This from the party of Bill Clinton. Who, by the way, admitted to lying...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:13 PMSounds more like Howard the Chicken. Bwwwuuuckk, bwuckk, bucckk, bucckkk...
Maybe he doesn't want to have to talk about his lousy fundraising, which is the thing that he supposedly was hired to do (and if he did it, his claw-in-mouth tendencies might be forgiven). Ken Mehlman would be sure to rib him for it in a head to head, but Russert might have been too polite to mention it.
[Update a couple minutes later]
The photoshoppers are having fun already.
"This doctor is a quack."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:32 PM...is mercilessly mocked by Mark Steyn:
Will he do it? "I don't want to run for governor," he said the other day, making it sound like he's interested in the role but he won't audition. He's certainly in the right party: The Democrats have already taken on most of the characteristics of a bad Hollywood project -- no ideas, script full of ancient cliches, but if you can get the right star to commit to it we just might make this thing fly. And, though he's never run for office before, Beatty has the crucial ingredient: name recognition. All over California, women are going: "Warren Beatty? Oh, yeah, right, now I remember. That guy I had sex with in the late '60s."Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:02 AM...In 2003, you'll recall, the Los Angeles Times assigned a special team to look into Arnold's sexual background. If they do Warren in the same way, it'll be the biggest hiring bonanza in U.S. journalism for a century. Usually, when his magnificent track record of famous conquests is brought up, Beatty indignantly points out that he's had sex with a lot of very obscure women, too...
...Whether this hands-on approach to tackling the problems of the unemployed can be applied statewide is doubtful. No governor can have sex with every struggling woman in California, though, of course, Beatty does have the advantage of an impressive head start...
I mean, he's already in Zimbabwe.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 PMBill Kristol has an interesting, but to me an ahistorical piece in the latest Weekly Standard on how the Bush administration must somehow "return" to its first-term partisan roots:
...contrary to the media myth that Bush has been uncompromising and ideological, the strategy that the president has pursued for most of 2005 has been an attempt at accommodation. It has reflected a hope that he could move beyond the polarization of the 2004 campaign and appeal to the middle. It's understandable that Bush would be tempted by such a strategy: Who wants to go down in history as a polarizing president? But the strategy has been a mistake.
"...for most of 2005"? I have to ask--on what planet was he during the first Bush term? Bush has been kissing up to the mushy middle since his first presidential campaign, when he proclaimed himself a "compassionate" (read, big-government) conservative. He led a politically-correct war on "terror," in which he refused, until recently, to even recognize it as a war against radical Islamists. He has retained Norm Mineta at the Department of Transportation, who continues to fight sensible airline security policy, waging guerilla bureaucratic warfare against armed pilots, refusing to profile, and perpetuating idiotic confiscations of nose-hair trimmers. He tried to buy the union vote with the steel tariffs, in defiance of free-market principles and against the interests of manufacturers of items with steel content, and the consumers who purchase them. His administration has been weak on the Second Amendment, and even weaker on the First, with his signing of a campaign-finance bill that he said prior to the act was unconstutional, thus being derelict in his duty to defend the Constitution, all to placate the so-called "moderates" and McCain wing of both the Republican and Democrat parties.
Between the 2000 election and the 2004 election, Rove became the master of polarization politics. And now, with this year's ill-fated experiment in trying to govern from the middle surely over, polarization along ideological and party lines is a fact of life. Ethics classes won't ameliorate Democratic hostility to Bush. Nor will firing Rove.
Nor will keeping a politically correct transportation secretary, or saying that "when someone hurts, the government has to move," or expanding entitlement programs, or nominating cronies without a paper trail to the Supreme Court, or completely dismantling the notion that the Republican Party has any further interest in smaller government. But these are not new--they've been going on since the campaign in 2000. The notion that Bush has ever been some kind of extreme right-wing conservative is laughable to anyone but the hard left (whose views, sadly, have permeated the media). If Bill Kristol's advice is for him to become more of a Reagan conservative, it's good advice, but it's advice that he needed five years ago.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:28 AMJohn McCain says that he has anger management issues. He also has adherence-to-the-Bill-of-Rights issues, but he won't admit to that.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:26 AMI don't know if it has anything to do with the Eurointafada, but support for the union is at an all-time low:
Particular dismay with the EU was found in Britain, where a majority 42% to 40% believe the UK has not benefited from its 30-year membership and only 36% of those questioned considered membership a good thing.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:14 AMOf the 25 members, only 10 countries say they have a positive image of the EU. Again, Britain is at the bottom of this poll, with only 28% regarding Brussels in a positive light. Ireland records the highest satisfaction, with 68%.
All 10 new EU members are shown to be going cold on the euro, with a marked drop in those believing it would be good for their countries, the fugures falling to 38%, from 44% and interest in the single currency is now a minority issue, at 48%.
From Bubba:
He told us during a Q&A segment that one of the hardest parts of his 8 years was not being able to find bin Laden although his administration looked desperately for him.
Like when he turned down the Sudanese when they offered him up on a platter?
I think that Bill Clinton looked about as hard for bin Laden as OJ did for the real killers.
Read the whole thing--there's disgustingly more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:29 AMThe supposedly suicidal Marilyn Monroe didn't seem to be in such a hurry to shuffle off this mortal coil:
June DiMaggio tells the magazine that her mother, Lee, who was the last person to speak to Monroe, recalls that Monroe screamed and dropped the phone on the night she died. June says her mother believed that more than one person entered Monroes bedroom that night. But Lee took this information to her grave because she feared for the safety of her family.
What?! Surely no one in the White House could have been making such threats.
June confirms rumors that Monroe and DiMaggio, who divorced in 1954 after less than a year of marriage, were planning to rewed on Aug. 8, 1962. DiMaggio had purchased rings and Marilyn had her dress and china picked out. But instead of Aug. 8 being her wedding day, it was the day of her funeral.
Ahhh...Camelot. Isn't it beautiful?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:33 PMThese morons, that is.
As a result of their failed ideology, we have the guns. If I believed in God, I'd thank him for the Second Amendment. I'll thank the Founders instead. Let's just hope that the Supreme Court doesn't completely eviscerate it, as they have much of the rest of the Constitution. Certainly Republicans haven't helped much, so far.
Yes, I know this is a weird post to be the first one in a couple days. What can I say? I'm busy, and, to quote Jayne in Serenity (a movie that I just saw a couple nights ago for the first time), the site damaged my calm.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:42 PMI don't normally think that Harry Reid is smart enough for this sort of thing, but did he set Bush up by blessing Harriett Miers? I only ask because I'm listening to a DNC strategist saying that she's disappointed that Bush didn't "consult" with the minority leader on the latest pick.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:26 PMGiven the potential jail time and fines for the charges, I'll be very interested to see if Libby (assuming that he's convicted or cops a plea) gets a harsher sentence than Sandy Berger, someone accused of not only lying to investigators, but destroying archived government documents that may have shed light on the anti-terrorism activities of the Clinton administration (or lack thereof)--crimes to which he has confessed. It would certainly shock my personal judicial conscience if he does.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:42 PMStefan Sharkansky says that with another election in less than two weeks, voter fraud in King County continues unabated.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:35 PM...a desire to see Bush name Ann Coulter to the Supreme Court, just to see the apoplexia that this would arouse among Democrats and liberals. The halls of Congress would be bloody with bursting veins and arteries. I wouldn't expect (or even hope) that she'd be confirmed, but the entertainment value, particularly at the hearings, would be immense.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:16 AMI hope that this withdrawal is the trough of this presidency, and that he'll quickly nominate a worthy candidate. My suggestion (agreeing with some over at The Corner)--Ted Olson. He's got sterling credentials, and it would be very tough for the Democrats to beat him up in the hearings, because he'll bring a natural sympathy due to his loss in the war.
Oh, and by the way, are these people serious? The conspiracy mongery on the left apparently knows no bounds.
[Update a few minutes later]
I'm listening to DiFi, who just informed us that Miers' answers to her questions were not fulsome. I continue to be amazed that California chooses to have two of the dimmest bulbs in the Senate (and that's a tough competition) represent them in that body.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:23 AM...and the mainstream media that ignores it. An interview with Peter Schweizer:
I'm not sure that most people take Franken seriously, but the media most assuredly does...His vicious attacks against conservatives as racists are not meant to be funny. He really does think that we're bigots. So questions about his absolutely abysmal record when it comes to hiring minorities should be exposed. (For those who want a hint, less than one percent of his employees have been black. That's a worse record than Bob Jones University, which Franken claims is "racist.")
There's more there about Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, and Noam Chomsky, among others. He's written a book.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 AMJust in case anyone had any doubt from this post, I oppose the Miers nomination.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:41 AMWhile Walt Anderson did some really dumb and arrogant things, just glancing through this web site, this would appear to be less a prosecution, than a persecution.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:32 PMWhile I'm not a conservative, I completely agree with George Will:
Miers's advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:45 AMIn their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the "right" results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result...
...Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.
As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material.
I haven't had much to say about the Miers nomination, but a fellow blogger asked me last night at dinner what I thought about it. A lot of other people are discussing this, but all I'll say is that I think that it's the most boneheaded thing that the president has done during his presidency.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:25 PMCathy Seipp writes about it in today's WSJ.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:17 PMI know you'll find this hard to imagine, but Louis Freeh says that the Clintons' closets were full of skeletons. And in this case, it's probably not just a figure of speech.
What do you do when you're the FBI director for a president so corrupt? I would have stepped down, and said why. It certainly would have done the country a service to know at the time (of coure, much of it prefers to remain in denial now). It's hard to work up much admiration for him at this point (particularly seeing what a mess he left the FBI in, including his aversion to computers and technology). But at least this might be one more wrench in the spokes of Hillary's candidacy.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Oh, I hadn't read this part:
Freeh says he was determined to stay on as FBI director until President Clinton left office so that Clinton could not appoint his successor. I was concerned about who he would put in there as FBI director because he had expressed antipathy for the FBI, for the director, he tells Wallace. [So] I was going to stay there and make sure he couldnt replace me, Freeh tells Wallace.
But, hey, no worry, he's just part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, right? It goes all the way up to the head of the FBI, don't you know?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:07 PMDid the head of the DNC really say this?
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that the president can claim executive privilege?DEAN: Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege. But in this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called. He's got to go out there and say something about this woman who's going to a 20 or 30-year appointment, a 20 or 30-year appointment to influence America. We deserve to know something about her.
Emphasis mine.
Howard Dean. The gift that just keeps on giving.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:20 AMKathleen Willie is writing a book. And we can be sure that the junior senator from New York will claim that this (Democrat's) new tome is just part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy:
The upcoming bookentitled "Target: In the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton" (ISBN 0974670162)will mark the first time Willey has disclosed the entire story of the series of physical and verbal threats intended to pressure her to conceal allegations that the former President assaulted her in the Oval Office. She will also detail her first-hand knowledge of the influential role former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton played in the Clinton Administration, and in the process rebut the claim that the Senator from New York was unaware of the White Houses campaign of intimidation.Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:04 PM
Well, maybe John Kerry is afraid to sue, but now he's on the receiving end of a lawsuit for defamation.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:31 PMGreenspan's term is almost up. Based on precedent, I'm guessing that Bush will either appoint his personal banker, or the head of the search committee...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:47 AMAlaska Air has a nifty new paint job on one of their airplanes. At federal taxpayer expense.
Alaska. Isn't that the state where residents get a negative income tax as a result of their oil revenues? But hey, if your Senator is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, why pay for things out of your own pocket?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:20 PMTunku Varadarajan has an interview with a recent heroine of September 11.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 AMI think that the latest William Bennett kerfuffle is a tempest in a teapot, but his response irritates me a little:
A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment.
Sorry, but this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. I get just as annoyed when people on the so-called right wrap themselves in the First Amendment as a rhetorical barrier against criticism as I do when people on the left do.
There is nothing in the First Amendment that protects anyone from having their speech criticized. Such criticism is itself protected by the First Amendment. All that the amendment says is that "Congress shall pass no law..." Unless there was a legislative move afoot today to outlaw Bill Bennett from putting his foot in his mouth of which I was previously unaware, I don't know to what he's referring here.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:39 PMWe have a new (in more than one sense of the word--it's depressing when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is younger than me) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
[Update at 12:25 PM EDT]
Whew, that's a relief. I knew he was born in 1955, but I assumed that it was after I was, since I have a January birthday. But it turns out he's one day older than me...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:07 AMJim Bennett, author of the Anglosphere Challenge (among other things), has started a group blog on issues relating to the Anglosphere, both its past and its future. Among his co-bloggers there is "Lexington Green," of the Chicago Boyz.
There are several interesting posts up already. In one, he asks who might be the UK's Lincoln with a long interview with Liam Fox, who he thinks might be a potential candidate for the role. In another, he offers some advice for assimilation in the UK from America's own history.
Go check it out, and bookmark or blogroll it. I suspect it will have some interesting commentary in future.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AMHugh Hewitt has a good idea (not to imply that this isn't often the case) about federal funds for Louisiana:
Senate Republicans should insist that as part of the package, reforms in the federal Endangered Species Act--similar to this that are poised to pass the House--be included in the appropriation so that the notoriously expense-increasing and private-property-rights destroying ESA not delay or increase the costs of these projects or other Corps projects across the country. A simple tightening of deadlines widely abused by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when the Corps "consults" with that agency under the ESA would be a huge step forward.
While they're at it, the National Environmental Protection Act could use an overhaul as well. These two laws are one of the bigger barriers to private space launch, now that some of the FAA issues have been resolved.
If this Republican spending binge and the hurricanes result in real federal reform, such as this and a line-item veto, they will be shining silver linings in the clouds.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:40 PMIf Ramesh is right, a couple of Republican senators have come up with a way to turn down the political heat on their big-spending party--by sponsoring a line-item veto amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the line-item veto in the 1990s, but this would get around that by making it Constitutional.
They'd better be careful what they wish for, though--given the current mood of the country, it just might pass. Or maybe, in the case of these two particular senators, they actually hope it will. It could be that its time has finally come.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:10 PMJust in case you harbored any illusions that Ramsey Clark had the slightest remaining shred of sanity, he apparently just called for Bush to be replaced by deposed Haitian president Aristide at today's anti-America rally in Washington (and yes, I call it that because most of the people there aren't actually for peace--they're just on the other side).
[Update at 3 pM]
Gateway Pundit agrees:
For the media to say that this is an Anti-War Rally is a lie. Now they are chanting, "End the Occupation!"...The media should be sued for misrepresentation.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:37 AM
Yes, even in Texas:
...local law enforcment officials have closed off local farm and country roads which would ease the traffic flow along the major evacuation routes. One friend of mine who lives in Angleton, 40 or 50 miles south of Houston and who is very familiar with the back roads was not allowed to use them; local law enforcement officials forced him back on to the major evacuation routes which lead to nowhere. They are virtual parking lots. There are numerous reports of people turning around and returning to their homes.Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:53 PM
Byron York writes about Mama Moonbat's (aka Mother Sheehan) excellent Washington DC adventure.
By how large a factor do the reporters have to outnumber the protesters for the media to realize that this story is long over, swept away with the floodwaters of New Orleans?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 AMNon-Americans, and particularly French non-Americans, are fond of noting how ignorant Americans supposedly are of the rest of the world and history. Which makes it all the more ironic that the French foreign minister apparently doesn't know that Hitler never conquered Britain:
Needless to say, Douste-Blazy's question was met by his hosts with amazement. "But Monsieur le minister," Le Canard quoted the ensuing conversation, "England was never conquered by the Nazis during World War II."The minister apparently was not content with this answer, which, according to the magazine, was given by the museum curator, and persisted, asking: "Yes, but were there no Jews who were deported from England?"
Well, I suppose that he should at least be given some credit for deigning to visit that "sh**ty little country," Israel, and the Holocaust museum.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:12 PMBeldar implies that Senator Kerry may be afraid to defend his service record. At least in a venue where actual rules of evidence apply, and people can be issued subpoenas, instead of just repeatedly screaming "LIAR" on cable news.
...some folks might draw the inference that rather than your having just forgotten the one-year anniversary of the publication of Unfit for Command oopsies! you're instead desperately afraid to ever face cross-examination under oath, or document subpoenas of yourself and your hagiographer Doug Brinkley, or the rest of the brilliant spotlight that accompanies a public lawsuit. Folks might become more and more convinced that you've very deliberately let most state statutes of limitations expire already, and that you'll continue to allow the clock to run on any that haven't yet.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:43 AM
Stephen Moore has a depressing column in today's WSJ on the big-government Republicans:
Both political parties are now willing and eager to spend tax dollars as if they were passing out goody-bags to grabby four-year-olds at a birthday party. The Democrats are already forging their 2006 and 2008 message: We will spend just as many trillions of dollars as Republicans, but we will spend them better than they do. After witnessing the first few Republican misappropriations for Hurricane Katrina, the Democrats may very well be right.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:32 AM
Mark Steyn is less than impressed with the Senate:
With enemies like Chuck, who needs amigos? Whatever happened to the party's fearsome forensic skills at "the politics of personal destruction"? Granted, blathering on about how, if the other guy doesn't agree with your views, he must be deficient in "compassion and humanity" is a lot of baloney even by mawkish Dem standards. But, if you're going to twitter about the fullness of somebody's heart, why get Chuck Schumer to play Senator Oprah? He has the shifty air of a mob accountant, even with every intern on his staff holding onions under his eyes. Likewise, sneering at Roberts' life of privilege may be a smart move, but not if you entrust it to Dianne Feinstein, one of the wealthiest women in the galaxy.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:00 AM
John Podhoretz, on Republicans:
Sometimes...they're just...indefensible.
Hard to imagine Kos, or Kevin Drum, or Yglesias saying that about Democrats.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:41 PMClaudia Rossett says that President Bush should spoil Kofi's party:
When we have a clean, efficient U.N. if we ever do there may come a time for pleasant diplomatic fictions on the General Assembly floor. But right now, to the extent we depend on the U.N. for anything of importance in world affairs, it is not only U.S. tax dollars at stake, but U.S. security. If there is anything the U.S. has done to earn the deep disrespect of the U.N. and its more hostile members over the years, it is that America has too long played the chump. American taxpayers foot the lion's share of the bills. The U.S. provides housing for the U.N. atop one of the fanciest patches of real estate in the country, and is now offering to finance the renovation of U.N. headquarters on terms sweeter than most hard-working Americans could dream of. We put up with anti-American resolutions and declarations by a U.N. which, according to a new website www.EyeontheUN.org treats the U.S. as a human-rights violator on a scale surpassed only by Sudan, the Congo, and the U.N.'s all-time favorite target, Israel.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:26 AM
Here are some thoughts from incoming Chief Justice John Roberts:
Ensign said they discussed only one case specifically the recent 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London decision in which the Supreme Court gave local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development."In general I was pleased with his comment there, but it was hard to pin him down exactly," Ensign said.
"He said private property rights are fundamental to the Constitution."
And this is even more encouraging:
The two also talked about how much weight should be given to judicial precedent versus to the Constitution. That is a key issue as respect for judicial precedent could lead Roberts to look more kindly on past Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed a right to abortion.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:59 PM"We obviously didn't get into particular cases, but his one comment was, 'Well, you take an oath to defend the Constitution, not judicial precedent,'" Ensign said.
James Lileks expounds on the continuing national tragedy that is Bush Derangement Syndrome:
One theory and its an interesting one, as Howard Dean would say suspects the Administration of deliberately flooding New Orleans to test the nations ability to deal with a nuclear strike. That makes sense. Sure. Why bother to drill to learn lessons that can be applied in other cities when you can drown a city and learn nothing about the hazards of radioactivity? The latter method has the added virtue of a conspiracy, which means theres a good chance someone in the chain will breach the levee of secrecy, leading to what the Founding Fathers called Super Extra Immediate Impeachment Plus.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:13 AMCrazy, yes. But this is what its come to. According to the choir of professional carpers, President Clinton spent half his two terms personally drawing up plans for new levees - when he wasnt sneaking around Afghanistan in camo paint trying to apprehend Bin Laden, that is. By contrast the Bush Junta sent 100 percent of the National Guard to Iraq, which meant the 12th Airborne Plunger Brigade couldnt descend to the Superdome with jetpacks and unstop the overflowing toilets. Doesnt matter that New Orleans had hundreds of school buses unused for evacuation blame the Feds who cut matching funds for bus-driver instruction back in 1927.
This level of incandescent lunacy isnt new. In the 90s there were people who believed that President Clinton would use Y2K to herd us into FEMA-run gulags to have barcodes tattooed on our necks, but these people confined themselves to rants at 3 AM on Art Bells radio show. By 2006 their ideological heirs on the left will be the evening line-up of MSNBC guests.
The corruption at the UN is even more wide spread than most imagined (though I'm not surprised at all):
Procurement and budgeting corruption may escape Volcker's scrutiny, but they are central to the mandate of Annan.This scandal touches on almost everything the secretary-general is supposed to control. It is by way of procurement contracts, for goods and services ranging from cappuccino and paper clips at U.N. headquarters, to air freight services and food rations for peacekeeping troops worldwide, that the United Nations spends the billions contributed every year by member states of which U.S. taxpayers provide the largest slice.
I still think that Claudia Rossett deserves a Pulitzer for this work. She won't get it, though. Those only go for investigations into Evil Corporations and "authoritarian governments." Stories about cushy clubs for defending and protecting collectivist dictators don't count.
[Update at 9:15 PM PDT]
Claudia Rossett has thoughts on tomorrow's release of the long-awaited Volcker Report. She thinks that the blame will be diffused, and that Kofi Annan will get off too easy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:37 PMTim Cavanaugh knows where to find the money to rebuild southeast Louisiana:
Nobody, however, made out on the highway bill quite like the state of Alaska and its ravenous political class. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, bragged to his constituents that the transportation bill (which Young loves so much he named it after his wife) was "stuffed like a turkey" with handouts for his state, and he was not exaggerating. The $721 million in tundra spending includes: a $2 23 million "bridge to "nowhere," connecting the 8,900-person town of Ketchikan to an airport on Gravina Island, whose population is 50; a $200 million bridge connecting Anchorage to a rural port so insignificant even the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce tried to block the project; and $15 million in seed money for a 68-mile, $284 million access road to Juneau. (This last one is opposed by not only the Environmental Protection Agency but a majority of the area's residents.)Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:09 PM
A retired Marine major explains that FEMA is not a first responder.
I'll have more thoughts on this later. But briefly, to the degree that this has been a PR disaster for the administration, it (unlike all of the other things, like Global Warming, and Racism in Amerikkka, and lousy movies out of Hollywood, and French disdain for us, and the hurricane itself) really is Bush's fault.
Why? Because he's not only done nothing to discourage the notion that the federal government should see every sparrow that falls, and immediately call in an air strike of a soft net upon which it can plummet, nurses at the ready, and grief counselors for the potentially bereaved sparrow family, even before it hits the ground, he's actively encouraged it. As such, criticism of him as a "conservative" shows just how meaningless that word has become, a situation to which, for better or worse, he has been a major contributor.
[Update at 9:30 AM PDT]
Hugh Hewitt has related thoughts, and questions for Terry Neal and Brendan Loy:
What is the "police power?"Where does it reside?
Is there a federal "police power?"
Can the federal government order the evacuation of a city when state and local officials have not done so?
Who has first call on a state's national guard?
Who controls a city's police department?
Can a federal official order a police department to deploy in strength to specific points within a city such as the Supredome or the Convention Center?
Can a federal official commandeer a city's supply of school busses, city busses, and city personnel?
[Update mid afternoon on Tuesday]
Here's another little bit from Bill Whittle's piece from yesterday that's pertinent:
A person of some modest education might have remembered that the worship and adulation fostered after 9/11 was for the NYPD and the FDNY. No one was buying FEMA hats after 9/11, because FEMA is essentially a mop-up agency. It's the first responders, the local governments, that will determine if a city will live or die. The State -- that means, the "governor"-- has the sole authority to mobilize the National Guard, and the governor of the state of Louisana was not only slow to do that, she turned down NG assistance from several OTHER states as well. The President does not have the authority to drop precious egg salad sandwiches from Michael Moore's missing helicopters. We do this ON PURPOSE. We limit the power of the federal government, as those of us fortunate enough to have spent time in Civics, rather than Self Esteem classes, are aware. This is so that we do not develop a central power so strong that eventually we end up with idiot inbred royals, or Presidentes for life, on the face of OUR money.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:40 AM
It's been a while since Bill Whittle wrote a new essay, but it was worth the wait. Apparently momentous events bring out great thoughts. And let's face it, Sean Penn (among others) was an irresistible target:
What kind of money could Barbra and Martin and Tim and Susan and Gwenneth and George and Steven and Viggo and Linda and Harvey and Brad and Angelina and Ben and all the rest how much could they really put together, if they actually believed what they say not to mention the cash available to the Malodorous Michigan Manatee of Mendacity? What kind of check could they write? $500 million would be less than 10% of every outspoken celebrities' combined wealth. That money could take every poor person in LA county and put them into much nicer apartments than the one I live in. They could, at a stroke, shame the President, the Congress, and the evil NeoCon warmongers by putting every displaced person in New Orleans in a Marriott for a year. They claim this is the kind of better human they have evolved into.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:24 AMWhy dont they do it?
They dont do it because that Tribe worships the golden statue of themselves, thats why. A church-going pharmacist in Des Moines would be ashamed of herself for giving only 10% of her modest salary. But Sean Penn can take himself, an entourage and a personal photographer thats three or four people in a four-person boat and show us all how incredibly big and down-home he is by sailing off a few feet to rescue people, before the boat sinks from the incompetence of failing to put in the drainage plug. He wore a very nice white flak vest, instead of the pass orange life preserver, because getting shot at is a lot more macho looking, if a million or so times less likely, than drowning because you went out into the water with a lead vest rather than a life vest. Its a scene in the trailer that runs incessantly in their heads: In a world run by evil corporations, a rebel who plays by his own rules starts a deadly game of cat and mouse with an all-powerful conspiracy in this searing portrait of extraordinary courage in a life under siege, starringme!
I was actually ready to publicly commend the guy, until I heard about the personal photographer. If he wanted to help people and thats all he could have paid for that boat, and a few hundred others, manned them with reasonably competent recreational boaters, and sent out a flotilla. But no. Its not about having people saved. Its about something else entirely. Its about having people saved by Sean Penn. Thats when I realized that whether its the Murderous Regime in Iraq, or the Murderous Regime in Iran, or the Murderous Storm in Louisianaultimately, its all about Sean Penn. Peace Be Upon Him.
Stephen Hayes provides more reason to think that we need a commission to investigate the 9/11 Commission:
Why would the 9/11 Commission fail to mention Abdul Rahman Yasin, who admitted his role in the first World Trade Center attack, which killed 6 people, injured more than 1,000, and blew a hole seven stories deep in the North Tower? It's an odd omission, especially since the commission named no fewer than five of his accomplices.Why would the 9/11 Commission neglect Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, a man who was photographed assisting a 9/11 hijacker and attended perhaps the most important 9/11 planning meeting?
And why would the 9/11 Commission fail to mention the overlap between the two successful plots to attack the World Trade Center?
The answer is simple: The Iraqi link didn't fit the commission's narrative....
...From the evidence now available, it seems clear that Saddam Hussein did not direct the 9/11 attacks. Few people have ever claimed he did. But some four years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and one year after the 9/11 Commission released its final report, there is much we do not know. The determination of these officials to write out of the history any Iraqi involvement in terrorism against America has contributed mightily to public misperceptions about the former Iraqi regime and the war on terror.
While we're at it, it would be nice to complete the investigation of the OK City bombing, and find who else was involved besides McVeigh and Nichols.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:36 AMSo now Mother Sheehan has support from the communists, Al Sharpton, and Nazis.
I don't know about her but, like Indiana Jones, I hate those guys.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:49 AMCNN just announced a planned new arrival in Crawford to join Mother Sheehan.
You know, if I were staging a protest event of some kind and Al Sharpton decided to join it, I'd be compelled to rethink my position. But that's just me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:20 PMHe's managed to get a copy of Michael Moore's chronicles from the fat farm. This is almost too cruel to link to. But then again, it is Michael Moore we're talking about here:
Dear Friends,Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:55 PMYou and I have stood strong against Ashcroft's PATRIOT act and it chilling impact on our liberties. This morning I learned just how fragile those liberties can be. During breakfast weigh-in, Sergio suddenly stopped me -- without probable cause, without so much as a warrant -- and forced me to empty my pockets on a dining hall table. Without even the most basic judicial review or appeal process, he embargoed 6 of my Snickers energy bars, even after I explained I needed the quick energy boost for AM calisthenics. Dude, where is my country?
It's always amusing to see mass email campaigns decrying supposed machinations by Karl Rove.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:48 PMJonah Goldberg proposes a return of a Vatican army:
I'm not saying they should use an army for crusades for new lands or for conversion or anything like that. But why shouldn't the Catholic Church have peacekeepers of its own? The use of force isn't forbidden by Catholic law, I know that much. And the Swiss Guards still have weapons even on Vatican property. Why couldn't the Pope dispatch armed soldiers to restore order, open food supplies, secure humaintarian efforts etc?
It couldn't be worse than one under the command of the UN.
[Update at 2:21 PM EDT]
How would one amend the Treaty of Westphalia? Other than Great Britain, are the sovereign entities that signed it even in existence any more? Who (other than perhaps Italy) would object, and have legitimate grounds to, if the Vatican decided to build up, and utilize, the Swiss Guard? Of course, given the paucity of real estate they have, their biggest problem would be finding a place to house the Pope's divisions. Though I hear there are some military bases being freed up in Germany...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 AMLance Armstrong is going bike riding with the president in Crawford. Maybe that will give the media down there something to cover besides Mother Shaheen.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:38 AMArafat's former presidential guard says that the old terrorist died of poisoning by a laser.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:58 AMSome jokes just write themselves. Come up with your own tune suggestions for the Clinton music compilation CD. The folks at Free Republic have already started the list, including "Young Girl," and "Blowing in the Wind."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:21 PMI'm amazed that even Dana Milbank could write tripe like this with a straight face:
Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, who like Shrum favors hardball politics, protested that "we Democrats bring a well-thumbed copy of Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side unsheaths their bloody knives, with a predictable outcome." Lehane said the NARAL ad "was great, and exactly the type of offensive that breaks through in the modern age."
Chris Lehane plays by Marquis of Queensberry Rules? That would be hilarious if it weren't so nuts. I mean, not even the moonbats at Kos can take that one seriously.
You know, amidst all of the calls to pull the ad, maybe I've missed them, but I haven't seen any that did so because it was scurrilous and false--the line generally seems to be that it should be pulled because it was counterproductive. In other words, lying is all right, if it helps the cause. It reminds me of the "Palestinians" who have disavowed murdering Israelis, not because there's anything wrong with it, but because it was failing as a tactic.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:10 AMIn my puerile, naive youth, I cast my first presidential vote for Jimmy Carter, an act that shames me to this day. I'm a little sad that so many continue to foolishly worship him, a man who never met a dictator (or, apparently, America-hating polemicist) he didn't like, in light of things like this:
As a candidate, Carter promised only that as president he would never tell a lie, thereby leaving himself a loophole for his post-presidential career as a fabulist.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:32 AM
I mean, most of them think money and greed are evil, anyway, right?
Amidst the financial scandal at Air America (which (not so) shockingly, seems to get little attention from the MSM), they seem to be having trouble meeting their payroll.
This (though off topic) is a little irritating, though:
Written by company Vice President/Finance Sinohe Terrero (this article confims Terrero's corporate role), it inferred the payroll processing company was to blame...
No. It implied. The author of the above inferred. This confusion between the two words, apparently suffered by many, is one of my pet peeves (like the inability to distinguish between "loose" and "lose").
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:02 AMRemember all the Bush haters who promisedthreatened to move to Canada if he won? Well, it turns out that American emigration to Canada actually dropped after the election.
Maybe it's because they heard the (no doubt terrible) news that the Canadian government may be on the verge of giving up its monopoly on health care.
Ah, well. They'll alway have Paris. Not that they followed through on that promisethreat, either.
Andrew Stuttaford points out an example of what he mistakenly views as bad government--removing a law that requires legislators to show up to work in order to get paid. But actually, considering how much damage and thievery they engage in when they do show up, I actually like my proposal better.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:04 PMIs John Kerry really the best representative of the Democrat Party to be demanding that someone release documents?
It's political acumen like this that accounts for his spectacular performance in last fall's election.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:41 AMThe Patriot Act was renewed yesterday, this time without the sunset provision, despite a valiant attempt to keep it, from people like Dana Rohrabacher. He made the argument for it eloquently:
Rohrabacher said he supported the Patriot Act in 2001 because of the threat faced by the country after 9/11, but only under the belief that once the emergency was over, "the government would again return to a level consistent with a free society.""We should not be required to live in peacetime under the extraordinary laws that were passed during times of war and crisis. Emergency powers of investigation should not become the standard once the crisis has passed," he said, drawing applause from his colleagues.
Exactly. And of course, this principle applies to much more than the Patriot Act. Almost every piece of legislation is put forth to address a "crisis" of one type or another--crises that often pass (if indeed they even ever existed at all), yet the legislation stays on the books forever absent explicit repeal. Sadly, it wasn't to be, though:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.He also said 13 of the 16 provisions up for renewal have not been controversial, including one allowing increased communication between the FBI and CIA.
"Why sunset legislation where there's been no actual record of abuse and vigorous oversight?" Sensenbrenner said.
This seems like a weak argument to me. The fact that it hasn't been abused in the past doesn't mean that it can't be in the future. Anyway, I think that every federal law should have a sunset provision.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:11 AMCharmaine Yoest has the story.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:08 AMNow this is the kind of reparations initiative that I can get fully behind.
At risk of violating Glenn's copyright, I can only say, heh.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:01 AMJohn Tierney has another tale of insanity in our War on (Some) Drugs. This is cruel punishment. Sadly, it's no longer that unusual.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 AMThirty-six years ago today, the day before Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were to become the first humans to land on another planet, twenty-nine-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne departed this one, drowning in Ted Kennedy's car as he left her helpless, at Chappaquiddick. It's a shame that the people of Massachusetts can't see their senior senator for the national disgrace that he is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:02 AMIf this report is true (and sadly, I don't find it in any way incredible) some members of Congress (guess which party) are asking the Library of Congress if Karl Rove can be impeached. They're not just delusional, they're fundamentally ignorant of the Constitution. It would be an embarrassment to me to have such a dunce as my representative, but somehow, they get reelected.
[Update at 11:16 AM EDT]
It's for real. I expected this kind of stupidity from Conyers, but Barney Frank is involved, too. I disagree with him on most issues, but I never took him for such an idiot as this implies.
No, a political advisor is not a "civil officer," and he's not subject to impeachment. And of course, this is double stupid, because even if Rove were impeachable, the notion that an impeachment measure would have any traction in a Republican House is ludicrous. Of course, I suspect that, at least in Congressman Frank's case, he knows this isn't serious, but is probably good for fundraising from the moonbats.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 AMThere are pictures on the web from Cuba, of the devastation in the wake of Dennis. There are rumors that Fidel isn't accepting foreign aid, out of a false pride and unwillingness to admit to the extent of the damage, and that people are growing angrier. Let's hope that the Cubans can finally rid themselves of the dictator who has ruled them for too many decades.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:31 PMByron York has an exit interview with Brad Smith of the FEC. I found this bit amazing (if true, though I've no reason to disbelieve it):
McCain has always refused to meet with me, Smith says. I tried to meet him once at a public hearing. He was at the table, and I went up and I said, Senator, and I held out my hand. And he instinctively took my hand, and then he looked up and realized who it was, and he yanked his hand away and said, Im not going to shake your hand. Youre a bully and a coward, and you have no regard for the Constitution. I dont have to talk to you. Im not going to talk to you. It was right in front of a large number of people, so I dont think he wants to talk to me.He said you were a bully and a coward?
Uh-huh. And corrupt, too. He always calls me corrupt. And my wife says, If youre corrupt, youre the worst corrupt person Ive ever seen. Where are the fur coats? The watches? The cars? The fancy trips?
This, of course, is the same John McCain was on the take as one of the Keating Five. And the irony of John McCain accusing someone else of having no regard for the constitution bends the needle on the meter. And I can't imagine on what basis he would call him a "bully and a coward."
Smith isnt finished on McCain. After watching the senator for years, Smith believes McCain doesnt truly understand his own signature issue. He is woefully ill informed on campaign-finance issues, Smith says. I have seen him repeatedly misstate what the law is, misstate what court decisions held, and I think thats one reason he gets so angry when he talks about it. Its because he doesnt really understand what a complex issue it is, what a difficult issue it is, he doesnt understand the court hearings, he doesnt understand how weve gotten where we are so he just gets mad.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:40 AM
I report (well, actually, I link to someone else's report), you decide.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AMYou know, the Rove thing reminds me a lot of the "Girlie Men" controversy:
Meanwhile, the larger context is a hissy fit about how liberals aren't wimps and hand-holders.
Hint: when you're being called a wimp, the last thing you want to do is whine about it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:09 PM...who screamed at the "murder" of the noble Rachel Corrie, when something like this happens? Somehow, I don't think that there will be any memorials set up for this and worshiped by the moonbats. Or protests of Caterpiller about it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:23 AMKerry Country points out one of the potential effects of the SCOTUS ruling:
This has to be a godsend for towns and cities that have been stymied so far in their attempts to shut-down any businesses, corporations, or private groups of which they disapprove. Private gun ranges, airfields, RV tracts, hunting preserves, fishing resources, minority religious congregations, newspapers -- all are now fair targets for seizure and closure "for the economic benefit of the people."
I think they're right. To hell with stare decisis (particularly in a 5-4 vote). This is a ruling that should be overturned, or at least narrowly restricted, as soon as we can replace at least one of the justices who voted in favor.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:17 PM...yes, this decision is another blow to freedom, and property rights, and is another travesty by this court. At least Scalia voted the right way this time. This is one of the worst terms in my memory.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:12 AMThat's a good thing, though as I recall, it wasn't enough for Trent Lott.
More when I see an actual transcript of his lachrymose blatherings.
I will say, snarkily, that I assume that this apology is now (in the famous words of Ron Ziegler) inoperative?
[Update at 8 PM EDT]
OK, it's a non-apology apology.
Here are the key words:
Some may believe that my remarks crossed a line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies.
Note the dog that didn't bark in the night. Here's what an actual apology would look like.
"My remarks crossed a line. I retract them.
As I noted above, Trent Lott resigned from his leadership position in the Senate (and he was Senate Majority Leader, not Minority Whip). Anything less for Durbin would be shameful. But while I wanted Lott to resign, because I thought he was a disaster for the Republicans (which, while I'm not one, I still favor over the Democrats), for the same reason, I hope that Durbin (like Howard Dean) remains in his position, continuing to show the true face of the Democrat Party to the American people.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:46 PMThat's what Andrew Sullivan says.
Let's assume, just for the sake of the argument, that that's the case. Why would we do that? What is the benefit, to the nation, or to the Bush administration, for failure in Iraq? Note, he didn't say that the administration thought we didn't need more troops, or that they did but that there were other reasons not to send them. No, the intent was to fail. Fully.
Is he now in Dick Durbin's camp? Are we now just like Pol Pot...evil?
He's been second in my blogroll for, literally, years. (Yes, yes, there's a certain amount of inertia there, but still).
Is there any reason to take anything he writes seriously now? It will be fascinating to see if he responds to this, and apologizes (as Durbin should, but probably won't). If he'll say that he wasn't thinking when he typed those words, and wants to clarify them, I'll accept that. But if he meant it, I see no reason to even bother reading him any more. Or (more certainly) keep him at his current rank in my blogroll.
He's jumped the Euphrates.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:40 PMBill Roggio has some good advice for Democrats who want to be taken more seriously on national security. Unfortunately for them (and for the prospect of a serious opposition to the Republicans), they're probably constitutionally incapable of taking it right now. They'll have to lose a few more elections first.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:41 AMApparently Senator Durbin's ever-changing story was that he wasn't comparing the Bush administration overall to the Khmer Rouge, or Nazi Germany. No, he was only commenting on their interrogation techniques.
Well, here is an example of "interrogation" at S-21 in Cambodia:
The regime of S21 was harsh beyond belief. Amongst the cruellest of guards were the 12-16 year old warders. Without a strongly ingrained morality and given positions of total power over their captives, their actions became bestial. Prisoners were regularly questioned and tortured with a variety of techniques, from fingernails being pulled out to electrification and suffocation. Important political prisoners were kept in their own 2 1/2 foot by 6 foot cell, feet shackled to an 2 foot iron bar. As horrible as this sounds it was infinitely preferable to the treatment of the bulk of S21s residents. They were kept 60 to room, that in a different time taught classes of 25. Here there were just two iron bars, each the length of the room. 30 people would be shackled alternatively to each bar, feet touching feet. No bedding, sound or movement was allowed.The security regulations, still displayed at S21, clearly show how severe conditions were ["sic" to much that follows--I assume that it's a poor translation into English--rs].
The Security Regulations
You must answer accordingly to my question dont turn them away.
Dont try to hide the facts by making pretexts this and that. You are strictly prohibited to contest me.
Dont be a fool for you are a chap who dare to thwart the revolution.
You must immediately answer my questions without wasting time to reflect.
Dont tell me either about you immoralities of the essence of the revolution.
While getting lashes or electrification you must not cry at all.
Do nothing, sit still and wait for my orders. If there is no order, keep quiet. When I ask you do something, you must do it right way without protesting.
Dont make pretexts about Kampucheas Krom in order to hide your jaw of traitor.
If you dont follow all the above rules, you shall get many many lashes of electric wire.
If you disobey any point of my regulations you shall get either ten lashes or five shocks of electric discharge.
But gee, at least none of these people, many of whose only crime was foraging for extra food, or simply being turned in by their brainwashed children, were chained to the floor.
I'm sure he'll be apologizing again any minute.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:06 AMRobert Samuelson says that Europe is going out of business.
A few countries (Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands) have acted, and there are differences between Eastern and Western Europe. But in general Europe is immobilized by its problems. This is the classic dilemma of democracy: Too many people benefit from the status quo to change it; but the status quo isn't sustainable. Even modest efforts in France and Germany to curb social benefits have triggered backlashes. Many Europeans -- maybe most -- live in a state of delusion. Believing things should continue as before, they see almost any change as menacing. In reality, the new E.U. constitution wasn't radical; neither adoption nor rejection would much alter everyday life. But it symbolized change and thereby became a lightning rod for many sources of discontent (over immigration in Holland, poor economic growth in France).
With the recent drop in the Euro, they may in fact be about to have a going-out-of-business sale.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:20 AMRoger Cohen asks if Europe matters any more:
At a recent meeting here of the Council for the United States and Italy, a group that brings together influential folk from both sides of the Atlantic, America's often withering view of Europe was as clear as the light on the lagoon. That view may be summarized as follows: a Continent reluctant to spend on defense, offering only "postmodernist" armies useful enough as peacekeepers but next to useless as warriors, given to earnest blah-blah about the pre-eminence of international law, inhabited by a declining and evermore aged citizenry living in overregulated economies that have not shown significant growth for at least five years. Contrast that image with another offered at the meeting: that of an India growing at over 7 percent a year, inhabited by more than 500 million people under the age of 25, busy buying hundreds of advanced aircraft, convinced that armies are still created to fight, churning out English-speaking high-tech graduates by the million each year, and persuaded by Islamic terrorism that its strategic goals and America's are often identical or at least complementary.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:04 AMSo, which of these parts of the world is more worthy of the attention of the United States? Which is a compelling affair: the intensifying and fast-changing relationship with India, or the largely stagnant alliance with Europe that served above all a cold-war strategic challenge now overcome?
Chinese apparel have been slapped with a quota. Quotas are worse than tariffs, but first here's a little background.
The rash of China bashing is well-timed to keep the Chinese buying dollars according to Yuan Answers? (WSJ, 6/10, subscription required). A triangular trade where US sends dollars and st0ck and title deeds overseas to the rich savers of the world and imports lots of stuff in one way shipping containers from China is not a bad thing. In fact, it can be sustained indefinitely with the US capital st0ck continuing to grow. It is a testament to how our laws are not quite as bad as everyone else's.
In economics we talk about how tariffs and quotas both imply a "deadweight social loss". When prices are artificially raised via a tariff, the customer prices rise and the supplier prices fall. The quantity sold also falls. It is this last part that is the first component of deadweight loss. By reducing the quantity sold, profitable trades without the tariff become unprofitable because they are not profitable enough to beat the "spread" between the supplier and customer prices induced by the tariff. All this is Economics 101.
A quota has an additional element beyond this kind of loss. In a quota, the supply price rises too. That means that any supplier who can produce at the new higher price will try to fulfill their quota. Thus suppliers who would have cut back production under a tariff will continue to produce to fulfill their quota. Everyone is cut back pro-rata (or according to some formula, e.g., 7.5% more than last year even if growth would otherwise be 500%) and not according to who is the most efficient. Coase might say that quota shares could be traded, but this entails higher transactions expense than the decentralized trade that occurs with a competitive market price.
The additional inefficiency is happily born by international suppliers who receive a major benefit when a quota is imposed--higher prices. So the quota is a collusive bargain between the Government, the domestic suppliers and the foreign suppliers to raise prices on the consumers at the cost to the economy of two kinds of deadweight social loss. Diffuse harm, concentrated benefit. Can one file a class action law suit against an industry association that lobbies for selfish policy?
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 07:25 AMNow that the French and Dutch have rejected the monstrosity that was the EU constitution, the Poles are now expressing their true feelings about it as well:
"The French and Dutch 'nos' encouraged people to openly say they were against the treaty but didn't dare to admit it until now," said Mikolaj Czesnik, a sociologist at the Polish Academy of Science.Before voters in the two founder-member states of the EU rejected the constitution, followed closely by a British decision to put its referendum on the treaty on hold, it was "considered politically incorrect in Poland to reject the treaty," Czesnik said.
"Some people also feared that a Polish 'nie' would lead to accusations that Poland was reponsible for the demise of European integration. Those people felt relieved" by the negative votes, Czesnik said.
It's hard to imagine anyone wanting to ratify this thing now, at least in a popular referendum, with the possible exception of the Belgians.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 AMThey seem to be quite selective about what they find "offensive":
...while ads for the anti-Clinton book -- which featured images of the book's cover and pictures of the former first couple -- were deemed offensive, the company continues to run ads for overtly liberal advertisers with headlines such as "Hate Bush? So Do We," and "George W. Bush f@rt doll."
I'm sure it has nothing to do with this, though:
...98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats.CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean.
Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton, whose role in helping her husband intimidate his female accusers is addressed in the new book.
I think I may switch to Teoma.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:43 AMFederal Air Marshals are suing to have their gag order removed:
The lawsuit alleges that the Federal Air Marshal Service rules are an attempt to smother and prevent the disclosure of information by federal air marshals of agency mismanagement, fraud, waste and abuse. In addition, the lawsuit challenges the Federal Air Marshal Service actions in investigating the Federal Air Marshal Association in an attempt to identify FAMA members, its Board of Directors and other private information about the organization......FAMA legal counsel Stephen G. DeNigris called the agency regulations at issue unconstitutional both on their face and in their application. He asserted the regulations were nothing more than an attempt by the Federal Air Marshal Service to prevent oversight by Congress and the public at large of an agency rife with mismanagement and pettiness.
Yup. No doubt in my mind.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:53 AMWe may have passed the High Water Mark of federalism as I predicted back in April. In Gonzales vs. Raich, the Supreme Court is basically showing that it is a political body just like Congress, the Executive and the Federal Reserve. There may be a longer time between turnover on the Court, but the Justices appear to be responding to conscience and not just the rationality of arguments on their face.
What this means for federalism is that as interests evolve to reflect the growing Republican demographic of a richer, but not too rich society. As more and more are better able to provide for themselves, they see that they give more to the government than they take out. Even as Republican Congresses and Administrations provide huge new benefits, they are still perceived as the party of less government. Nice image if you can get it.
Even if it is just poor execution by Democrats and a overevolved sense of fairness, we are likely on a long-term era of Republican Congress and Presidencies. If only for the reason that there is a whip effect of Republicans winning state houses, then redistricting, there will likely be a 20 year hangover in Congress even if imperial overstretch and an abundance of power splits the Republican party.
What this implies for federalism is that the proponents of the debate will flip. National legislation will be championed by the Republicans while state diversity will be championed by the Democrats.
It has become Democrats like Cuomo arguing that an elitist Senate (with small-state overrepresentation and a super-majority requirement) deserves more power than a populist president when it comes to selecting and approving judges. We will see strange coalitions of conservatives and liberals on the Supreme Court denying federalism on legacy issues. The conservatives to lay the groundwork for a future with much narrower states' rights and the liberals to be true to principles and to salvage short term political victories (or at least hold the line) on individual cases having to do with the vestiges of challenges to Democrat-approved national legislation.
I predict that there will be a litmus test for new judges not to support federalism. If not by this administration, perhaps the next will get it. So those Justices like Thomas and O'Connor that support federalism on the merits will increasingly be joined by fair-weather federalists from the Left and opposed by the new appointees that will be expected to spread national Republican law throughout the land.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 06:34 AMJoe Katzman has an excellent post on why we cannot expect, or (sadly) even hope for, the "international community" to prevent genocide, and why there must be a universal right to bear arms.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:00 AMFrom a long, but interesting scholarly paper by Kopel et al:
...civilian armament has historically been very effective at preventing genocide. Indeed, genocide scholars have found that genocides are carried out almost exclusively against populations which have first been systematically disarmed. Because genocidal regimes consider prior disarmament the sine qua non for beginning a genocide, it seems indisputable that civilian armament deters genocide in most cases. Part IV considers the practical possibilities of arming the Darfur genocide victims......we carefully analyze the international law implications of arming genocide victims. Genocide victims who acquired arms, and persons who supplied arms to genocide victims, would almost certainly be in violation of the gun control laws in the country where the genocide was taking place. In addition, the arms acquisition might violate international treaties against bringing arms into a nation without the consent of the national government. Under international law, could the genocide victims and their arms suppliers claim that their actions were nevertheless legal? We answer yes.
In this formulation, gun control laws would be in violation of universal civil rights. Maybe we could start by rolling them back in Washington, DC.
Somehow, I don't think that many who are enthusiasts for an International Criminal Court will be all that thrilled with this notion.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:57 PMYes, I preferred him to Bush last November. I've never believed that low Ivy grades are somehow an impediment to high office. But then you find out that Kerry's refusal to release his military records prevented him from disseminating lots of glowing tributes from the Swift Boat maniacs. Dumb and dumber.
Emphasis mine.
I couldn't let this pass. Andrew simply has a huge blind spot when it comes to the credibility of the Swift Boat vets, because and (as far as I can tell) only because he doesn't want to believe them. I'm confident that he hasn't read the book, or he couldn't possibly write this sort of nonsense.
When it comes to "maniacs," let me present exhibit A: Lawrence O'Donnell, face red, veins bulging out of his neck, in a complete on-air meltdown, repeatedly screaming "Liar"" and "Creep!" at a calm, collected John O'Neill on Scarborough Country late last October. And Andrew calls the Swift Boat vets maniacs?
[Update at noon eastern]
Thomas Lipscomb asks whether Kerry really released the records. If I were a betting man, I know where my money would be...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:24 AMNew French PM de Villepin says that France can be restored through "Gallic genius.
Hate to break it to you, Dominique, but "Gallic genius" is exactly what got you into the mess you're in in the first place...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 PMJohn O'Neill says that the latest modified, limited hangout from Kerry doesn't answer the mail:
We called for Kerry to execute a form which would permit anyone to examine his full and unexpulgated military records at the Navy Department and the National Personnel Records Center. Instead he executed a form permitting his hometown paper to obtain the records currently at the Navy Department. The Navy Department previously indicated its records did not include various materials. This is hardly what we called for. If he did execute a complete release of all records we could then answer questions such as (1)Did he ever receive orders to Cambodia or file any report of such a mission (whether at Christmas or otherwise); (2) What was his discharge status between 1970 and 1978 (when he received a discharge) and was it affected by his meetings in 1970 and 1971 with the North Vietnamese? (3)why did he receive much later citations for medals purportedly signed by Secretary Lehman who said he did not know of them; (4) Are there Hostile Fire and Personnel Injured by Hostile Fire Reports for Kerry's Dec. 1968 Purple Heart (when the officer in charge of the boat Admiral Schacte, the treating Surgeon Louis Letson, and Kerry's Division Commander deny there was hostile fire causing a scratch) awarded three months later under unknown circumstances.
As Hugh Hewitt points out:
Imagine if in response to the TANG controversy of last year, the president had authorized the Texas National Guard to provide his records to the Dallas Morning News and only the News. Would the furor over their release have subsided?Of course not, and that's why the Kerry SF 180 lies have been so interesting to follow in the media --a sort of perfect example of MSM bias in real time. The bias continues, of course, as is evident in the handling of the story today.
[Update a few minutes later]
I've always been stupefied at the notion that Kerry was so brilliant, as his campaign attempted to portray him. He always seemed to me to be a subpar intellect, with speechifying that would only appeal to people who mistook ponderous bellowing that never quite gets to the point with oratory "nuance." In a post appropriately titled "Not Too Swift," Roger Simon agrees:
Kerry was clearly not the brightest bulb, but we knew that. One of the more interesting obfuscations (deliberate and otherwise) that went on... and continues to go on to some extent... about the last presidential campaign is that Bush was the dumb one. In actuality, I always thought one of the reasons for Kerry's famous flip-flopping, possibly the key reason, was that the Senator didn't really understand the issues. I know this sounds rash and almost vicious, but he seemed to have some kind of cognitive disorder. There may be a lot of that in politics. After all, rational discourse is not often rewarded. Talking endlessly around a subject is.
I continue to be amazed that he got as many votes as he did (many more than I expected him to, last summer). It can only be attributable to irrational Bush hatred.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AMI never thought much of the idea, but I'm now convinced that it would be a bad idea to shut down Gitmo. Jimmy Carter has come out in favor of it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AMAccording to this story (which points out that John Kerry is not the brilliant student that his mythology implies--his grades were actually slightly worse than Dubya's), Kerry has released his military records to the Boston Globe, which reports:
The military and medical records, however, appear identical to what Kerry has already released.
There's a follow-up more specifically on it here:
The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe, are mostly a duplication of what Kerry released during his 2004 campaign for president, including numerous commendations from commanding officers who later criticized Kerry's Vietnam service.Recall, however, that this was the same Boston Globe that was one of the last holdouts in attempts to prop up the Dan Rather documents as genuine, misquoting an expert to do so. Note also that the second piece is by Michael Kranish, one of those "unbiased" Globe reporters who had close ties to the Kerry campaign.
We of course don't know if these are the complete records, or another selective release, as the first one was (though the article states that they were provided by the Navy). Pardon me if I'd prefer to make the judgement myself, or at least have a few other bloggers, like Powerline, etc., check them out, before I'll give him a clean bill of health. What, for example, do they say about his discharge status? How do the rest of us get a document dump from the Navy?
[Update a couple minutes later]
Michelle Malkin has more, with other links.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AMApparently, the Supreme Court has ruled that the feds can continue to prosecute medical marijuana users:
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
Well, that's very generous of him.
Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."
Yes, to hell with the rights of the states. How in the world can they justify this under the Commerce Clause? It seems to me that if they can justify this, they can justify anything, and federalism is truly dead.
Apparently we need to rein in the Commerce Clause, with an amendment, though I'm not sure what it could say that would be more clear than the clause itself, other than to explicitly say that it must deal with interstate activities. And in today's political climate, how much support would there be for it, anyway?
I'll be interested in seeing the opinion, and who was in the minority.
This is quite depressing.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here's more, from SCOTUSblog:
The Court relied, as the Justice Department had urged in its appeal, upon the Court's sweeping endorsement of federal Commerce Clause power in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn."The case," Stevens wrote, "comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. Given the Act's findings and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, Wickard and its progency foreclose that claim." The decision came in the case of Gonzalez v. Raich (03-1454).
Wickard v. Filburn was a truly disastrous case for the cause of federalism and liberty. It's too bad that the court considers precedent so sanctified. There are some decisions that are simply wrong. I can't imagine that the Founders would have ever conceived the clause being used as an excuse for a nationwide ban on high-octane hemp. Is this precedent the reason why we had to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol nationwide, but that now Congress can federally and enforceably ban natural substances by simply passing a law?
[Update at 10:50]
Justice O'Connor wrote the dissent:
Justice Sandra Day OConnor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.The states core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens, said OConnor, who was joined by other states rights advocates.
Good for her.
The legal question presented a dilemma for the courts conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.
There should have been no dilemma at all. How in the world it ever became a "conservative" position to have federal law enforcement personnel throw people in jail for inhaling smoke from burning vegetation, I'll never understand.
[Another update]
She was joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, the latter of whom wrote his own separate dissent. I'm disappointed in Scalia.
[Update once more]
Jonathan Adler was right:
In this case, the federal government also maintains that it can prohibit the simple possession of a drug for medical purposes, even when authorized and regulated by a validly adopted state law, and even if conducted in a wholly noncommercial fashion. Such power, the federal government asserts, is necessary to maintain a comprehensive federal regulatory system for the use and distribution of drugs. Moreover, even the mere possession of drugs can substantially affect interstate commerce, as there is a vibrant, albeit illegal, interstate drug market.This argument proves too much. Under the governments reasoning there is no activity beyond Congresss grasp a position the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected over the past ten years. Essentially, the Justice Department maintains that the power to adopt broad economic regulatory schemes necessarily entails the power to reach the most inconsequential, noncommercial conduct that occurs wholly within the confines of a single state. Even at the height of federal power during the New Deal, the Supreme Court never authorized an assertion of federal power as expansive as is at issue here. Should the Court uphold the assertion of federal power in this case, constitutional limitations on the exertion of enumerated federal powers could well disappear.
This is a travesty.
[Yet another update--I suppose I should start a new post at some point, but this is still at the top]
John Podhoretz writes, over at The Corner:
I just want to say I support the Supreme Court decision, just because some Cornerite should say it so that the legalizers don't take 100 percent of the airspace on the issue here.
This decision isn't about legalization of marijuana, any more than Roe v. Wade was about abortion (though one has to believe that, at least in Scalia's case, the fact that it was about drugs had to have factored into the decision, since it is so at odds with the gun possession case). It's about the scope and reach of federal power, and it's not at all (or at least shouldn't be) a conservative position to support it, regardless of one's views on drugs and drug laws.
[Noon update]
Orrin Kerr is starting to analyze the opinion.
[Update at 1:30 PM]
More thoughts from David Bernstein:
The five-member majority of the Court simply does not take federalism seriously......I was both amused and anchored by Justice Stevens's paean to the democratic process as the appropriate avenue of relief for advocates of medical marijuana at the end of his opinion. Every Justice who joined Stevens's opinion voted to prohibit states from regulating homosexual sex in Lawrence and [if they were on the Court at the time] voted to limit the government's power to regulate abortion in Casey. Why was the democratic process not the appropriate avenue of relief for the victims of overzealous government regulation in those cases? It seems we do to some extent live under a system where the personal preferences of the Justices, having nothing to do with the history, text, or logic of the Constitution, dictate when the Supreme Court will or will not intervene to overturn particular regulations.
The really depressing thing is that two of those dissenting, Rehnquist and O'Connor, are the two justices likely to need to be replaced the soonest (Rehnquist this summer, if rumors are correct).
Michael Ledeen asks:
Thomass dissent is part of his continuing primal scream against the use of the Commerce Clause to regulate anything that the Feds want to regulateand tax anything they want to tax. Whazzup with Scalia, anyway? Why did he fall for this one?
I think that David Bernstein explains that up above. Scalia fancies himself a conservative and, while a brilliant man, is still a fair-weather federalist, because he apparently likes drug laws, federal or otherwise.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:54 AMFor those who can't get enough of Lileks' screeds, he has a new feature:
Three and a half years ago, a guard kicked a Quran. Its a front page story today. Well, who am I to question the news judgment of the Post? Obviously it matters. One then must ask: is flushing worse than kicking? Flushing, after all, requires some amount of premeditation. One has to decide to flush a book. Kicking a book may be done in the heat of anger say, when youre interviewing someone fighting for a movement that wanted little girls to stay indoors all their lives dressed in hot sacks until the merry day when they were married off at 14 to some middle-aged guy with a nice job in the Remnants of Buddhism Demolition Division. If the guy might have info on what Al Qaeda was up to next you know, the group from which the terro (SORRY!) detainee was plucked a mere five months after the Twin Towers thundered down, you might be tempted to shed all your civilized inhibitions and kick a book......I can imagine in late 2001 asking a question of myself in 2005:
Whats the main story? The smallpox quarantine? Fallout from the Iranian Israeli exchange contaminating Indian crops? A series of bombings in heartland malls?
"Well, no the big story today has to do with soldiers mishandling terrorists' holy texts at a detention center."
Mishandling? How? Like, you mean, they opened it up without first checking to see if it was ticking, and it blew up
"No, they handled it in a way that disrespected it. Infidels are supposed to use gloves."
Oh. So we lost, then.
Go forth, and read the whole thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:38 AMKeith Thompson writes eloquently about his journey to, and from, the modern left:
Ill admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have Americas political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with todays best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?He is also by most measures one of the most conservative senators. Brownback speaks openly about how his horror at the genocide in the Sudan is shaped by his Christian faith, as Dr. King did when he insisted on justice for all of God's children.
My larger point is rather simple. Just as a body needs different medicines at different times for different reasons, this also holds for the body politic.
In the sixties, America correctly focused on bringing down walls that prevented equal access and due process. It was time to walk the Founders talk and we did. With barriers to opportunity no longer written into law, today the body politic is crying for different remedies.
[Via Blair]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:31 AMIf this story is true, John Kerry is about to make a bigger ass of himself than one would have previously thought possible (even by someone who remembers last year's campaign), by feeding the fantasy of some in the Democrat Party that George Bush can be impeached and removed.
Obviously, to some degree, this is payback for the strange perception that Bill Clinton was unjustly impugned, but really--one would almost think that the Senator imagines that if Bush were removed from office, that somehow he'll become president.
The reality, of course, is that if by some miracle, a Republican House would impeach the president, and a Republican Senate would muster a two-thirds majority to remove him, Dick Cheney would become president. Is that what they want?
Perhaps they continue to indulge their wet dream to the point of imagining that they'd both be impeached and removed simultaneously. Well, that would result in a President Hastert. And if they imagine that it would be first Bush, then Cheney, then Cheney would first appoint a new (unelected) veep, who would have to be approved by the Congress (still Republican controlled, remember), who would then become president after Cheney's removal (as Gerald Ford did when Nixon resigned). Do they imagine that Mr. Cheney would select, and Congress approve, a Democrat?
This is parallel with the same delusions that they demonstrated during the Clinton impeachment, when they talked about it as a "coup," as though Bob Dole would become president if Clinton was removed, instead of Al Gore. In fact, to me that was always the strongest argument for the case--if it were merely political, why would the Republicans who favored removal want to put the squeaky-clean Al Gore into the Oval Office, from which he'd almost certainly win reelection in 2000 as an incumbent? The only reasonable explanation is that they sincerely thought that we had a corrupt and criminal president (which we in fact did).
Similarly, the Dems were foolish to oppose it, because it would have probably cemented their hold on the White House for at least another five years, while removing the taint of Clinton from their party. I know that I'd be much more inclined to vote for them now if they'd demonstrated the slightest shred of outrage (let alone integrity) over the indecent and corrupt behavior of the Clintons on a wide range of fronts, from Travelgate to Chinagate, to the harassment of women. By their actions they've forfeited support from me, probably for a lifetime.
The Democrats seem to have totally lost sight of the purpose of impeachment, which is to remove a president who is a danger to the office and the country, not to provide a shift in political power from one party to another.
In any event, get real, folks. Only two presidents have been impeached in the nation's history (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), and only one seriously threatened with it (Nixon, who resigned before the vote was taken).
In all three cases the Congress was of a different party than the president (Johnson, though he ran with Lincoln, was a member of the National Union Party, which had little in common with the Radical Republicans who took over after Lincoln's assassination, other than a desire to keep the union together). Democrat Clinton was impeached by a Republican Congress. Republican Nixon, had he not resigned, likely would have been impeached, by a Democrat Congress.
Who in their right mind thinks that Republican (at least in name) George Bush is going to be impeached by a Republican (again, at least in name) Congress? Key words in the previous sentence are, of course, "in their right mind..."
[Update at 4 PM EDT]
You can't imagine how shocked I am to read that Al Jazeera is all over this story. We'll see how much (and how credulously) it's covered by the MSM.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:00 PMA couple loons from Minnesota who were protesting global warming in the Arctic got bogged down in a blizzard. I love the smell of irony in the morning.
Way to go, north pole.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:13 PMWhat's amazing to me about this story is not the contents so much as the fact that it's actually appearing on Yahoo News, instead of just places like Newsmax. It's still hard for me to imagine any story with the title "Demands Mount for Clintons to Acknowledge Intimidation, Rape" appearing at CNN or the other major networks, though:
"The history of Bill Clinton"s relationships with women has been one of physical and sexual harassment often followed by threats and intimidation," says Jackson. "Over and over he has proven himself to be a "liberal misogynist" -- a man who feels that his professed concern for women"s political rights gives him free rein to treat individual women like chattel."
Kind of like Bob Packwood, until it finally caught up with him, because he was, after all, a Republican. Clinton apparently gets a permanent pass from the NOW gang, though.
Whether it was assembling a smear team to attack a grief-stricken widow, threatening a reporter for research an Arkansas health-care scandal, or hiring private investigators to bully an ex-flame"s family members, Jackson says that Clinton showed no reluctance to go after any woman who inconvenienced his political career. But the blame, according to Jackson, also falls on his wife"s shoulders."Hillary could have exercised her influence over him, instead she has stood beside him every step of the way, doing whatever was necessary to keep the Clinton political bandwagon rolling," asserts Jackson. "The bottom line is that Hillary has enabled a rapist, and she needs to be called to account for her actions."
As I've said before, if Hillary runs for president, the "Slick Grope Vets For Truth" will have their say.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 AMWhat effect does the French and Dutch voting down the European constitution have on Hal Lindsey's predictions?
The United States will not hold its present position of leadership in the western world; financially, the future leader will be Western Europe. Internal political chaos caused by student rebellion and Communist subversion will begin to erode the economy of our nation. Lack of moral principle by citizens and leaders will so weaken law and order that a state of anarchy will finally result. The military capability of the United States, though it is at present the most powerful in the world, has already been neutralized because no one has the courage to use it decisively. When the economy collapses so will the military.19
Something else that few have noted--while Chirac certainly lost big, another big loser is Valery Giscard D'estaing, who wrote the socialistic, micromanaging monstrosity that was voted down. I guess that's what he gets for having a girl's name.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:47 PMI hadn't previously paid much attention to Senator Voinovich until his lachrimose performance on the Senate floor over John Bolton. Now I think that he's one of the most asinine members of the Senate (which is to say, he still has lots of competition among his colleagues). Apparently, some of his constituents in the Buckeye state think so too. Send him a hankie.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:49 AMCanadians should keep a close eye on Belinda Stronach, and not just for the obvious reasons.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 AMTo quote someone else, heh.
Seriously, though, it is kind of amazing that there are still Japanese soldiers coming home from WW II after all these years. It was always a big story back in the sixties whenever one of these guys was found hiding out on some remote island (there was even a Gilligan's Island episode based on one--see number fifteen in the link), and that was only twenty years after the war. Now it's sixty.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:35 AMI don't think so. This is just a poll of "Americans," not "likely" or even "registered" voters. It mainly reflects name recognition.
Besides, the Slick Grope Vets, including Juanita Broaddrick, will have plenty to say if she actually runs.
I've previously speculated that Bill Clinton wouldn't have survived the blogosphere, had it existed in the early nineties. I don't think that Hillary will either.
[Update at 11:15 AM EDT]
In response to some snark in the comments section, I decided to pull this up into the main post:
I'd just like to point out, for the benefit of the visitors here who didn't buy the Clinton Chronicles Criterion Edition DVD, that the 3rd of your links itself includes links that suggest the Clintons murdered both Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and at least 34 other innocent people.
Ahhh, six degrees of separation of links. Pardon me while my eyes roll.
Rand, would you care to state, for the record, whether you believe either of those scenarios are true?
With regard to Vince Foster, I have no idea who killed him, but I think that, based on the publicly available evidence, it is extremely unlikely that he died in Fort Marcy Park, and there is little evidence to prove that he died by his own hand, and quite a bit the other way. The case was so badly botched that we'll probably never know what happened, absent a confession on someone's part. I do think it likely that the Clintons know who is responsible, but certainly can't prove that. I also find it amusing that those who would otherwise demonize Ken Starr accept his word unquestioningly when it comes to the Foster report.
The Ron Brown death was extremely suspicious, and convenient to the Clintons in its timing, but again, I'm not going make any direct accusations. As in the Foster case, I lack sufficient data.
Anyways, for all the whining about how Democrats have no ideas, I'm thrilled to hear the GOP plans on leading with Bill's character issues in their effort to tear Hillary down.
I said nothing about GOP plans. Not being a member of the GOP, I've no idea what their plans are (hint: not everyone who thinks that Bill Clinton was corrupt is a "right winger" or a Republican). I was describing the potential response of the blogosphere and the women he (and his wife) molested, slandered and libeled. Thanks for playing, though.
And if you think none of the potential GOP nominees have exploitable character issues, well, whatever. IOKIYAR and all.
Those are theoretical. Hillary's are real.
[One more update at 2 PM]
Many of the objections in comments are beside the point, because this isn't about Bill Clinton's sexual behavior--it's about his and Hillary's (often successful) attempts at character assassination of his accusers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:54 AMThat's the kind of armband I'd like to wear, particularly around these clueless celebrities, whose well-meaning nostrums, as Stephen Pollard points out, would only further entrench poverty.
[Via David Carr]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:01 AMThe French are already privately admitting that the EU vote will lose.
If the Dutch vote it down as well, how long before they decide they want the guilder back?
[Update a few minutes later]
Mark Steyn has further thoughts (registration required).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:58 AMThis article about a poll indicating that the vast majority of so-called historians have already judged the Bush presidency a failure doesn't give one confidence in the profession of history instruction.
No, academia isn't biased at all...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:29 PMHoward Dean's going to be on Meet The Press this Sunday.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 AMGeorge, one of your progenitors in Hollywood once said, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union."
''The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.
Yes, I'd say unbelievable is exactly the right word.
''On the personal level it was how does a good person turn into a bad person, and part of the observation of that is that most bad people think they are good people, they are doing it for the right reasons,'' he added.
Of course, most lousy directors and hackneyed script writers think they're brilliant, profound and insightful.
I'll probably go see the movie, but only for the special effects, which is all that Lucas was ever really any good at.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:12 AMRich Lowry describes the current state of the idiotic war on pot, and the continuing idiocy of John Walters. You'd never know that there's a real war on, with stuff like this going on.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:37 AMJacques Chirac has managed to stay out of jail for a decade now, by continuing to be President of France for that period. It's about his only significant accomplishment in the office.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:36 AMFor those interested, Iain Murray seems to have it covered.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:14 PMSara Townsley, a graduate student in biology (among other things--she should start a blog), offers a field guide to the Cornell University campus.
The Gray-Tufted Nostalgic Lamprey. Physically less imposing than their fearsome and often irreversibly tenured colleagues, comprising the bulk of the liberal arts faculty. These herbivorous throwbacks can be identified by their poor hygiene, old Volvos and apparent lack of vertebrae or testicles. As committed Marxists, a century of genocide poses a bothersome snag; thus, they're prone to historical revisionism and faddish prejudices. These aging, conformist pseudo-radicals still regard themselves as courageous rebels, despite having built a habitat cleansed of all but lock-step sycophants. Found in organic markets, peace protests and pricey restaurants.
It sounds like a similar habitat to Ann Arbor, Madison and Berkeley.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:59 PMToday is my first Cinco de Mayo since leaving southern California, and clearly the holiday is much less a part of the culture in southern Florida than it is there. It's not a day that I've ever celebrated myself, and given the ongoing disaster that has been Mexican governments, alternating between feudalism and crony socialism, since Independence and up to the present day, I'm often puzzled that the Mexicans celebrate it, though I suppose they're still better off than they were as a colony, given who the colonialists were. It wasn't, of course, the day that they won their independence--that happened much earlier--but it was almost certainly the day that they cemented it.
But for Americans, there is one thing to celebrate today--it was a spectacular (which is to say, typical) military disaster for the French.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:14 AMFor years the Republicans have been champions of Federalism and the Democrats have been trying to have the Federal Government bring the States into national conformity. Now that Republicans control Congress and judicial nominees, we are likely to see those who favor and oppose Federalism switch sides.
The Republicans seem to be more aggressive at consolidating their new found power than Democrats are in holding onto theirs. For example, ramming through redistricting off cycle in Texas. Another example is the threat of the "Nuclear Option" underscores that collegiality and continuity are not more important to the current Republican leadership than partisan interests.
The Supreme Court is also moving in that direction and will do so decisively once there are a few more Republican appointees on the Court. Conditional federal spending like the No Child Left Behind Act largely invalidate any state independence of the sort granted in Lopez which lined out criminal, education and family law as provinces of the States. (I am surprised that no state has made it a felony to be a three-term Senator. That would test whether criminal law really is something a state can do and potentially allow term limits for federal officials to move forward.)
As red state policy becomes federal law, it will be more and more difficult for blue states to maintain their independent policies. There is a narrow window while Republican legislators and the Republican judiciary has not fully internalized the polarity switch. During this time, Democrats can try to cement Federalism before Republicans realize they no longer need this issue.
My guess is that the time for Federalism has passed and that Democrats will convert to Federalism more slowly than Republicans convert away from it. I look forward to reading how the Supreme Court Justices and some of the more self-important partisan publications will justify their newly-found interests in the opposite sides of the Federalism debate.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 09:33 PMThe Senate leadership is pondering repealing the cloture requirement of 60 votes to close debate and stop a filibuster for judicial nominees. Cloture would be repealed not through a formal rule change, but through a clever finesse of the rules. The parliamentarian responsible for interpreting how the rules apply would simply invalidate the cloture rule. This would be challenged and the rule would need 51 votes to keep it at that point assuming Dick Cheney is against.
The Senate Democrats have warned that they will bring all business to a halt in the Senate were this to occur. This is credible, but in turn may be finessed with something even more drastic.
Here is a new option--call it a thermonuclear option--that would allow the Senate to switch to a new majoritarian mode and continue to function. A member would call a point of order saying that none of the rules are in order because they had not been approved by a majority of the current members. The parliamentarian would rule that yes, after over 200 years of precedent, the original Senators clearly made a mistake in assuming that Senate rules bound future Senates. The majority could then go on to adopt any rules they want. This could allow it to continue to function without the participation of any Democrats.
Cloture should be an issue that cuts across party lines. If the Senate repealed cloture on all legislation, the House would have equal say in all matters for a change. This would be a big boon to states like California, New York and Texas that are highly underrepresented in the Senate. Democrat Senators from all States that have nine or more Representatives in the House should be in favor.
The flip side of course is that small state Senators should be opposed. There are many more small state Senators than large state Senators. For this reason, cloture is unlikely to ever be repealed without a massive buyout transferring money from large states to small to compensate them for the lost pork in future years. Even cloture removal just for judicial nominations would be a critical weakening of small state power.
While I like supermajoritarianism in general, I have not been a fan of supermajority requirement in the Senate and a simple majority requirement in the House. This systematically bleeds money from big states to small states. While perhaps a sensible policy during colonization, now it is just a pork fest. Arnold Schwarzenegger made that point after getting elected. My question is, "Why has the House not imposed its own 60% cloture requirement to balance the power in the Senate?"
More on legislative power can be found in "The Senate: An Institution Whose Time Has Gone?" in The Journal of Law and Politics, 1997.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 09:06 PMI've made this point before, but it seems I have to point it out almost continually. Glenn discusses Bush's current (relatively) low approval rating. This number is, to me, almost always politically meaningless, though the pundits always want to freight it with inappropriately great import. The underlying thesis, of course, is that since the president's approval ratings are low, this somehow represents a great opportunity for the Democrats, and that if only the numbers had been like this back in the fall, John Kerry would have been swept into office.
Nonsense.
It may be an opportunity for some theoretical Democrat party--one to which I might even in that bizarro universe belong, and for whose candidates I'd vote. But not in this universe, not with Moveon.org, and Howard Dean, and Ted Kennedy continuing to call the shots. The mindless assumption that unhappiness with one major party translates into happiness with the other continues to pervade the conventional wisdom, but consider:
I was very happy that Al Gore was not elected president in 2000. Ecstatically, almost deliriously happy. And this was even before September 11--that event just made me all the more relieved. But on any day of the Bush presidency since he took the oath of office, if you'd asked me if I approve his performance, I'd say no. On free trade, on government spending, on education, on his faux support for the "assault-weapons" ban, on any number of things, I strongly disagree with his stances and disapprove of his presidency. But since I'm not offered anything better from the other party, this is meaningless in terms of his theoretical electoral prospects, or even in terms of his getting my support on initiatives with which I agree.
Since the conventional wisdom is that Bush is a "conservative" and a "right winger" (though if a Donkey president had pushed through many of the things that this president has, e.g., the education bill co-developed with Ted Kennedy, or the huge Medicare enlargement via the prescription drug benefit, the press and the Democrats would be praising him and them to the skies), then the assumption is that unhappiness with him is unhappiness with the "conservativeness" and "right-winginess" of his proposals, and that the solution to improving his "approval" rating is to "move to the center." The explanation rarely seems to take into account that the unhappiness may be due to lack of diligence in executing his "right-wing" proposals, or that in fact (as was the case with, for example, the education bill, or steel tariffs), they aren't "right-wing" at all. The fact that many libertarians' and self-identifying conservatives' unhappiness might be dragging down his numbers never seems to occur to these people.
Of course, that might be one of the reasons that their electoral prognostications often turn out to be so wrong...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:22 AMI notice that retiring "Jumpin'" Jim Jeffords' dumb book, which purports to explain one of the dumbest acts of political duplicity in history, can be had for less than a buck. Still overpriced, I suspect.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:24 AMApparently so, in honor of Earth Day. And she loves it.
When Barrymore (star of "E.T." and "Charlie's Angel's," to name a few of her films) bragged about defecating in the forest, Diaz responded she would like to have the same experience."I am so jealous right now, I am going -- I am going to the woods tomorrow," Diaz said. A clearly satisfied Barrymore laughed, repeating, "It was awesome."
Read the whole amazing thing. Even if I had time to make the attempt, this stuff defies parody. I don't even think this guy could manage it.
I think that Cartman gets it right:
(Driving through San Jose, Costa Rica)Eric Cartman: Oh my God, it smells like @ss out here.
Miss Stevens: Alright, that does it. Eric Cartman, you respect other cultures this instant.
Eric Cartman: I wasn't saying anything about their culture, I was just saying their city smells like @ss.
Miss Stevens: You may think that making fun of third-world countries is funny but let me...
Eric Cartman: I don't think it's funny. This place is overcrowded, smelly and poor. That's not funny, that sucks.
[Saturday night update]
A lot of great comments at this post on the same subject by Ron Bailey at Reason.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:28 AMDavid Galernter writes about the reactionary, and undemocratic, Democrats.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:14 AMChuck Simmins says that Americans have now raised over a billion dollars in private aid for the tsunami victims.
Damned unilateralists.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:59 AM...the Senate, as currently composed, seems to attract people who have that potent & fatal combination of dimness and self-regard, and when you elevate those sorts to the Great National Saucer, you get idiocies like the Bolton hearing. On one side, a charmless babbler like Joe Biden, whose instinct upon finding a bad metaphor is to attenuate it until it is three microns wide; on the other side, George Voinovich, who finally showed up for a hearing and pronounced himself Disturbed by the allegations. This is like a guy skipping class on the origins [of] WW2 for a month then raising his hand to ask why they havent covered how this Hitler fellow came to power.
From (who else?), Lileks.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:41 AMIt occurs to me that, since April 19th is fraught with so much history with respect to the right to bear arms, and the consequences of losing that right, perhaps the NRA (or better yet, Congress) should declare it National Self Defense Day.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:10 PMIn addition to being the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and the Oklahoma City bombing, it's also the twelth anniversary of Waco (which was probably one of the precipitating events for Oklahoma City).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:50 AMByron York describes the ongoing absurdity of campaign finance "reform."
...after years of campaign-finance reform, we are entering an era in which a donor can give an unlimited amount of money to an unaccountable group without any public disclosure. Before McCain-Feingold, big donors gave fully-disclosed money to the political parties, which, because they represented the entire coalition that made up the Democratic or Republican parties, were far more accountable to the public than the new, outside, groups became. Now, new C4s like protectyourcheck.org do not even have to reveal where they get their money a central tenet of clean campaigning. And it was all done in the name of reform.
John McCain should be ridden out of Arizona on a rail.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 AMOn the eve of the tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Rich Fruzetti has some thoughts on the questions that remain unanswered. As he points out, Islamic terrorism on US soil didn't begin on September 11, 2001--that's just when we first noticed it. Perhaps if we'd been more attentive earlier, we could have been spared that event.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:23 AMMark Steyn has more entertaining and trenchant thoughts on John Bolton's hip handing.
As for the job Bolton's up for, what would make Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden put their hands on hips? Child sex rings run from U.N. peacekeeping operations? Sudan sitting on the Human Rights Commission while it licenses mass murder in Darfur? Kofi Annan's son doing a $30,000-a-year job but somehow having a spare quarter-million dollars to invest in a Swiss soccer club? There are tides in the affairs of men when someone has to put his hands on his hips and toss his curls. And, if the present depraved state of the U.N. isn't one of them, nothing is.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:33 AM
Ten years later, Fox News isn't letting the Oklahoma City story die.
The government's story continues to not hold water. For example, check out this strawman:
Editor's Note: Watch the FOX News Channel on Sunday at 9 p.m. EDT for "The Oklahoma City Bombing: Unanswered Questions." And check out FOXNews.com on Monday for a story showing how FBI agents are convinced they got the right men.
No one is claiming that they didn't get "the right men." The point isn't about whether or not McVeigh and Nichols did it, though the defenders of the government action would have us believe that that's the issue in contention. Everyone agrees that they did (as far as I know). The question is whether or not there were others involved, who remain free. And more seriously, if there were foreign governments involved that the Clinton administration would have found politically inconvenient to finger, particular since, if it restricted its investigation to "angry white guys" it could pin it on those evil right-wing Republicans.
As the article points out, the official story remains quite fishy, and there was a disturbing amount of evidence destroyed. And does this make any sense?
Oklahoma City attorney Michael Johnston said the FBI was not given all the tapes from as many as twenty-five cameras that he says were in and around the Murrah Building.If they're really non-consequential, it wouldn't hurt anything. If indeed they show something I think the American public, after a decade, has the right to know, he said.
Johnston, on behalf of twenty-five victims families, filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for all of the surveillance videos. FOX News also filed a FOI request. The FBI has denied both cases on account that the case is still open.
"We cant expect to get that footage until after that case is closed and then I think you will," said FBI agent Jon Hersley.
If they "got the right men," why is the case still open? Is he referring to Nichols' state trial? Even with that, if it's evidence in that case, why can't it be released to the public?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:15 AMThere is a strong case for flat taxes. They reduce compliance (and avoidance) costs. They create a very broad base for taxes that in turn distort the economy less and have a lower dead weight social loss. The Economist says that they may be practical and feasible.
The conventional wisdom from (NYT, April 10) is that alternative minimum taxes (AMT) are bad news. An alternative view is that they are a back door way to get a flat tax. The number of people who pay AMT is expected to grow to $200 billion projected in 2015. This growth is due to three factors: deductions get more generous, maximum marginal rates stay low due to the tax cut, and inflation and growth steadily increase income. While $200 billion less than 5% of the federal budget and less than 1% of the $20 trillion economy (in 2000 constant dollars) projected for 2015, it is still a significant portion of taxpayers paying a flat tax.
If US wants a flat tax, it should do nothing about AMT, it should increase deductions like crazy and reduce the marginal rate of the non-flat tax further. For those worried about the budget deficit, the AMT rate can be raised, or perhaps Medicare and Social Security rationalized.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 08:55 AM
Borrowing to build physical and human capital is a way to finance growth. Can you imagine the quality of education and the number of college educated people if there were no student loans? Can you imagine the house you could get without a mortgage? They would not be nearly so nice as if you get a generous loan at a low interest rate. The same is true of our nation's capital investments. Can someone tell me if we are carrying on our books assets such as the following: the nations bridges, parks, federal buildings, military bases, roads and internet?
We certainly are not accounting for our childrens education via a standard statistical model that predicts the likelihood that they will stay in the US and booking their future increased tax revenues on their human capital as an asset.
Strategy
The goal for our national debt should be around 80-90% loan to value to borrow a phrase from the housing sector. We should finance 10-20% of spending out of current consumption as a down payment and finance the rest out of borrowing.
If we open the money spigot from borrowing, we can reduce taxes and still be able to afford some wondrous projects. Here are a few grand challenges for the US government to undertake:
Buy out existing terrestrial TV spectrum users, pay for Rural Cable-fication or subsidize rural satellite service and use the spectrum for power broadcast or mobile data.
We should undertake grand foresighted projects like colonizing the Moon, Mars, LEO, the Lagrange Points and NEO. We should some big prizes for major longevity challenges like drugs that increase working life for folks with heart disease or cancer. More money should be allocated for local environmental improvements such as pollution permit retirement that make the US a nicer place to move to.
We are a rich nation with good credit. We should be utilizing that credit to increase our productivity, education, health, environment and all the other things that make our economy more valuable. By making the US a better place to live we will continue to attract the worlds richest and smartest people to pay our taxes and grow our economy.
Borrowing is not a zero sum game. Our children may pay $2 in taxes for every dollar we borrow now to invest, but with a reasonable return, they will be making $3 or $4 more for every dollar we invest. Another commonly misunderstood assumption is that federal investment crowds out personal investment. While somewhat true, the federal investment costs are lower due to a cheaper interest rate because as a sovereign, the government can borrow for less than a private individual or corporation can. Thus the federal government can invest more than what it crowds out. Thus, the private investor can either get an adequate savings rate by investing in government bonds that are now at a higher interest rate, or by investing in something else that becomes viable due to the flood of federal investment including subsidized private investment corporations.
I am not sure whether subsidizing all investments equally across the board is best course. This course would distort the economy least, but perhaps the benefits would not accrue to taxpayers since some of the activities subsidized would be hard to tax or would be too specialized to use if a firm goes broke. A reasonable policy alternative is differentially subsidizing investments that are easy to tax or are common and durable enough to be used by more than one owner. For example, subsidizing real estate improvements would distort the economy, but perhaps in a favorable direction.
Tactics
We should grant H-1B entry visas to everyone willing to pay an entry fee in addition to our patchwork system of need. Replacing our H-1B visa patchwork system would be better.
We should invest in our childrens education by Federal borrowing. We should invest in the housing st0ck with Federal borrowing. Fannie Mae and Sallie Mae type of debt should be subsidized even further. Houses, buildings, bridges and roads are good because they can be reused by lots of folks. SBA loans are good, but the government should shoot for sufficiently high returns to pay back the money.
Government management of these loans is of course a negative. I would recommend having a general subsidy that thousands of competing businesses could take on their tax filings.
My vote for subsidizing roads would be to subsidize deployment of electronic toll tags. Perhaps build them into license plates. Spending 10 minutes in a toll line wasting $2.50 worth of time at the average wage to pay a toll is inefficient. There are plenty of other opportunities for electronic and money queues to replace physical queues.
Keeping property taxes deductible would be another good choice. Allowing the deduction of the purchase of local services that the property taxes typically pay for would be a good follow up that would reduce pressure to have local and state governments provide services at all. That is, the following services would become deductible: private security, private fire protection, private schools, private hospitals, private roads, and private utilities. The net effect of this tactic would be to keep home building going strong. Expanding the capital gains tax exemption on real property would be good. The only beneficiaries of encouraging people to move whenever their house appreciates $250,000 per person is the realtors. A compromise would be to have the excess over the $500,000 real estate gain exemption be carried forward to subsequent years.
State taxes and bonds are another area to allow deduction and further subsidize. By having a federal service that buys state bonds and repackages them with a federal guarantee, the federal government can reduce the cost of state borrowing by more than the additional risk that they incur. In essence, it would be a FDIC for state bonds. Municipal bonds could be covered in the same way. Completely nationalizing bond insurance, though, would be a bad idea, but offering a federal backstop to a portion of the bond issue to all underwriters would allow them to not let borrowing get out of hand, but limit their downside risk so they can encourage state and local investment.
Another area to subsidize is education. Student loans are pretty generous already, but there are several ideas that would not distort the economy too much and would encourage human capital investment across the board. For example, making books, tuition and school supplies tax deductible (and those deferrable since students typically do not pay a lot of taxes to deduct). Giving too much money and freedom to students would potentially unduly concentrate the efficiency as the student declares bankruptcy to avoid paying. Making the debts not dischargeable is not a good solution because it hurts the economy by creating a class of people with no incentive to work. Perhaps a better way is to create an affinity program where the government would pay a portion of the tax receipts of the graduates to the universities that educated them.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 07:58 PM...with respect to the Sandy Burglar case. What was the Justice Department thinking?
I would have expected this from Janet Reno's Justice Department, but why from Ashcroft and Gonzales' Justice Department?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AMThe French have gone to war. With Google, which they now view as an Anglo-Saxon plot.
I know who my money's on.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:02 PMOne of the most hilarious things that I found about the Florida voting fiasco in 2000 was the Democrats' cheerful willingness to advance the proposition that uninformed morons, unable to read a ballot or punch a hole all the way through a flimsy piece of cardboard, were a key (in fact, apparently essential) part of their constituency (a notion that I mercilessly mocked a couple years ago). Shamelessly, and utterly innocent of how foolish it makes them look, they're apparently still at it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:04 AMAARP types should be flexing their political muscle to cash in and fully fund social security. They should not pussyfoot around trying to keep social security payments high every year. It is a political battle every year as the report on how well the social security trust fund is doing comes out, much like China before permanent normal trade relations (PNTR).
Instead, they should get Congress to fully fund social security and privatize it at the same time by distributing bonds to all seniors. The bonds that they would distribute would magically make appear the trust fund that has not exactly been on the books since the original Social Security Act of 1935. An individual version of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation can monitor each seniors finances to make sure they are not too free afterwards.
The upside is that the aged rich will be able to invest their money in houses, boats, consumption items and early bequests. There will be tremendous freedom associated with altering the investment strategies. The marginal tax rate can drop from 12.4% on everyone in favor of some level of mandatory savings. If workers invest in a balanced portfolio of st0cks and bonds, they would only have to sock away less than a third of what they do now assuming 40 years of straight line savings earning 7.56% instead of 1-2%.
The down side of the proposal is that the federal deficit and debt will be a lot higher. But the promise to pay the seniors was implicit already. There will also be no pork fest as the taxes come in and are dissipated. The money goes away from one place (federal spending) into another (incentive to work harder). The federal government would have to borrow a heck of a lot more from the private markets or raise taxes to replace the 6%/year of skimmed management fees that put Eliot Spitzer to shame. Or are these downsides?
The proposal is positive sum because even with the trillions in payables fully monetized, the federal government will have excellent credit. It will cost less for the government to borrow than for seniors to borrow against future payments. And not only will there be a huge fiscal stimulus of lower taxes and higher accessible wealth. The seniors will be much better stewards of the money, and spend a bigger portion of it instead of saving it (or at least get a higher return than social security). The current workers would have a huge improvement in their standard of living given the lower taxes. Workers would therefore work harder to help provide more luxuries to seniors who would typically have a ton of cash.
The time for the aged to strike is now despite the fact that our society is getting older by the year. Success and popularity, ironically, is one of the worst things that can happen to an interest group. The old should act now before their coalition fragments into the not-so old, the really old, the rich old, the poor old, the technocratic old, the blue old and the red old.
The old should also do it now because if they wait a few decades for a transition, we may hit a technological singularity like the one Vernor Vinge talks about and all be uploads or something. If you claim to see at all what will happen 75 years in the future, perhaps you can tell me:
Once the old have finished funding Social Security, perhaps next year they can fully fund and privatize Medicare.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 07:47 AMAnd hundreds more to go. Still, this is worth breaking out a bottle of bubbly for.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:21 AMIn the context of the perhaps-imminent fall of the Canadian government, and the laughable chicanery of the San Francisco city government, Wretchard has an interesting post about how, once again, attempts to impose censorship are futile in the age of the Internet. Dean Esmay once wrote, with regard to the Swift Boat Vet story, that:
The Internet has detected the mainstream media as a form of censorship and simply routed around them.
It seems to be applying to real censorship as well.
Of course, while Colby Cosh was careful (it will be interesting to see if anyone from Ottawa goes after him), there's an interesting question as to whether Winds of Change is a Canadian blog, because it's run by Joe Katzman. Where is it hosted? Is Joe sticking his neck out legally, by posting to it from Toronto? Could other Canadians get into trouble by discussing it on Free Republic?
The absurdity abounds.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 AMAs the day approaches, John Miller has a righteous rant against the stupidity that is Daylight "Saving" Time.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:38 AMSo, Sandy Berger cops a plea. At least there will be no more of this nonsense about how this was "inadvertent." However, his defenders (both literal, and in the ally sense) continue to use language to downplay what happened, just as they always did when caught with their hands in the cookie jar:
Lanny Breuer, Berger's attorney, said in a statement: "Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives."
Lanny Breuer.
Sigh. I thought we'd heard the last of names like that, but the Clinton administration is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Well, I guess I should be grateful that it's at least in the active voice. Usually when one of the Clinton administration members did something like this, the phraseology was passive--"mistakes were made"--as though they just appeared out of the aether, unbidden.
But sorry, no. Forgetting to pick up the dry cleaning is a mistake. Turning on the wrong burner on the range is a mistake. Even getting distracted, and forgetting to put a document away and properly checking it back in is a mistake.
For someone with a high security clearance, one supposedly who has had extensive briefings in the proper handling of classified materials, taking documents classified at some of the highest possible levels, slipping them into your clothing, sneaking past the guards at the National Archives with them, taking them back to your office, and deliberately cutting them up in the dark of night with a pair of scissors isn't a "mistake." I don't know if we yet know what it is, but mistake it wasn't.
If this were a Republican campaign advisor and former Republican administration official destroying documents that reflected poorly on that same former Republican administration, we know that the outrage, from the Democrats and the Washington press corps, would be heard all the way out beyond the Beltway. The decibel level of the self-righteous howls would fell large trees all the way up to Bethesda. There would be cries of coverup, and demands for years of prison time (instead of a mere ten grand fine), and a permanent revocation of his security clearance (rather than the laughable three years) and for a deeper investigation of all of the other former Republican administration and campaign officials who were (obviously) involved, and for a full confession, Soviet style, with a statement of motive.
But he's a Clinton administration official, part of "the most ethical administration in history," and so he gets a slap on the wrist, and it probably won't even be a topic of discussion on Sunday morning, let alone a heated one. After all, it's an old story, and the election's over, and he surely meant well, and isn't it time for us to just bind up our national wounds and "move on"?
The late Mrs. Schiavo, and those evil Republican theocrats who were trying to thwart her "right to die," will no doubt continue to be Topic A, not the fecklessness and duplicity of the administration that for eight years fiddled (and diddled) while Al Qaeda plotted, and then tried to destroy the evidence while blaming George Bush.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Jim Geraghty is more pithy than me:
Do any Democrats want to confront the unpleasant truths of how the Clinton White House handled terrorism?Because there were some facts out there that were so damning, Sandy Berger was willing to break the law to make sure the public never saw them.
[Update at 9:45 AM EST]
INDC Journal isn't happy, either.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AMThe Democrats are apparently going to put up a fight against the nomination of John Bolton:
Although Democrats have challenged a number of diplomatic nominees, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "they see this nomination as more distasteful, and they're more united," said one Democratic Senate aide.The split on the panel is one of several signs that the proceedings, set for April 7, could be acrimonious.
Advocates have organized letter and ad campaigns for and against Bolton. Democrats said they intended to investigate Bolton's comments on a variety of issues, an exercise that Republicans said could stretch the hearing into a second day. Republicans said they were concerned that Democrats might attempt to filibuster the nomination if it reached the Senate floor.
Bolton, undersecretary of State for arms control, is controversial because of his criticism of the United Nations and other international institutions and agreements.
"He's been contemptuous of the U.N.," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record) (D-Calif.). "There's a lot to talk about at this hearing. It's going to be very contentious."
I think they're misreading the mood of the public, and setting themselves up for an Ollie North moment, in which the witness makes fools of them. Bolton will have two messages: 1) the UN is very badly broken, and he will lay out all the evidence for that, from Darfur to Oil-for-Palaces to child sex rings among the "peacekeepers, with a Secretary General who is either incompetent, corrupt, or incompetently corrupt, and defiantly unwilling to step down; and 2) that his job is to reform it, not wreck it, something that cannot be done without a clear recognition of its many problems. In their own blind transnationalist love for the UN as they'd like to fantasize it, rather than as it is, the Donkeys are going to end up looking like defenders of the status quo, and I suspect that this will be quite obvious to anyone watching the hearings. This will not be a smart political move for them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 AMThis is a little tasteless, but no more so than Howard Dean's exquisite timing in choosing to recently call Republicans "brain dead." Iowahawk has a list of vegetables that the federal government does think worthy of protection.
[Update at 1:50 PM EST]
Orson Scott Card asks "whose life is worth living?"
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:21 AMPeggy Noonan has a provocative piece today, in which she wonders why those who want Terri's tube pulled are so adamant and emotional about it. I think that she goes a little too Godwin at the end:
Once you "know" that--that human life is not so special after all--then everything is possible, and none of it is good. When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla.
As I've noted before, I have a different definition of a "human life" than many. I think that a human life is always worth living, but there can be a point at which life has been so altered as to no longer be recognizably human. I don't know if Mrs. Schiavo has reached that point, but apparently many people implicitly believe that to be the case.
While I do think that there's something to what Peggy says, I also think that she's somewhat misdiagnosing the problem. Look at the usual suspects that she cites:
...why do those who argue for Mrs. Schiavo's death employ language and imagery that is so violent and aggressive? The chairman of the Democratic National Committee calls Republicans "brain dead." Michael Schiavo, the husband, calls House Majority Leader Tom DeLay "a slithering snake."Everyone who has written in defense of Mrs. Schiavo's right to live has received e-mail blasts full of attacks that appear to have been dictated by the unstable and typed by the unhinged. On Democratic Underground they crowed about having "kicked the sh-- out of the fascists." On Tuesday James Carville's face was swept with a sneer so convulsive you could see his gums as he damned the Republicans trying to help Mrs. Schiavo. It would have seemed demonic if he weren't a buffoon.
Why are they so committed to this woman's death?
They seem to have fallen half in love with death.
I don't think that it's so much love of death, as blind, raging hatred of the Republicans and conservatives who they perceive to be in the vanguard of keeping her alive. Like many other issues, they have become polarized and emotionally against something simply because those they perceive to be the enemy are for it. If the president's Vision for Space Exploration ultimately fails, this will be one of the biggest reasons--because he, rather than the sainted John F. Kennedy (or even Bill Clinton) proposed it.
I don't see this as a partisan issue, though it's sadly become one. I've already said that I'm quite conflicted about this myself. The tragedy of this is that we simply don't have enough information to know what is the right thing to do. And that's the case for everyone involved, though they don't want to admit it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:15 AMWretchard has some interesting thoughts on what one might look like.
As he notes, the current organization is a corrupt relic of events of six decades past, and badly in need of a total restructuring. In its current form, it's not just useless, it's counterproductive to its stated ends.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:23 AMWhatever my other opinions about the Terri Schiavo situation, or the facts of the matter, I can find no circumstances that justify starving and dehydrating her to death.
Either let her continue on in her present state, or mercifully and quickly kill her, but the present course is absolutely outrageous and unjustifiable on any ethical ground or circumstance, in my opinion. Even if the consensus medical opinion is that she's insensible to it, there's insufficient reason for it (in my opinion, none) to take the chance that she's not.
I do find this aspect of the case a judicial travesty, beyond my comprehension, other than to maintain a legal fiction that she's not being euthanized. Given all the outrage over how we've been treating prisoners, most of whom are trying to kill us, is that worth torturing an innocent human being to death over a matter of many days?
[Update at 6:30 PM EST]
When they remove (or reinstall, if that happens) the feeding tube, do they use either a local or general anaesthetic? If not, why not? Because they are operating on the assumption that she's vegetative? That seems wrong as well.
[Update on Wednesday morning]
Here's a link to a doctor blogger who is disputing the characterization that the "cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid," based on the scans.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:43 PMAmidst evidence that even the French people are revolting against the EU "constitution," they are also recognizing that their naive attempt to repeal the laws of economics has utterly failed.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:04 PMThere's an interesting article by John Fund in Opinion Journal today, about how the "grass-roots" cry for campaign finance reform was really astroturf bought and paid for by Pew:
Mr. Treglia admits that campaign-finance supporters had to try to hoodwink Congress because "they had lost legitimacy inside Washington because they didn't have a constituency that would punish Congress if they didn't vote for reform."
If that constituency didn't exist then, I'll bet it's even smaller now, with more people reading blogs. I hope that someone on the Hill reading this decides to introduce a bill that not only repeals McCain-Feingold, but also eliminates all of this donation-limit nonsense, and replaces it with a bill requiring nothing but full disclosure of any cash contributions from all sources, in whatever amount.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:29 AMThanks to site designer Bill Simon, I've got a new graphic up, over on the left, for anyone who wants to use it to link to the Online Coalition.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:10 AMI was looking up info about Lebanon, and I came across this interesting page. But there seems to be something missing:
Lebanon finally gained its independence in 1946, but was unfortunately ravaged by a 16-year civil war that ended in 1992At the war's conclusion, the Lebanese government and people finally established a more equitable political system, and began to rebuild the damaged infrastructure. Some cultural and religious conflicts (rather common in the Middle East) do remain, and the country still struggles with reforms.
No mention whatsoever of the country just to the east.
Contrast it with this page, from the same site, in which there's no apparent hesitation to use the "O" word:
Today the Gaza Strip and West Bank (shown on the map above) are partially Israeli occupied, and the ever-changing boundaries and status of same are subject to on-going Israeli-Palestinian agreements and negotiations.
And note this map of some imaginary country called "Palestine." And it uses that "O" word as well, with regard to the Golan Heights.
I guess that there are occupations, and then there are "occupations."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:37 AMVictor Davis Hanson comments on the mass Godwinization of contemporary political discourse:
At first glance, all this wild rhetoric is preposterous. Hitler hijacked an elected government and turned it into a fascist tyranny. He destroyed European democracy. His minions persecuted Christians, gassed over six million Jews, and created an entire fascistic creed predicated on anti-Semitism and the myth of a superior Aryan race.Whatever one thinks of Bushs Iraqi campaign, the president obtained congressional approval to invade and pledged $87 billion to rebuild the country. He freely weathered mass street demonstrations and a hostile global media, successfully defended his Afghan and Iraq reconstructions through a grueling campaign and three presidential debates, and won a national plebiscite on his tenure.
In a world that is almost uniformly opposed to the democratic Jewish state, Israel has no better friend than Bush, who in turn is a believer in, not a tormentor of, Christianity. Afghanistan and Iraq, with 50 million freed, have elected governments, not American proconsuls, and there is a movement in the Middle East toward greater democratization with no guarantee that such elected governments will not be anti-American. No president has been more adamantly against cloning, euthanasia, abortion, or anything that smacks of the use of science to predetermine super-genes or to do away with the elderly, feeble, or unborn.
Actually, even at second glance, it's preposterous.
in such a debased climate, it was no accident that Alfred A. Knopf published a novel, Checkpoint, about musing how to kill Bush. Nor was it odd to hear of a New York play, Im Gonna Kill the President, apparently centered around killing Bush. Late last year, a columnist in the Guardian, Charles Brooker, wrote to his British readers on the eve of the election :Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:01 AMOn November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. where are you now that we need you?All this venom is not so funny when we now witness a Saudi American young man, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, currently under indictment for allegedly planning just such a murder. After all, when it becomes a cheap and easy thing to compare a president to a centurys great criminal, then it becomes even cheaper and easier to dream or plan to kill him.
At some point a Gore, Byrd, or Soros has a moral responsibility not to employ [the] Nazi analogy, if for no other reason than to prevent unleashing even greater extremism by the unhinged.
I pledge that, if the FEC makes any attempt to crack down on on-line political expression, I will increase my political commentary in defiance of them. Massive civil disobediance is the best way to fight this new attempt to shut down public debate.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:17 AMFred Siegel has an interesting article on the intellectual vacuity of the postmodern radical left:
Back in the fall of 2003, when Dr. Dean was still riding high in the Presidential primary, Id listened in on a conversation among undergraduate Deaniacs outside my office at Cooper Union in the East Village. "This just doesnt feel like America any more," one of them said to a friend, who replied, "Fuck Bush," and pointed to a button on his jacket bearing the same slogan.Its an old professors habit, but I had to engage them. "What does that mean?" I asked the fellow with the button. "Bush is bullshit," he replied, "the most evil man in the world." When I said that wasnt an argument and pressed him, he acknowledged that "Saddam isnt a good guy," but "who are we"he pointed both to me and his like-minded friendto "judge Saddam Hussein?"
"Why not?" I asked. He replied with an answer right out of the postmodern playbook. Americans cant judge another culture, he insisted, because there is no common morality. But if thats the case, I asked, why then was George Bush "undoubtedly the most evil man in the world?" He seemed puzzled by the idea that his version of an emotional truth might seem incoherent to others...
...But even as academias batting average has declined, its claim to superior knowledge has expanded. The old ideal of disinterested scholarship, or at least the importance of attempting to be objective, has been displaced. In 2003, the University of Californias Academic Assembly did away with the distinction between "interested" and "disinterested" scholarship by a 45-3 vote. As Berkeley law professor Robert Post explained, "The old statement of principles was so outlandishly disconnected to what university teaching is now that it made no sense to think about it that way."
The reality, as Professor Post recognized, is that many professors now literally profess. Far from teaching the mechanics of knowledge, they are in fact preachers of sorts, spreading a gospel akin to that of Howard Dean. And if they are part of grievance-studies departments, like Ward Churchill or Joseph Massad, there never was any expectation of objectivity: They were knowingly hired as activists and are now puzzled as to why this has become a problem for some of their students and the larger public. After all, what they preach is built into the very orientation students are given when they arrive on campus. New students at many schools are quite literally given a new faith in which the world is divided into victims and victimizers, with little room for common ideals of citizenship or rationality, and no basis for debates that approximate the give-and-take of politics.
This appeal to tribalism was nearly summed in a popular T-shirt of the mid-1990s. It read in large print: "If youre not black, you wouldnt understand."
If his thesis, that modern academia is the "brain trust" of the Democrat Party, is correct, they're in for a lot more electoral pain in the future. As he points out, the campuses have become such echo chambers for this stuff, in which their ideas are rarely challenged, that they've become hothouse plants that wilt under actual analysis, as is occurring more and more every day on the Internet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:58 AMThe president is going to nominate Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank. This will make certain persons' heads explode. I hope.
I know that schadenfreude is an unworthy emotion, but one of the biggest reasons that I wanted to see Bush reelected was because it would make the moonbats so foaming-at-the-mouth, furiously nuts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:23 AMI've signed up. Have you?
And ideally, I think that the next task should be to get John McCain out of the Senate, so he can't do any more damage to the First Amendment, even if we have to replace him with a Democrat. Unfortunately, he was just reelected to another six-year term.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AMThe Dutch are having their doubts:
The Government has announced that a referendum on the constitution will take place on June 1. It will be the first time that Dutch citizens are asked what they think of the EU.While international attention has been focused on the French referendum, just three days earlier on May 29, the Dutch are far more likely to slam on the brakes of the constitutional juggernaut. Polls in France still show a majority in favour of the constitution, but the Government in The Hague has been shocked to find that a majority of its citizens are opposed, and by no small margin.
A recent poll was telling. It showed that 42 per cent of Dutch would choose to vote no, against 28 per cent who plan to vote yes. The Netherlands is the only founding member of the EU in which opinion polls suggest that the constitution will be rejected.
Ignoring the fact that the reporter doesn't seem to understand the difference between a majority and a plurality, this can't be good news for the EU. June 1st will tell the tale.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:03 PMApparently, copyright violation, academic fraud, resume padding, and vile mindless leftist rants calling for the overthrow of the US government are healthy activities for one's bank account, at least if you're employed by the University of Colorado:
CU's buyout offer will be in the "$3-$5 million range - possibly higher"
Hmmmm...not a bad payoff for Chief Pants-On-Fire.
If CU is seeing their out-of-state admissions fall now, just wait until the news of this gets out. Not to mention what may happen to alumni donations.
The link also links to a story about a professor who they have managed to release, with no buyout. But that was different--it was apparently because he's a (presumably untenured) Christian. Can't have that.
[Update about 12:45 PM EST]
The Pirate Ballerina site seems to be down, for those wondering why the link was dead. But it was a link to a story at the Rockey Mountain News.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:53 AMWhy do I think that Bill Richardson is already after the 2008 Democrat nomination?
Somebody's got to go after the non-Hillary Democrat hawk vote. Looks like he's positioning himself to compete with Biden for it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:07 AMAmir Tehari says that Bill Clinton is burnishing his credentials:
...here is what Clinton had to say in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose:Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.
So, while millions of Iranians, especially the young, look to the United States as a mode of progress and democracy, a former president of the US looks to the Islamic Republic as his ideological homeland.
One wonders if he's as clueless as Jimmy Carter. And I notice that, as with Africa, he's always quick to apologize for things he thinks other people have done, but never for anything he's done.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:28 AMNow some Democrats are demanding that Hiawatha Bray be fired from the Globe.
Again, I don't think there'd be a problem if he had been critical of the president, instead of John Kerry.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:30 AMThe brave Moonbat Extraordinaire Bruce Gagnon (who Thomas James keeps a close eye on, so we don't have to), has exposed the ongoing Nazi conspiracy at the heart of our nation's space program.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:51 PMHere's an article in Rolling Stone (not exactly a triumphalist Republican magazine) about Moveon.org, explaining why the Democrats will remain electorally impotent for the foreseeable future:
For a political organization that likes to rail against "the consulting class of professional election losers," MoveOn seems remarkably unconcerned about its own win-loss record. Talk to the group's leadership and you won't hear much about the agony of defeat. Wes Boyd -- the software entrepreneur who used his fortune from creating the Flying Toaster screen saver to co-found MoveOn -- blithely acknowledges the need to produce some electoral wins "in the classical sense." But he sees the rise of MoveOn's progressive populism as a moral victory in and of itself......Boyd is a whip-smart man with a deep passion for populist democracy. But speaking to him about MoveOn's constituency is like speaking to someone who spends all day in an Internet chat room and assumes the rest of the world is as psyched as he and his online compatriots are about, say, the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He seems to conflate MoveOn with the rest of America. "We see ourselves as a broad American public," he says. "We assume that things that resonate with our base resonate with America."
In fact, there appears to be an almost willful ignorance about who actually composes MoveOn. "We're pretty light on the demographics," Boyd says without apology. "It's funny, when we talk to people in Washington, that's the first question we're asked." He adds with note of self-satisfaction: "We've been largely nonresponsive."
Not to mention non-successful. There's a term for people who gain "moral victories." What is it again...? Oh, yeah--"losers."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:52 PMCox and Forkum have an on-point cartoon over Paul Martin's recent missile defense idiocy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:06 AMPat Hynes, of Ankle Biting Pundits (formerly CrushKerry.com), sinks his teeth into Howard Dean's achilles tendon:
Instead of working the media, Dean kicked off his much-ballyhooed tour of "Red America." But the tour got off to an unfortunate start for the chairman. In Kansas, Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius made sure she was all booked up and unable to meet with him. Dean was reduced to begging yokels to do more to help the cause. "I'm asking you to run for the school board, I'm asking you to run for the city council, I'm asking you to run for library trustee." Pity the poor rural Kansan when the Dean-inspired Democrat candidate for dog catcher busts out into a chimerical conspiracy theory about the neo-cons at the next community candidate forum.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:16 AM
Remember all the warnings we've had over the years from the wise heads in the punditocracy, how if we supported Israel, or removed the Taliban, or removed Saddam, or dissed Arafat, or promoted democracy in the Middle East, that the "Arab Street" would rise up in anger?
Well, I guess they were finally, after all those years of false predictions, proven right.
I think that Syria is finding itself in a quagmire. So is the MSM.
[Update at 1:48 PM EST]
Rick Savage emails:
I'm waiting for Ted Kennedy to proclaim that Lebanon is Syria's Vietnam, and demand an immediate pull out!I'm waiting, but I'm not holding my breath.
Probably a good plan...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AMI wondered what Andrew Sullivan's point about Bush and big-government conservatism was last week. Ramesh Ponnuru has responded to his post in a similar manner:
His thought experiment, meanwhile, is thoughtless. For it to begin to work, his President Al Gore would have had to have overthrown the Baathist regime in Iraq, enacted Health Savings Accounts, cut taxes, proposed a free-market reform of Social Security, nominated conservative judges, and so forth. (There have been more conservative policy achievements under this president than there were at the height of Gingrich's revolution, a fact which certainly tempers my nostalgia for it.) Is Sullivan really suggesting that opposing Bush and backing John Kerry would have been the truly conservative thing to do in the last election? Oh right: That is what Sullivan thought. Now he's complaining that NR refused to join him in his folly.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:14 AM
Kathleen Antrim says that Michael Moore's former manager doesn't have kind words for him:
With characteristic zeal, Moore campaigned vigorously for a Best Picture nomination."He was at every Oscar party and screening," said Moore's former manager Douglas Urbanski, a critically acclaimed 25-year veteran of the entertainment industry most recently known for the movie "The Contender," starring Gary Oldman, Joan Allen and Jeff Bridges. "He took out full-page ads, cut his hair, bathed and even wore a suit. [Moore was] very present around town."
Emphasis mine. Apparently, Hollywood is blaming him for Kerry's defeat. And then there's this:
...he feels no compunction in talking about the only client he ever fired. And he fired Moore with a ten-page letter."A more dishonest and demented person I have never met," Urbanski wrote me in an e-mail, "and I have known a few! And he is more money obsessed than any I have known, and that's saying a lot."
Urbanski believes that Moore hates America, hates capitalism, and hates any normal concept of freedom and democracy. This seems odd considering that if it weren't for America, freedom and capitalism, Moore's brand of expression and capitalistic success would be impossible, if not illegal. "Michael Moore could not withstand Michael Moore's' scrutiny for more than fifteen seconds," Urbanski said.
Yes, just ask this guy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:17 AMMark Steyn says that Europe is set to implode:
Many Americans wander round with the constitution in their pocket so they can whip it out and chastise over-reaching congressmen and senators at a moment's notice. Try going round with the European Constitution in your pocket and you'll be walking with a limp after two hours: It's 511 pages, which is 500 longer than the U.S. version. It's full of stuff about European space policy, Slovakian nuclear plants, water resources, free expression for children, the right to housing assistance, preventive action on the environment, etc.Most of the so-called constitution isn't in the least bit constitutional. That's to say, it's not content, as the U.S. Constitution is, to define the distribution and limitation of powers. Instead, it reads like a U.S. defense spending bill that's got porked up with a ton of miscellaneous expenditures for the ''mohair subsidy'' and other notorious Congressional boondoggles. President Ronald Reagan liked to say, ''We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around.'' If you want to know what it looks like the other way round, read Monsieur Giscard's constitution.
Maybe Bush's decision to endorse the EU this week was just his way of hurrying things along.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 AMAndrew Sullivan complains about a supposed double standard among conservatives and the staff at the National Review in particular:
Ponnuru argues...that he and others at National Review have indeed opposed Bush's big government nanny-state tendencies....Fair enough - to a point. But try this counter-factual: If Al Gore, say, had, turned a surplus into years of mounting debt, if he'd added a huge new federal entitlement to Medicare, if he'd over-ridden the rights of states to set their own laws with regard, say, to education, if he'd put tariffs on steel, if he'd increased government spending faster than anyone since LBJ, if he'd said that government's job was to heal hurt wherever it exists, if he'd ramped up agricultural subsidies, poured money into the Labour and Education Departments, thrown public dollars at corporate America, spent gobs of money on helping individuals in bad marriages, used the Constitution as an instrument of social policy, given government the right to detain people without trial and subject them to torture, and on and on, I don't think National Review would have been content merely to nitpick. Do you? I think they would have mounted a ferocious attempt to remove the guy from office...I think that tells you a lot about where some conservative thinkers are really coming from.
I guess I fail to see the point. Obviously, they would work to remove a Democrat (and particularly Al Gore) had he followed those same policies. Because he would have no redeeming virtues.
Look, I would have loved to fire George Bush for all those things, but there was no way to do that without replacing him with someone who would almost certainly be even worse on almost all of those issues, and who was unserious about our defense as well. There were no conservatives on offer in this past election on domestic economic issues.
Does Andrew really believe that if the folks at The National Review aren't actively trying to remove Bush from office (to be replaced with...what, exactly?) that they cannot claim to be conservatives? Sorry, but makes no sense at all. To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, you work with the president you have, not the one you wish you had.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:06 AMThe Yalta summit was sixty years ago today. The Germans had been defeated in the Battle of the Bulge a couple weeks before, and the end of the Nazi regime was clearly only weeks or at most months away. Much of the damage of that conference was undone in the late eighties, as the Wall came down. But Arthur Herman says that President Bush should (as he implied in his inaugural address) finish the job.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 AMVia Instapundit, Joshua Claybourn is cynical and pessimistic about the prospects for cutting farm subsidies. While I'm not optimistic, his pessimism, at least as stated, seems unjustified on two counts.
First, not to use an argument from non-authority, but quoting Atrios is hardly likely to be persuasive to any thinking person....
But more to the point, Atrios' "argument" (such as it is) is flaccid:
...I predict that the most likely result of this attempt to cut farm spending is precisely what happened in 2002 when Bush also proposed cutting farm subsidies. A bill will pass which significantly increases farm subsidies, at which point Bush will sign it and praise it.
Well, not to sound too trite, but that was then, and this is now. 2002 was an election year, in which Congress was up for grabs, and the president still had a reelection of his own coming up. He also had less support in both houses of Congress than he does today.
It appears to me that the president, having been reelected and having to worry no more about having to win another election, has decided to cut back on the "compassionate conservatism" (for which read standard liberalism and government growth, but not quite as fast) and try to make up for past sins in his second term (on a number of fronts, not just farm subsidies). I suppose it's possible that he'll end up signing and praising an increase in agriwelfare, but the politics of it this year make it seem unlikely. He may not get what he wants, but I'm guessing that he'll at least threaten a veto to attempt to, and if he doesn't, he won't praise it this time.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:26 PMHere's a whiny piece from the LA Daily News, with at least two questions not asked (nor are they ever asked in pieces like this, or if they are, it's rare):
President George W. Bush's lean $2.57 trillion budget plan to beef up the U.S. military comes at the expense of Southern California's ability to hire more cops, help battered women and clean its drinking water.The proposed 2006 budget slashes programs considered vital by local officials, including Los Angeles' Community Oriented Policing program, used to hire more police, and community block grants that fund low-income housing and other social services.
Boo.Hoo.
First unasked question: Why is it the responsibility of a taxpayer in Wyoming to provide clean drinking water for Los Angeles residents? Or pay cops' salaries?
How did this come to be within the purview of the federal government? These are local issues, that should be locally funded.
On to the next:
Getting California's fair share of federal tax dollars has long been on the agenda of Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders of both parties, with all five of them scheduled to be in Washington on Feb. 17 to meet with the state's 53 congressional members to see whether the current situation can be improved.Estimates currently peg the state's take at 77 cents for every dollar paid to Washington by California taxpayers, and Democratic leaders in Sacramento said Monday that the president's budget doesn't bode well for rectifying that imbalance.
Our intrepid reporters report this as though it's a perfectly sensible notion that each state should get back exactly as much (if not more--though then that would beg the question of which state wasn't getting back as much to pay for the overage) as it pays in federal taxes, in the form of federal outlays.
The purpose of federal taxes is not to get them back in benefits to the state in proportion to the taxes paid. In fact, that would be impossible, since just the overhead costs of sending them to Washington and back would dictate that the total amount going back to the states would have to be less than that sent to Washington. It also ignores the funding that's sent overseas (embassies, military activities, foreign aid, etc.) that can't be spent in any of the fifty states. So when California insists on getting back all one hundred cents of its federal tax dollar, it's really saying that at least some, if not all other states should get less.
I've got an idea. Instead of state officials lobbying to get the gummint to spend money in their states, howzabout they lobby to reduce federal taxes, so that the people who live in the states have more money to spend on their own states, and don't have to rely on benefactors in Washington to pay for their police departments and womens' shelters after skimming their umpteen percent off the top?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:50 AMPerhaps a second Bush term will do more for smaller government than the first term did.
I hope so, but this will be a battle royal with his own party:
President Bush will seek deep cuts in farm and commodity programs in his new budget and in a major policy shift will propose overall limits on subsidy payments to farmers, administration officials said Saturday.Such limits would help reduce the federal budget deficit and would inject market forces into the farm economy, the officials said.
As a new Floridian (and occasional sugar consumer), I hope that they can reduce (if not eliminate) sugar subsidies specifically. They're helping destroy the Everglades, and many Third World economies, including many in the Caribbean.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AMAs opposed to many of the so-called ones in this country. I find it ironic that many people who call themselves Democrats are the ones in the forefront of poo pooing democracy when it actually happens. If a Democrat was in the White House, they'd be praising it, and him (or her) to the skies, of course.
Anway, Adam Keiper has compiled a stirring video of the Iraqi elections.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:59 PMProbably not, but it should be.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:42 AMJoe Katzman has an interesting post on how the "progressive" movement has devolved to ritual.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 AMRush Limbaugh's ratings are seeing a huge growth in the youth demographic. In New York City, no less.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:42 PMParticularly in light of the tragic affliction of some of my fellow Boca Ratonians. David Asman has found one:
The ten states (including the District of Columbia) with the highest ratio of psychologists per 100,000 residents, were, with the exception of Colorado, all blue states, which supported John Kerry...The ten states with the lowest ratio of psychologists per 100,000 residents, all were red states, supporting Bush
I'll let the readership draw their own conclusions.
[Via emailer John Sproules]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:01 PMMichael Moore can't get no respect from his homies:
"Would you want him as a role model? Would you want your son or daughter to be like him?" asked Don Hammond, a member of the Hall of Fame selection committee. "I haven't talked to anybody yet who's for him. The word to describe Michael Moore is embarrassing. He embarrasses everybody."
(And note that, contra popular myth, he's from Davison, not my home town of Flint).
[Update at noon eastern]
Speaking of Michael Moore, Bill Whittle describes a recent encounter of the third kind with him, with some thoughts on celebrities and politics.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 AM...how many other people will be put off (as I am) from donating to any cause with which a notorious con man like Bill Clinton is associated?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 AMHere's a new blog, from non-liberal non-Democrat non-socialists at the State Department. Will they be able to come in from the cold in the new Rice regime?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:46 AMBrits think that Israel is the worst country in the world. Imagine how bad it must be. Worse than North Korea. Worse than Zimbabwe or, for that matter, every country in Africa. Worse than Syria.
Simply amazing. The BBC has done its propaganda job well.
[Update a few minutes later]
It's not quite as bad as I thought--it was an on-line survey. Still it amazes me that anyone can have such a stupid opinion.
[Update on Wednesday morning]
Melanie Phillips has a more comprehensive explanation:
Britain is gripped by an unprecedented degree of irrationality, prejudice and hysteria over the issues of Iraq, the terrorist jihad and Israel. All three are intimately linked; all three, however, are thought by public opinion to be linked in precisely the wrong way. This is because all three have been systematically misreported, distorted and misrepresented through a lethal combination of profound ignorance, political malice and ancient prejudices.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:32 AMThis systematic abuse by the media is having a devastating impact in weakening the ability of the west to defend itself against the unprecedented mortal threat that it faces from the Islamic jihad. People cannot and will not fight if they dont understand the nature or gravity of the threat that they face, so much so that they vilify their own leaders while sanitising those who would harm them.
We've already contributed eighteen million dollars to the relief effort since Sunday. Of course, since that's only private contributions, and not one inefficient government bureaucracy taking money from the taxpayers to give to some other inefficient government bureaucracy, I guess it doesn't count.
Chuck Simmons has more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 PMClare Short is whinging that George Bush is undermining the UN by setting up an aid coalition for the tsunami victims. (Note that the coalition is much of the Anglosphere plus Japan...)
She missed her calling. She should have been in standup comedy:
I think this initiative from America to set up four countries claiming to coordinate sounds like yet another attempt to undermine the UN when it is the best system we have got and the one that needs building up, she said.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:46 PMOnly really the UN can do that job, she told BBC Radio Fours PM programme.
It is the only body that has the moral authority."
(Sung the tune of "Blame Canada")
This is amazing. The Vatican has blamed Israel for not providing disaster support, after they offered it and were turned down by Sri Lanka, who apparently didn't want any help from the evil Jews. As is often the case, no good deed goes unpunished.
[Update on Friday afternoon]
Catholic World News says that it was a mistranslation and that the Vatican was actually criticizing Sri Lanka for refusing the aid.
Glad to hear it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:05 PM...blamed George Bush for the tsunamis yet?
I'm sure it's just a matter of time. Thousands more lives are on his head.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:50 AM...will be all over this story.
Any day now.
[crickets chirping]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:06 AMDiane Feinstein wants to get an amendment to end the electoral college. That way, no one will have to run a national campaign--they'll just have to do big media buys in the major cities. Fortunately, her fellow Senators will never pass it out of that chamber. This won't be a partisan issue--it will be a large-state, small-state and urban-state, rural-state issue, and there are more small and rural ones than large and urban ones.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:08 AMAmericans are still welcome in Bastogne.
"The American veterans who have returned 60 years later to the battle site represent those who gave their lives on our soil so that today we can live free," Bastogne Mayor Philippe Collard said in French at a memorial honoring U.S. General George S. Patton.He added in English: "We will never forget. You are home here."
I fervently hope that, to the degree that they do so now, the French can continue to live free, in the face of the new totalitarian threat in their midst to which they are only now awakening. They, and much of western Europe, are now on one of the front lines of the new war, whether they realize it or not.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:31 AMWar on Terror (or rather, Islamic fundamentalism), or War on Drugs. Andrew Stuttaford is right--we can't have both, and the attempt to do so is one of the many reasons I wish that we'd had a better choice last month. Some things the administration does simply boggle the mind.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:24 PMAndrew Napolitano has an article at Cato about how the US government is exempt from its own laws (it's a PDF). He includes a story about Janet Reno of which few are aware (though anyone could have known about it at the time, had they wanted to do the research).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:18 PMIf I gave a damn what John McCain thinks. I'm as mystified at the press' worship of Senator McCain as I am by worship of Bill Clinton. I really don't get it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:34 AMRamesh Ponnuru points out a puff piece in the WaPo about Tom Daschle, with the reporter crying in his beer about the loss to the nation of this noble statesman.
But he also points out this strange rewriting (or miswriting) of history:
...Daschle and Lott believed that conservative House Republicans had gone too far by impeaching the president for essentially lying about his affair in a civil proceeding, and they worked successfully behind the scenes to avert a conviction.
Ramesh notes that there was never a chance of a conviction, but I think that's wrong. The real point is that the reporter fails to point out how Daschle conspired with Lott--they worked behind the scenes to make sure that there was no real trial. They allowed no witnesses, with only videotaped testimony of key players. If all of the evidence that the House members had seen (resulting in the impeachment vote) had been shown to the public, it's actually quite unlikely that Clinton would have remained from office.
In addition, Clinton wasn't just accused of "essentially lying about his affair in a civil proceeding." There was witness tampering and witness intimidation as well. These are serious federal felonies--the stuff of mafiosi, regardless of the subject matter.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:40 PMIgnorant Europeans are unhappy about the results of the election.
Especially inclined to have an unfavorable opinion of Bush in those countries were people between ages 18 and 24.
Well, there's an informed and thoughtful demographic.
The polls suggest an increasing lack of understanding about Americans in Europe, rather than a surge of anti-Americanism, said Corman, who studies public opinion trends in Europe.
Yup. You don't even have to look very hard to see it here in my comments section.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:05 AMApparently the therapy isn't working too well for PEST sufferers in my new home town. But maybe we just have to give it enough time.
This nation has accepted George Bushs re-election, but not the stress it has created, Gordon said. I dont mind Republicans making fun of us. This isnt about converting Democrats and independents to Republicans with the wave of a magic wand. Its about helping otherwise normal people who were thrown into chronic depression or shock by Bushs re-election.
Well, not all of them are "otherwise normal":
One Boca psychologist alone, Douglas Schooler, treated 20 Kerry voters last month with intense hypnotherapy for a sliding fee. Schooler later said he had treated many of these patients including a 44-year old Boca divorcee named Karen, who gave an exclusive interview to the Boca News for mental problems prior to the election.
I'm shocked, shocked.
And I've decided that this reporter is indeed having a great time with this story.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AMRemember this idiot, who was unable to recognize satire? Well, he's resigned from the San Diego Union-Tribune as a columnist after they refused to run a column of his that they thought readers might find offensive ("bugmenot","bugmenot" will get you past the registration).
Good riddance.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:10 AMThe post title is an exact quote from Kathryn Jean Lopez, over at The Corner. I concur. That was also my response to learn that "Underperformin' Norman" Mineta will remain Secretary of Transportation.
I wish we'd had better choices last month.
[Update at 2:30 PM EST]
Michelle Malkin isn't happy either, and she has a lot of quotes to illustrate why.
You know, if we really think that the blogosphere has any power, this ought to be the next view through the crosshairs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:22 AMThere's a story over at The Hill that there were some Swift Boat ads that Fox refused to run during the campaign, because they were "too negative." Amusingly, CNN had no problem with them. Of course, they're probably much more desperate for ad revenue over there these days...
But the part of the story that broke my irony meter was the very last bit:
Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, however, characterized the Swift boat campaign as neither fun nor moving, calling it the most dishonorable thing Ive ever seen in politics.
He must have stumbled around the White House during the Clinton years with his hands over his eyes. This from a guy whose president and party sponsored ads claiming that if Republicans won, "more black churches would burn." This from the guy who, from his lectern in the White House Press Room, verbally trashed women who had the temerity to complain about the First Groper's treatment of them. This from a willing spokesperson for one of the most dishonorable administrations in our nation's history.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:42 PMI shall savor the sight of federal Marshals dragging Mary Frances Berry, kicking and clawing at the carpet, off the premises of the Civil Rights Commission.
"...We expect this to get ugly real fast, but we don't care. She has served her term. We will thank her, and she will be expected to leave. Now."And if she doesn't?
"That is one reason why they have U.S. Marshals," says the source. "And we have been told that if we need to use them, we can. We will not allow this woman to hold this Administration hostage."
The Republicans will be able to sell videos of it for fundraisers for years.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:59 PM...still in charge of the Federal Air Marshall Service?
Thomas Quinn, director of the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), paid a surprise visit to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Thanksgiving to thank the law-enforcement officials for their holiday work. He reportedly was angered when nearly 30 marshals deplaned and only one was dressed satisfactorily.In response, supervisors are being assigned to airports nationwide to inspect the air cops before and after flights to make sure business suits or sports coats are being worn, according to numerous memos issued last week and obtained by The Washington Times.
I wish we'd had a better choice last month.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:26 AMOver at Kevin Drum's place (Kevin's post is worth a read, too--I may respond to it later if I get time):
Totalitarianism is right here, right up in each of our faces every minute of every day. It is the Republican Party, and not a moment's thought or effort can be diverted from fighting it until it has been destroyed without trace. This will take three generations, and will leave the country with one third the population and one ten-thousandth the economy that it has today.Then the country must be rebuilt. That will take a further six generations.
THEN, perhaps, we may once more indulge in the [very great and irresponsible] luxury of wondering what is going on elsewhere in the world. But not before.
Hmmm...well, you know what Stalin said about omelettes and eggs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:08 AMPeggy Noonan has a gracious, balanced and I suspect correct ode to Dan Rather and his career.
People are complicated, careers are complicated, motives are complicated. Dan Rather did some great work on stories that demanded physical courage. He loved the news, and often made it look like the most noble of enterprises. He had guts and fortitude. Those stories he covered that touched on politics were unfortunately and consistently marred by liberal political bias, and in this he was like too many in his profession. But this is changing. The old hegemony has given way. The old dominance is over. Good thing. Great thing. OnwardPosted by Rand Simberg at 06:57 AM
Janet Daley thinks that London needs a Rudy Giuliani to clean up the crime. Her column doesn't mention the real issue, though, which is that the British policy against self defense has created incentives for the human predators that infest their nation.
Perry DeHavilland has much more insight into the problem, as he relates a tragedy that happened to his neighbor.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 AMMatt Labash has a long, but entertaining description of a recent visit to Little Rock, and a walk down mammary lane:
However many rotating exhibits the library hosts, none will ever be dedicated to Connie Hamzy, aka "Sweet, Sweet Connie," the rock'n'roll supergroupie who was immortalized in a Grand Funk Railroad song. Connie had the distinction of being the first of Clinton's many "bimbo eruptions" when, in 1992, she told Penthouse the tale of how Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, had approached her while she was lying beside a hotel pool, and said, "I want to get with you." According to Connie, they couldn't find a hotel room, so instead they made do with a discreet corner for groping. Clinton denied the charges, and Newsweek reported that Hillary wanted to destroy Connie's credibility. Hamzy later passed a polygraph, preserving her reputation--such as it is.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:42 AMThe years haven't been kind to Connie. She's been arrested for public intoxication and for endangering a minor she allowed to drive her car. Today she survives on disability ("my nut money," she calls the compensation for her bipolar disorder) and earnings from a part-time job passing out strollers at the zoo. Her shoebox house in a bad neighborhood in Little Rock is a monument to cat-hair and bong smoke. When I arrive, she is finishing a photo-shoot with a photographer from Spin, who looks like he's just been through a war.
Apparently, Connie has spent the photo session on the sauce and the weed, and they've experienced all manner of creative differences. Plus, she tried to hit on him. "I told her I was gay," he says, as he hurriedly loads equipment into his car. "I've GOT to get out of here. Good luck." When I walk into her living room, Connie's still muttering about the photographer's arty pretentiousness. "Plus, he's a fag," she says.
Her house is a rock'n'roll museum, full of drumsticks and guitar picks that she earned the hard way. Connie has slept with most of the rockers in the photos, or at least their roadies. So we play a quick game of Who Have You Done? I point to a picture of Fleetwood Mac, a Clinton favorite. "Did 'em all," she says. "Even the women?" I ask. "Close, but no cigar," she sighs. Connie's a hard woman, her voice is all sandpaper and cigarettes. And being a supergroupie, she tends toward the friendly side. I'm not in her house five minutes before she grabs my behind. When I ask how old she is, she responds, "How old do you think I am?," pulls up her sweater, and bares her breasts. (She's 49; her breasts might very well be younger.)
That's what the headline of this story should have been. Strange that the UPI reporter is either unaware of M. Chirac's legal problems, or chose not to mention them. They would seem quite relevant to his motivation for another term.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:24 AMThis is pretty disgusting. As one commenter says, that's one store chain to knock off my shopping list this year.
That it can be hip to wear something like this is a testament to the failure of our educational system, from K-12 through the academy.
[Via Laughing Wolf]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:16 AMWhat would be the difference between Thanksgiving menus for Jesusland, as opposed to southern Canada? How would a "Red" Turkeyday differ from a "Blue" one?
Provide both menus, and prayers.
The comments are open...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:19 PMKathleen Willey says that Senator Clinton had better be aware of what will happen if she decides to run for president. Like the Vietnam vets, these women haven't forgotten that she was complicit in the lies and smears.
[Update at 1:15 PM EST]
So much for Bill's legacy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:20 AMOK, over three years later, with our men fighting house to house in Iraq, is there anyone out there (c'mon, raise your hands), anyone who isn't aware of Islam?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:52 AMI wonder if this Paula Berinstein is this Paula Berinstein?
Let those Democratic leaders who think their party should show more religious faith and moderate its stand on abortion know this: If the Democratic Party does so, it will lose millions of lifelong members like me.Moving to the right is not the answer. The Democrats got 48 percent of the vote in the 2004 presidential election. They don't need to change their positions. They need to take control of the debate, get their voters to the polls and make sure that Republicans don't pull dirty tricks.
If the Democratic Party moves to the right, I will defect to the Green Party, as will many of my friends and family.
Paula Berinstein
Thousand Oaks, Calif., Nov. 17, 2004
That's the problem that the Dems have. They may not be able to gain in the center without losing more heavily their base.
[Via Jim Geraghty]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 AMThis line in Richard Morin's column about the election exit polls has bent the needle on my irony meter hard to starboard.
...rather than flog the bloggers for rushing to publish the raw exit poll data on their Web sites, we may owe them a debt of gratitude. A few more presidential elections like this one and the public will learn to do the right thing and simply ignore news of early exit poll data. Then perhaps people will start ignoring the bloggers, who proved once more that their spectacular lack of judgment is matched only by their abundant arrogance.
I wonder if he's ever accused Dan Rather of arrogance? In a sane world, his picture would accompany the dictionary definition of the word.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:43 AMThe guys at Powerline may have found it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:52 AMThe Washington Post is no longer going to publish Ted Rall's vile scribblings. I'd blame John Ashcroft, but we don't have him to kick around any more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:07 PMThis story just keeps on going, and going, like the Energizer Bunny. Now Rush is involved:
Cooperman, whose professional practice is based in Delray Beach, said the election-related symptoms she sees in the Kerry supporters more than quality [sic] PEST as a legitimate syndrome or disorder within the trauma spectrum, according to the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.Rush Limbaugh has no clinical qualifications to counsel anyone, Cooperman said. Hes not only minimizing PEST, but hes bastardizing the entire psychological field and our clinical expertise.
Rob Gordon, AHA executive director, said Limbaughs radio musings caused the charity to receive hundreds of calls and letters from gloating Republicans. But he said he also received a small batch of letters and e-mails from people who said they understood why some Kerry voters would need therapy.
A man named Paul wrote to AHA, I too was very depressed, and I knew a lot people who felt the same way. You have to understand that to many of us, this was the key election about the future of our country, and with a Bush win that future is pretty much destroyed. Naturally, theres going to be some significant grief.
The people here in Palm Beach County now in therapy or support groups are the canaries in the mine shaft, Gordon said. There could be thousands of others, even Republicans, who need to be in therapy over this election.
It amazes me that these folks can use the acronym "PEST" with a straight face. I continue to remain powerless to spoof this story. I don't think that the best writers at The Onion could top it. I just wish that it weren't happening in my new home town. It's truly embarrassing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 AMIt just occurs to me that Condi doesn't necessarily have to give up her White House job when she takes over Foggy Bottom. Henry Kissinger was simultaneously National Security Advisor and Secretary of State for two years. I haven't heard about potential replacements for her current position. I wonder if the White House is thinking what I'm thinking, or if they just haven't gotten around to announcing her replacement yet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:32 AMThankfully, these poor souls are on the road to recovery. I'd still like to write a parody of this, but I can't figure out how to beat the actual news coverage:
Dr. Schooler absolutely understood the pain this election caused me and he opened my mind to a new point of view, Karen said. Youre relaxed, he talks to you and you just come out of it feeling more positive and renewed. It took one session. He did some relaxation techniques and probably did some things I didnt even realize.A Schooler client for seven years, dating back to her divorce, Karen said the doctor helped her realize it had been unhealthy for her to expect Kerry to win.
If Id had time, I would have volunteered for Kerry, but I work full-time, Karen said. I was so invested emotionally, watching the debates, and was very disturbed whenever I heard a Marine has been killed. I thought Bushs actions were war crimes. But Im sleeping again since the therapy and have felt better ever since. I dont know what will happen now, but Im going to take it day by day and see what happens.
Regardless of his political views, the election outcome has certainly been a boon for Dr. Schooler.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:26 AMHerb Meyer has an open letter to Europe.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:00 AMReason #86,476.
Annan has ordered all the flags in the plaza flown at half mast for the murderer Arafat.
[Update at 5:37 PM EST]
Ed Wright points out that I didn't read carefully--only the UN flag is being lowered. But still...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:39 PMHere's someone who claims that Vietnam vets who said that they were spat on (and worse) upon return are liars.
Somehow, I suspect that it may suck to be him over the next few days.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AMThat's what this post seemed to have semi-usefully turned into while I was gone (when it wasn't a thread about how I was a hateful bigot, and twisted, and creepy, and other adjectives that seemed to substitute for actual argument, though not very well).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:12 AMI'd like to think that this story about some poor souls who need hypnotherapy to get over the election is a story from The Onion, but it's from my new home-town paper:
Boca Raton trauma specialist Douglas Schooler said he has treated 15 clients and friends with intense hypnotherapy since the Democratic nominee conceded last Wednesday. I had one friend tell me hes never been so depressed and angry in his life, Schooler said. I observed patients threatening to leave the country or staring listlessly into space. They were emotionally paralyzed, shocked and devastated......Some mental health professionals in South Florida said Monday they have already developed a new category for the Kerry-related stress reactions. Because Palm Beach County voted heavily for Kerry, the therapists said, many residents hurt themselves by so anxiously expecting the Massachusetts senator to win especially those who maintained unrealistic recount hopes after their candidates concession.
Were calling it post-election selection trauma and were working to develop a counseling program for it, said Rob Gordon, the Boca-based executive director of the American Health Association. Its like post-traumatic stress syndrome, but its a short-term shock rather than a childhood trauma.
Somehow, I doubt if we'd be reading stories like this about Bush supporters had things gone the other way. I had been tempted to write a spoof about things like this, but it's hard to parody these folks.
[Update late afternoon]
Good golly, Miss Molly, there's a follow up. Now it really is becoming Onion like:
The AHAs actions come after the Boca Raton News reported Tuesday that Palm Beach County psychotherapist Douglas Schooler has already treated 15 Kerry supporters using intense hypnotherapy. Schooler, contacted Wednesday, said four more people had already set up appointments for the onetime therapy session since the article was picked up internationally and cited on Rush Limbaughs radio show.The problem is out there and its not going to go away anytime soon, Schooler said. Conservatives are calling me to say these people are weak-kneed kooks, but theyre not acknowledging that this is a normal psychological response to a severe and disillusioning situation. Any suggestion that this is not a serious problem arises from a political agenda. The Republicans dont want this talked about.
"Republicans don't want this talked about"? I can't type that with a straight face, but apparently he said it. If Republicans don't want it talked about, why does this moron think that Rush is having such a good time talking about it?
Nancy M. Tabet, a mental health counselor with a small practice in Delray Beach, said she had helped about five clients deal with the post-election trauma in their therapy sessions.Its interesting to me that people in Palm Beach County, because they vote for Kerry and thoroughly expected him to win, are in somewhat of a disbelief stage, Tabet said. We talk it out in our sessions and I help them realize there are people who share their viewpoint and who are there for them throughout this ordeal.
Asked when the Kerry-related trauma would end, Tabet said, I think the jurys still out on that one. I think it depends on the swing of the politics.
Elizabeth Foxman, a cognitive therapist in Delray, took issue with the AHAs decision to label the Kerry-related stress as a new sort of trauma.
I dont disagree with their diagnosis, but I wouldnt use the word trauma, Foxman said. Thats a loaded term. I would say theres more sadness and anxiety than trauma. My own patients have been stressed, but only one or two have mentioned the election as a topic in therapy.
Gordon, the AHA psychotherapist, said his agency was referring his 30 callers most of them men to other support groups prior to Wednesday. He said the post-election trauma will require three to four support group sessions at his agencys counseling center, but added that he thinks the problem will fade as the troubled Kerry supporters adjust to reality.
The support group structure means you have to bring these people together for several sessions, Gordon said. But every day is a new day. John Ashcrofts resignation is going to help because Democrats certainly felt the cause of their stress was bigger than President Bush. If Condoleeza Rice and a few others resign, that will help cure their animosity as well.
You couldn't make this stuff up. No one would believe you.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:10 AMI, too, would like to see that Arlen "Not Proven" Specter doesn't ascend to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, I wish that we could just appoint him as ambassador to Scotland, where perhaps he'll find the law more to his liking.
I'd even be happy to accept a Rendel-appointed Democrat in his place. At least he'd be an honest one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 AMThe race is finally completely over. Bush was just awarded Iowa, and all the electoral votes have been assigned. A thirty-four point difference.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AMAlan Boyle has some state and county maps that are more, well, nuanced.
For the record, I should note that I am on the "red" side of the political spectrum only in the very limited sense that I favored George Bush over John Kerry.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:12 AMWell, the search is over. These guys managed to find him:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe is already looking past Bushs second term.This party is stronger than its ever been. Were in the best financial shape, he says. We now have, unlike four years ago, millions and millions of new supporters of this party. Were debt-free for the first time ever and were beginning to build towards 2008.
They don't control any branch of government, but they've got lots of money. Good job, Terry.
We know that there's one thing you're good at. You can't get anyone elected, but you can raise money. Some of it even legally. Keep up the good work.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:55 AMI saw a milk carton with Terry McAuliffe's picture on it.
It's been almost two days now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:55 AMThere are rumors abounding that Arafat is brain dead.
If so, let's hope that the rest of him follows shortly. Couldn't happen to a nicer terrorist.
[Update a few minutes later]
What he said.
He's a bad man who's been terrible for his people and if there's any justice, when he dies he will receive 72 virgins who look exactly like him.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:49 AM
A little island near the mouth of the Hudson River.
I don't know if this article is intended to be funny or not, but I found it hilarious, and dripping with irony.
Upper middle class Brooklynites called red state voters misinformed and self-interested. And outside the Apollo Theater in Harlem, residents cried that the fix was in and Bush had stolen another election."I'm devastated," writer Emma Starr said as she left the nation's largest member-owned and -operated food co-op. "I have proposed that we should have two distinct nations. Why should we be forced to live together under the rule of an evil dictator?"
...One-third of voters surveyed in nationwide Associated Press exit polls called themselves conservative, one-fifth liberal.
The opposite was true in New York, where about one-third of voters called themselves liberal, compared with one-fifth who identified themselves as conservative.
Three quarters of the city's voters pulled the lever for Kerry, compared with 48 percent of voters nationwide...
...Dr. Charles Goodstein, a psychiatrist at NYU Medical Center, described the patients with whom he spoke Wednesday as deeply saddened.
"It's had a real impact on them," he said. "There's a sense of hope that's been given up, the loss of an ideal, a kind of pessimistic view of the world."
He said, however, that what he was seeing was not clinical depression and he expected the somber mood to lift eventually.
Yes. Let us pray for them--as people from Jesusland, it's the least we can do.
[Update on Thursday morning]
Jeez. Here's another one, even worse.
"I'm saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country - the heartland," Dr. Joseph said. "This kind of redneck, shoot-from-the-hip mentality and a very concrete interpretation of religion is prevalent in Bush country - in the heartland.""New Yorkers are more sophisticated and at a level of consciousness where we realize we have to think of globalization, of one mankind, that what's going to injure masses of people is not good for us," he said.
His friend, Ms. Cohn, a native of Wisconsin who deals in art, contended that New Yorkers were not as fooled by Mr. Bush's statements as other Americans might be. "New Yorkers are savvy," she said. "We have street smarts. Whereas people in the Midwest are more influenced by what their friends say."
"They're very 1950's," she said of Midwesterners. "When I go back there, I feel I'm in a time warp."
Dr. Joseph acknowledged that such attitudes could feed into the perception that New Yorkers are cultural elitists, but he didn't apologize for it.
"People who are more competitive and proficient at what they do tend to gravitate toward cities," he said.
Like those in the rest of the country, New Yorkers stayed up late watching the results, and some went to bed with a glimmer of hope that Mr. Kerry might yet find victory in some fortuitous combination of battleground states. But they awoke to reality. Some politically conscious children were disheartened - or sleepy - enough to ask parents if they could stay home. But even grownups were unnerved.
This thing almost reads like an Iowahawk parody, but I think that the reporters are serious.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:40 PMRush Limbaugh played the full version of his theme song today. Chrissie Hynde must be spitting nails.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:19 PMExcept that I suspect that eastern Washington, Oregon and BC, and all of Alberta would prefer to be part of greater Texas.
The best way to really figure out where the boundaries should be is to look at it by county, instead of by state. Then all you get is a few little socialist enclaves (unable to defend themselves, since they'd presumably outlaw guns) in a sea of Texas and Jesusland.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:48 PMFox News is reporting that Senator Kerry called the White House to concede. Good on him.
Presumably, Bush will make a gracious victory announcement shortly.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:23 AMI hope so. He's the second-best thing that ever happened to the Republicans, other than Bill and Hillary themselves.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 AMThe mayor of Fort Lauderdale (a Democrat who supports Bush) called Michael Moore a gas bag last night. The Mooreheads weren't amused:
After Moore left, a throng of Kerry supporters lashed out at Naugle, chasing him down several city blocks while some screamed, Bigot!
Admittedly, it was kind of a slanderous comment. To actual massive bags of gas, that is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:25 AMCan we put to bed this weird myth about John Kerry being a "good closer"? He's really a pretty lousy politician, and has only survived in his Senate races by being a liberal plant in the hothouse of Massachusetts. He couldn't survive out in the wild of the rest of the country.
The frightening thing is that Bush really was vulnerable this year, and the donkeys screwed up by picking one of the worst possible candidates, because they foolishly thought that Kerry's Vietnam record would somehow inoculate them against being soft on defense. In retrospect, I think that a Gephardt, or a Biden, or particularly a Lieberman (I might have even voted for him, despite the dreary prospect of having to listen to his whiny voice for four years) could have knocked him off.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:17 AM...would Kerry have lost if he didn't have the media nurturing and protecting his campaign? Evan Thomas thought that their support was worth fifteen points. If so, imagine a 67-33 result...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:52 AMDick Morris thinks that the exit polls were deliberately screwed up.
If so, why? To discourage and suppress the Republican vote?
Maybe. After all, it worked in Florida in 2000, when the early (false) call of the state for Gore reduced Bush turnout in the panhandle (where polls closed an hour later).
Whatever happened, I agree that we need to understand it--it may indeed have been one last attempt of many through this election season by a now shameless MSM to steal an election. Fortunately, they are even bigger losers at this point than John Kerry. As is John Zogby. He may have trouble getting people to pay attention to him next time.
[Update at 9 AM EST]
Michael Barone has a plausible theory about how it happened:
My own suspicion is that some Democratsat the command level, or somewhere belowhad an election-day project of slamming the results. New Hampshire, Minnesota and Pennsylvania initial exit poll results had huge margins for Kerrymuch larger percentages than he won in any pre-election poll. If somebody had slipped some Democratic operative the list of exit poll sites40 to 50 sites in each critical statehe or she could have slipped several hundred operatives into the polling places to take the exit poll ballots and vote for Kerry. The results would have shown Kerry much farther ahead than he actually was and, broadcast through drugdereport.com and other sources, could have heartened Kerry supporters during the afternoon and disheartened Bush supporters. When I was active in Democratic politics, in 1964-80, it would have occurred to us to do no such thing. But Democrats these days are so filled with a sense of grievance and with a feeling of justification for employing any dirty tactics to win, that this is not unthinkable. If people can game the exit polls, there's not much point to having exit polls any more.
Also:
The Democrats have lost the presidency, have lost seats in the Senate (including, apparently, despite the Indian reservations, the seat of Minority Leader Tom Daschle) and have lost seats in the House of Representatives needs to take a different approach. How long will it take the Democrats to learn that lesson? And will George W. Bush, in the meantime, use his Republican majorities to guide public policy in new and interestingly different directions?
We'll see. I hope so, on both counts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:10 AMHe got a majority of the popular vote for the first time since his father did it. He got, in fact, more votes than any presidential candidate in history. No one can rationally claim that he was "selected, not elected" this time. If John F. Kennedy was a legitimate president with a mandate for his policies, with only a plurality of the vote and a fraction of a percentage more than Nixon, so now is George Bush much more so, as a sitting president.
The deep divisions won't end, of course, nor will the cries of "Halliburton," "Chimp," "Hitler," "Ooooiiiillll" from the fever swamps, but let's hope that the Dems will finally have figured out that they must confine that infection to the loony fringes of their party, instead of giving it honored box seats at their convention, if they ever hope to regain power. Let us hope also that we have finally fought the last battle of the Vietnam War, and that America finally won.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:37 AMFox News has just predicted that Bush wins Ohio, which puts him within four electoral votes of reelection. Hard to see how Kerry can run the table from here.
It was closer than I expected, but with this victory over their tormentor and accuser, it looks like the Vietnam vets will finally get the parade they never got. And soon, John Kerry will be dismissed from duty, perhaps more honorably than the last time, but not much.
[Update at 1:16 AM EST]
Uh oh.
The Kerry campaign won't concede Ohio--they think that the provisional ballots could still give them the state, and CNN refuses to call it. Unless Bush can pick up enough other states, we may be going into extra innings. It looks like he'll get Iowa, but that won't be enough by itself. They still need to pick up Wisconsin and either Nevada or New Mexico to make Ohio moot.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:04 PMWe'll get rid of Larry Flynt. Somehow, though, like all the others, I suspect that it's an idle promise (and certainly just the opposite of a threat, at least to me).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 AMAnyone who reads this blog regularly knows who I'm going to vote for, and it's not just because of his space policy. I'm still hopeful that Bush will win, but I fear a Kerry presidency for reasons that I've heard few discuss. Some have said that a Kerry presidency will be similar to the Carter presidency, because he'll have no mandate other than to not be George Bush. While I think that's true, I fear that a Kerry presidency will be unlike Carter's in one very important way, and more like Bill Clinton's, thanks to the extreme bias of the MSM.
Say whatever you will about Jimmy Carter (and there are plenty of uncomplimentary things to say), he wasn't corrupt, and he had no skeletons in his closet. Bill Clinton's presidency, by contrast, was wracked with scandal, and it wasn't just because of fabrications by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. While not every charge flung at him was true, many were, and he truly was the most corrupt president since Harding, and perhaps in US history. That he was came as no surprise to those who had observed him as Attorney General and Governor of Arkansas. The Whitewater problems were no secret before the 1992 election, nor were his dalliances, except to most of the public. While many of his scandals were for things that occurred during his administration, his Arkansas record should have been adequate to keep him out of national office, had it been known.
Thus, the tragic thing about the Clinton presidency is that it didn't have to happen, and we could have been spared all of the scandals, including Lewinsky, had there been proper coverage and investigation of him before the election. In fact, the media could have even gotten a different Democrat president, had they simply properly aired the laundry during the primaries. But they fell in love with Bill Clinton, and as we all know, love is blind. The problem, of course, is that when the major media wear blinders, the rest of us don't get the view, either, and that was particularly the case in 1992, when the web had just been invented, and the only people using the internet were nerds.
As Ed Driscoll and the Powerpoint guys point out here and here (and others have as well), they really are putting a cocoon around Senator Kerry that is astounding and dismaying.
I'm not saying that a President Kerry will be a crook (though he certainly has character issues, in his continual willingness to lie about his Vietnam record, and other things). His problem is not corruption in the sense that he will do anything for campaign contributions, or engage in shady business deals for personal gain. The senator has figured out a more legal way to raise money--by marrying it. But I am saying that because much of the media refused to take the Swift Boat Vets seriously, because they continue to ignore his fantasy Cambodia adventures, his unwillingness to release his military records, his potential less-than-honorable discharge, his behavior after the war, and in fact become part of his auto-cycle spin machine when anyone else mentions these things, the American people are once more forced to buy a pig in a poke (though nowhere near as much of a pig as Bill Clinton was and remains).
And those stories will come out (indeed they already have--they just haven't fully penetrated through to the public, or been fully fleshed out). If John Kerry is elected, this stuff is not going to go away. There will be at least four years for it all to seep out, particularly as the current trends continue and more people get their news from the web, and fewer from newspapers and television network news. The response will be similar to that of the Clintons', of course. "It's old news." "It's just lies by the right wing."
But once again, we will have a president in the White House that will give great cause for buyer's remorse, and once again, we'll have a continuing issue on which to divide the electorate that doesn't directly relate to performance in office, but says a lot about the character of the man who holds it, and whether or not he can be trusted. He sold himself as a war hero, and as the books and stories come out that he was oversold on that basis, a lot of people are going to feel cheated, and whatever legitimacy he gets from whatever the electoral results are will evaporate.
I just hope that, if the MSM manages to drag the carcass of this rotting campaign across the goal line, thanks to the revolution of the new media, it's the last election in which they'll be able to do so.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:17 PMJohn Hospers, the founder of the Libertarian Party, has endorsed George Bush.
It will be interesting to see the reaction of all the Kerry supporters over at places like Reason to this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:49 PMSenator Kerry lied about releasing his military records, and he as much as admits it to Tom Brokaw (though neither of them realize it). If Brokaw were a real journalist, instead of part of the Democrat cheering section, he would have called him on it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:28 AM"All you need to know about Arafat was that he insisted on wearing a pistol when he addressed the UN General Assembly. And all you need to know about the UN, I suppose, is that they let him."
From (who else?), Lileks.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:15 AMFrom the northern part of my county. The Dems don't have a total monopoly on nuttiness.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:17 PMAlready.
In my new home town.
...on Sunday night, a student leading a Republican protest at Florida Atlantic University saw her Ford Explorer vandalized by Democrats attending a John Kerry rally. University police responded to the incident and eventually broke it up.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:16 AMSome people surrounded us and started yelling obscenities and racist comments at me, said Dana Roberts, FAU College Republican chairwoman. Im African-American and they were yelling that Ive sided with the Ku Klux Klan. There were people telling them to stop, but they poured beer on the car and vandalized it with Kerry bumper stickers.
Between 5 and 7 p.m. Friday, an unknown Kerry supporter drove by a GOP rally near a K-Mart on Palmetto Park Road and threw rocks and sand at rally-goers. Several car windows were broken.
I was singled out as the leader and had rocks thrown in my face, said Jack Furnari, president of the Boca Raton Republicans.
James Lileks is less than impressed with Andrew Sullivan's poorly-thought-out and naive endorsement of John Kerry.
But in wartime, a president bears the greater responsibility for keeping the country united. And this president has fundamentally failed in this respect.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:21 AMOh, surely. But maybe - just maybe - many people did not want the country to be united if it meant being united behind Bush. He is a much more potent and immediate threat, after all. Whos heard from Osama lately? Meanwhile Bush is out there every day handling snakes and speaking in tongues and supergluing parapalegics to wheelchairs, because his weird-beard God loves suffering and commands him via text-messaging, for all we know to kill them oily rag-heads. I mean, today I was behind a car whose bumpersticker had a picture of Bush with the slogan "American Terrorist." I know that driver was so behind Bush before he failed - in a fundamental way - to convince the driver he was not equivalent to Abu Nidal. Probably because he misprounced "Nuclear." Farking moron.
Keeping the country united? Good luck. Imagine FDR running a war with a press composed of cynical snickerers who derided the president as a rich old cripple who thought the best way to defeat Tojo was a war in North Africa and preached defeat every day through the hard slog of the Pacific theater. Imagine running a war with an entertainment industry that declined to make a single movie about the conflict - why, imagine a "Casablanca" where Rick and Sam argue about whether America started it all because they didnt support the League of Nations. Imagine a popular radio drama running through the early 40s about a smart, charismatic, oh-so-intellectual Republican president whose bourbon baritone mocked FDRs patrician whine, a leader who took no guff from Stalin OR Hitler! Lux Soap brings you, The West Wing of the White House! Imagine Thomas Deweys wife in 1944 callling the WW2 a war for oil; imagine former vice presidents insisting that FDR had played on our fears after Pearl Harbor. Imagine all that.
FDR won the 1944 election 25,602,504 votes to Deweys 22,006,285. And this was almost two million votes less than he got in 1940. Did he fail to unify the country, if half the voters wanted someone else? Or is that just how we always are, more or less?
Wow.
If Hawaii is in play, Senator Kerry's in deep poi.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:46 PMThis article says that most voters are clueless.
''Particularly significant is the fact that, on many issues, the majority is not only ignorant of the truth, but actively misinformed. For example, 61 percent believe that there has been a net loss of jobs in 2004, 58 percent believe that the administration sees a link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11, and 57 percent believe that increases in domestic spending have not contributed significantly to the current federal budget deficit.''
It's amazing that Bush is doing as well as he is, when you consider this.
I doubt that this is a new phenomenon, but I'm concerned (as always) about this big push to get people to vote (like the foolish "motor voter" law) without an accompanying push to educate them to the point that they can do so responsibly. Fortunately, most of them still don't make it to the polls.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:41 AM...why Kerry continues to refuse to sign SF 180 and release all of his military records. There have been rumors swirling about this for a while, but it's looking more and more like his discharge from the Navy may have been less than honorable.
And much of his subsequent political career has been spent in attempting to repair that blot on his vital narrative of "John Kerry, Vietnam Hero"
There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.
[2:30 PM EDT update]
More thoughts over at the Beldar Blog.
Even if this isn't the issue, the question won't go away--why is Kerry and his campaign stonewalling on the service records? If this isn't what he's hiding, is it something else? Something worse?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:59 AMThe anti-First-Amendment types are siccing the FEC on the web. How long before they shut down this site because I occasionally have harsh words for Senator Kerry and his blow-dried running mate? Signing McCain-Feingold was one of the most shameful acts of this administration, and that Supreme Court ruling that it was constitutional was a disaster for free speech.
If they really try to regulate the blogs, it may finally start the needed revolution against all of this campaign finance nonsense.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:08 AMAccording to Drudge:
John Edwards: 'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again'...
Yes, and He shall cast the loaves upon the waters, and walk out upon them to gather up the fishes, to feed the long-suffering victims of Republican tax cuts. He shall make the blind see, and the deaf hear, and the dumb speak, and cure the afflicted of their poxen. No one will need Viagra.
Feel the power! Let it course through your body!
The lion shall lay down with the lamb, and the Jew with the Jihadist.
Though I walk through the Valley of MOAB and PGMs and missile defense, I shall fear no evil, because The Beast in simian form, George W. Bush, will no longer be president.
Testify, Brother Edwards! Testify!
Truly, these clowns are becoming a parody of themselves.
[Update a few minutes later]
It just occurs to me that, given Mr. Reeve's current body temperature, Senator Edwards isn't just claiming that Senator Kerry will cause the crippled to walk--he's going to raise the dead.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:02 AM...from Pete Coors on Meet the Press this morning. Not an exact quote, but something like "Why would we want to bring into the coalition countries that have been working with the enemy?"
By the way, has anyone noted the irony of calling the coalition, which consisted largely of countries that weren't on the take from Saddam and the UN Oil for Palaces program, the "coalition of the bribed"?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:39 AM...in the debate tonight. Remember the scene in the movie Annie Hall, in which people are arguing in a movie theatre lobby about something that Marshall McLuhan said, and Woody Allen, disgusted, pulls the actual Marshall McLuhan out from behind a counter, who informs them that they don't seem to understand his work at all?
When (probably not if) Kerry mentions Paul Bremer, or Charles Duelfur, as supporting his position tonight, it would be great if the president could pull them out of the woodwork, and have them tell Kerry, in front of God and the debate audience, that he doesn't know what he's talking about?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:20 PMI predict that within a few hours of this becoming a major media story, there will be moonbats at DU accusing the perpetrators of being Republicans, out to make Kerry supporters look bad.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:53 PMJoe Katzman has one of the best explanations that I've seen for my reasons in thinking that a President Kerry would be a disaster, even though I too think that it's vital that we somehow, despite the odds, develop a second major party that has the defense of the country foremost in its mind:
I...understand the impetus to look at two candidates who offer less than the times demand, and see the stakes before us, and tell oneself that Kerry will have to do the right thing.But you know what? He absolutely does not.
Look at Europe now, or look back into human history - illusion and passivity in the face of real threats is an option, and some leaders and states will take it.
One question: is Kerry one of those people? Simple question. Simple answer.
Kerry's positions on issues like Iran are clear, and were openly stated in the debate: normalize relations with the world's #1 terrorist sponsors while they undermine Iraq & Afghanistan, offer them nuclear fuel, propose sanctions the Europeans will drag their feet on in order to stop a late-stage nuclear program that's impervious to sanctions anyway, and oppose both missile defense and the nuclear bunker-buster weapons that would give the USA defensive or offensive options in a crisis.
Gee, I'm sleeping better already.
Despite the fact that I think that George Bush is in many ways disastrous, and wish that there were a viable alternative, I remain convinced that the only realistic alternative would be even worse. And I think that the best way to slap the Dems in the face, to throw the bucket of icewater on them, to wake them up from their hysterical dreamland, is to repudiate them thoroughly at the polls--to force them to face reality, and shed themselves of their delusions about the enemy we face.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 PMFrom Wolverine country.
Bo is the former coach of the Michigan Buckeyes, err...Wolverines (I think they play in Lambert Field?), and even in liberal Ann Arbor he's still revered as a minor deity. His endorsement will carry a lot of weight there, in what's turning into a close race.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:53 AMA screed. From Lileks.
Perhaps the ally is that big blue wobbly mass known as the UN, that paragon of moral clarity, that conscience of the globe. You want to really anger a UN official? Tow his car. Short of that you can get away with anything. (Sudan is on the human rights commission, to cite a prominent and amusing detail. Its like putting Tony Soprano on the New Jersey Waste Management Regulation Board.) I dont worry that the UN is angry with us. Id be worried if they werent. And I find it interesting that someone who would complain about outsourcing peevishly notes that we hired <psycho screeching strings> HALLIBURTON </strings> to do the work instead of throwing buckets of billions to French and German contractors who sold them the jets and built the bunkers.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:42 AM
...about tonight's debate.
Has Kerry learned his lesson yet, or will it still be possible to get hammered by playing the simple drinking game of taking a sip of wine every time he says the word "Vietnam"?
[Friday morning update]
OK, credit where credit's due. By my count, he referred to his service only three times, and used the actual word "Vietnam" once. Maybe he is learning. However, ultimately, while Bush could have done better, Kerry finished himself off with the "global test," and the notion that the US can't be trusted with nukes. It's the same old nuclear freeze mentality from the eighties. He appealed to his party's left to hold the base, and he's lost the center.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:51 PMAre the Iranians finally starting to throw off the chains of the mullahs?
If so, and it happens before the election, I'm sure that John Kerry will be quite disappointed. He'll probably send Joe Lockhart out to complain that the new government is a US puppet.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:24 PMYou know, I've jokingly blamed George Bush for all the hurricanes we've been getting, but the morons at Moveon.org are doing it for real.
Alan Henderson has more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:58 AMThat's what the Kerry campaign says about the timing between the "Fortunate Son" campaign and the Sixty Minutes broadcast.
Right.
Who do these people think they're kidding?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:02 PMThe Senator seems to think that he knows what's going on in Iraq better than the Iraqi Prime Minister.
Of course, he probably just thinks that Allawi is an illegitimate puppet installed by the imperialist criminal Bush regime.
[Update at 2:20 PM EDT]
It was in response to this amazing question by a reporter:
Prime Minister Allawi told Congress today that democracy was taking hold in Iraq and that the terrorists there were on the defensive. Is he living in the same fantasy land as the president?
Did anyone hear this? Was the question serious, or was it veiled sarcasm at Kerry's description of the president's views? I can't tell from just the words--one would have to hear the tone as well.
If the former, if the press thinks that this is helping their candidate, they're living in a fantasy land.
Greg Djerejian has similar thoughts. It would seem that Mr. Kerry is only interested in cultivating "allies" whose foreign policy is opposed to that of the US, while treating with contempt our actual allies in this war (Britain, Australia, Italy, and now Iraq). I don't think that's going to play well on November 2nd.
Mark Steyn has a current snapshot. It's not a pretty picture:
...Kerry is a good closer, say his pals, which is their explanation for the way he struggles through the campaign and then wins narrowly even in the one-party state of Massachusetts.......In normal circumstances, youd send the vice-presidential nominee out to serve as your attack dog and savage your detractors. But because Kerry is aloof and cold, he chose a running mate to supply all the warmth and charm and feel-good fluffiness he himself lacks. Whatever John Edwardss strengths, hes no attack dog. While Dick Cheney went around the country snarling devastating cracks about Senator Flip-Flop, Edwards was reduced to pleading for Bush to call off the SwiftVet ads. He looked as though he was about to burst into tears.
There is an attack dog on the Kerry team. Unfortunately, its his wife, and folks dont like that in a prospective First Lady. Teresa Heinz Kerry dismisses her husbands critics as idiots and scumbags, and Kerrys new advisers seem eager to limit her visibility. Ive lost count of the number of Democrat women whove said to me that they cant stand her.
So that was the state of play in mid-September: a candidate in hiding, a lightweight running-mate way out of his league, and a motor-mouth wife duct-taped and tossed into the cellar...
...just in time for the change of policy, comes a new ad from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth focusing on another cheery snapshot from the John Kerry scrapbook of 35 years ago. This one is about Kerrys trip to Paris to meet negotiators from the North Vietnamese communist government and the souths Provisional Revolutionary government. He was a Naval Reserve officer at the time, and many of my correspondents regard it as treason. Im not in favour of having Senator Kerry put on trial and executed; soccer moms and other swing voters may see that as over-reaching. But John ONeill, the Swiftees spokesman, says, It would be like an American today meeting with the heads of al-Qaeda. Even if that line doesnt catch on, the ad is nicely timed with Kerrys Iraqi withdrawal strategy to paint the senator as the candidate of American defeatism, then and now.
I dont think theres a majority for that position in the country or in any of the battleground states. But, if youre John Kerrys campaign staff, what else is there? The Boston Globe had a story this week with the sub-headline: Advisors Strategize To Boost His Likability. Good luck with that one.
Registration required, but RTWT.
With regard to Senator Kerry being a "good closer," I heard Donna Brazile say the other day something like "he runs better from behind, like Seabiscuit."
The senator may look a little like Seabiscuit, at least in his facial features, but I don't think he runs like him.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of resembling animals, did you hear Kerry's speeches yesterday? He must have a bad cold. He not only looks like a Frog, but yesterday, he sounded like one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:40 AMThese people are astounding. Or they would be, if they hadn't been indulging in this nonsense for years:
In response to false Republican accusations regarding the CBS documents, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued this statement:In todays New York Post, Roger Stone, who became associated with political dirty tricks while working for Nixon, refused to deny that he was the source the CBS documents.
Will Ed Gillespie or the White House admit today what they know about Mr. Stones relationship with these forged documents? Will they unequivocally rule out Mr. Stones involvement? Or for that matter, others with a known history of dirty tricks, such as Karl Rove or Ralph Reed?
My response:
Terry McAucaliffe today refused to deny that he buggers little boys.
Will he admit today what he knows about his relationships with these acolytes of Michael Jackson's? Will he unequivocally rule out his own involvement? Or for that matter, others with a known history of dirty tricks, such as John Kerry or Joe Lockhart?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:42 PMTheir reporters think that the posters at Free Republic are "bloggers."
Have they learned about those new-fangled motor cars, or are they still using buggy whips?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:31 PMKirsten Anderson Heffron has an amusing "Dear John letter."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:40 AMDid I miss the story about all political prisoners being released from prisons in dictatorships around the world? Has torture come to an end on the planet?
If not, then how to explain Amnesty International's new-found preoccupation? Remind me of their priorities next time they send me a fund-raising letter.
[Update on Tuesday morning]
In comments, Derek Lyons writes:
...if any of you had actually paid any attention to AI over the years, you'd know well that the US isn't a 'new found obsession', nor is their sole focus......If Rand actually bothered to read the article he linked to, he'd find the report was issued by AI-USA, not AI. I myself find it unsurprising that a 'local' group concentrates on 'local' issues.
I must have missed the part where I said the US was a "new-found obsession", Derek. I was referring to racial profiling, not the US. I know that AI has long considered the US to be the major human rights violator on the planet.
The point isn't about it being a "local issue." It is about dealing with trivia when there probably are people actually unjustly in prison, even in this nation. Why don't they do something about the prison rape problem, which would be more in line with their original charter? I see this as mission creep to justify their existence and fund raising.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:44 AMThe "Assault Weapons" Ban is no more, as of a few hours ago.
It did have one salutory effect, though--it helped knock the Democrats out of power in Congress for the first time in four decades. One of the few good things that Bill Clinton actually did for the country.
Would that all of our laws had sunset clauses.
[Update at 10 AM EDT[
It's official.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:51 AMThat's what this should be. Unfortunately, there are too many people determined to go down with the Kerry/Rather Swift Boat to allow it to be.
Also reader Mike Puckett points out that the reward for the ability to reproduce these documents with equipment available in that era (let alone likely to be found in a National Guard office and usable by an officer) is now up to over seventeen thousand dollars. Come on, "Hunter", it's easy money, right?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:48 PMAt least for me.
It started on Friday as a story about whether or not the memos were forged. That part didn't last very long, as it quickly became clear to all but the koolaid drinkers that they were. Ignoring the next question of whodunnit, it has now evolved into something much more fascinating--just how far in the tank will some people (particularly some people who are long-time anchors for a major network news organization) go to continue, absurdly, to defend the authenticity of the documents?
Dan, of course, now has two motives to try to defend his story--to continue his original goal of damaging (hopefully fatally) the president's chances for reelection, but now also to maintain whatever vestiges of respect for him exist among the American public, too many of whom have taken him too seriously for too long. As others have pointed out, the demographic that pays any attention to him is dying off, and younger people are getting their news from cable and the net, so perhaps he feels he has little to lose at this point, and still hopes to convince enough simpletons that there really is substance to his new take on the "Bush AWOL" story.
"Hindrocket" over at Powerline makes an interesting, and dismaying analogy of CBS and other partisan news organizations as suicide bombers. There used to be a time when, regardless of how clearly biased people like Dan Rather were, we could count on some sense of self-preservation on their part to keep them ultimately in line. This episode makes him (and me) wonder if that is no longer the case, with a number of disturbing implications.
Just as our newfound knowledge that some people were willing to kill themselves in order to kill us led us to have to change our tactics in airport and other security, the thought that some news organizations are willing to destroy their credibility in pursuit of their political objectives should cause us to rethink our relationship with them as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:55 AMI've little to say on this third anniversary, except to note with sadness that much of the nation still doesn't seem to realize that we're at war. Moreover, many of those lacking that realization include much of the so-called mainstream press (as exemplified by the latest fraud and shenanigans at CBS News), and much of one of the major parties, including its candidate for president. In the midst of watching Islamic fanatics slaughter schoolchildren and take down airplanes in Russia, he proposes a Department of Wellness.
As I've said many times, I have many problems with the currrent administration, even including at many times its execution of the war in which we're unwillingly engaged, and wish that there were a realistic alternative to it--I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. But in nominating John Kerry (and being congenitally unable to nominate a serious wartime candidate, like Joe Lieberman), the Democrats leave me little choice, because as long as we haven't addressed the root causes of the events of three years ago (and no, they're not poverty, or American imperialism, cultural or otherwise), I will not feel safe with anything resembling today's Democrat Party in power.
A general once said that war consists a bunch of shitty choices. Apparently that often applies to politics as well, at least in a two-party system. As such, my choice will have to remain the man who stood amid a pile of rubble almost three years ago, and told us that he heard us, and that soon those who had created that pile would be hearing us too.
[Update]
Unsurprisingly, Glenn has some thoughts as well, with some pictures that are a sobering reminder of that day.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:28 AMKate O'Beirne has a movie review worth reading.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:34 AM...of course, is who did it? Leaving aside the Rove conspiracy theories (does anyone other than Chris (the Weasel) Lehane take that seriously?), the motive is certainly clear. To genuinely smear (I use that phrase to distinguish it from the criticism of Kerry that has been mischaracterized as a smear) George Bush in hopes that they can knock his numbers down.
If they did get it from the DNC, I'd like to be shocked, but after everything that happened throughout the nineties, it's no longer possible to be. But in just what kind of moral and intellectual swamp does such a creature reside who would do such a thing? Clearly, now as in the Clinton years, political victory trumps truth and honor.
The other question, of course, is why were they so dumb to think that they'd get away with what looks to be, in retrospect, an obvious forgery, for a large number of reasons? Sure, they could expect dumbbell Dan to eagerly run with it unexamined, but did they really think that no one else would notice? It is worth asking, though, if absent the blogger analysis, the other nets would have questioned it, or if they would have just echoed CBS.
Of course, if one wants to get into weird conspiracy theories, there are other people besides Karl Rove who would like to see Kerry's campaign destroyed if it can be done without their fingerprints on it. Their legal residence is Chappaqua, New York.
[Update at 1:20 PM EDT]
Gerard Vanderleun has further thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AMAfter everything that happened yesterday, and backtracking by CBS, the Boston Globe is continuing to cite the forged documents to libel the president:
CBS also produced documents that appeared to show that in 1973 Bush's superior officer complained of being pressured to ''sugar-coat" an annual officer evaluation for Bush even though Bush had not been at the base for the year in question.
Maybe we should have a little pledge drive to raise some money to get them a modem.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:48 AMWith Kerry's poll numbers continuing to tank, and his negatives hitting an all-time low, the DNC, along with its 527s and its enablers in the media, are taking one more desperate run at Dubya's National Guard record.
Hilarously, it looks like they're doing so with forged documents. I find it highly unlikely that:
a) Anyone in the Air National Guard would be using a typeball with a superscript "th" in it in the early '70s.
b) The same machine on which this magical typeball existed would also do proportional font (and break lines exactly the same way a word processor would and
c) any document typewritten in that era would be capable of being overlaid with a present-day Word document with exactly the same wording.
I have a high level of confidence at this point that the documents that Dan Rather and Sixty Minutes thought were going to salvage Kerry's presidential campaign were forged. Moreover, I think that the CBS eye has to be looking very black right now, and their credibility in the toilet.
It's been said before, but it bears repeating. If Kerry loses this election (as seems increasingly likely), it won't be his loss alone. It will be a watershed event in which the Internet took down the mainstream media, destroying their increasingly unjustified reputations for either objectivity or accuracy. They will be the real casualties in this election, and it will put the lie to Evan Thomas' notion that their support is worth fifteen points. At the rate they're going, their best shot at getting Kerry elected is to start supporting the president, in an attempt to damage him as much as they have their own anointed candidate.
I have to say that it couldn't happen to a more deserving pack of sanctimonious twits.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:15 PMAl Gore, that is.
His latest rant is stunning in its chutzpah:
"The claim by Bush and Cheney that the American people must give them four more years in office or else be 'hit hard' by another terrorist attack is a sleazy and despicable effort to blackmail voters with fear,'' Gore said."They are going back to the ugliest page in the Republican playbook: fear,'' he said. "They're not even really trying to convince you to vote for George Bush. Their only hope, they've decided, is to try and make you too afraid to vote for John Kerry. It's the lowest sort of politics imaginable. It is not worthy of a presidential candidate.''
This from a man who, in 1996, bellowed at the nation that if the Evil Republicans retained Congress, that they would poison the air and water, starve schoolchildren, and force old folks to eat kibbles and bits, before throwing them out of their homes. This from a man whose party ran radio ads in St. Louis claiming that "more black churches would burn" in the event of a Republican victory.
This only elicits one more sigh of relief that he didn't win in 2000.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:56 AM"The World Wants Kerry."
For president. That's what the Beeb says.
It sounds like he's running for the wrong office. He should be gunning for Kofi's job. It's certainly one to which he's more temperamentally suited.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:27 AMLike a superball. The poll was taken after the president's convention speech:
-- In New York City, the number of adults who say Bush will win jumped from 39% on 7/22 (the week before the DNC) to 58% today: 19 points up for Bush, 17 points down for Kerry.-- In Los Angeles, the number who say Bush will win jumped from 38% on 7/22 to 59% today: 21 points up for Bush, 18 points down for Kerry.
-- In Pittsburgh, Bush went from 44% to 64%: 20 points up for Bush, 19 points down for Kerry.
So much for the conventional wisdom that the electorate was "locked in place" and there were no undecideds, and no room for a bounce (which was the MSM excuse for the fact that Kerry didn't get one).
There's no way for the numbers to change this much except for former Kerry voters moving to Bush. I see no sign that Kerry has the ability or strategy to get them back. They say that the voters don't start paying attention until after Labor Day. It looks like they may have started a few days early this year, and they may have finally started to take a good look at the junior Senator from Massachusetts.
What's most interesting to me about this poll is the huge number of people who have written Kerry off. If that sentiment holds on election day, and people don't believe that the election will be close, the wreckage will be even worse, because the Mooreheads will feel free to vote for third-party candidates like Nader or whoever Peace and Freedom puts out there. We may, in fact, have already reached that tipping point, once these polls become widely reported.
Here is his comment on the Republican convention:
Former senator John Glenn (D-Ohio) took the defense a step further by comparing the Republicans' misleading statements to those of Nazi Germany. "You've just got to separate out fact from fiction. . . . Too often, too often, in this country, if you hear something repeated, it's the old Hitler business -- if you hear something repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated, you start to believe it," he said.
Is any other commentary necessary?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:02 PMSome have pointed out that the recent horrific event in Russia was a combination of September 11th and Columbine. Our current (idiotic, in my opinion) policy is to ban all firearms (and even pictures of firearms, or finger guns) from schools. The effect of course, is to put up a sign on the outside of the school saying, "Welcome terrorists and mass murderers: Building full of unarmed victims."
Dave Kopel has a more realistic, and sensible solution.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:32 AMI predict a movement for a Constitutional amendment to allow non-native born to be president, jointly pushed by fans of both Governor Schwartzenegger and Governor Granholm.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:41 PMSenator Kerry is reportedly "bouncing off the walls" in frustration.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:49 AMAt least it should be. He's only up by three points in California. And that's before Ahnuld's convention speech.
Gore took the state by double digits.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:56 PMRich Lowry points out that many people polled want the country to go in a "new direction." He also points out the vapidity of the assumption of many in the press that such folk, like those who think the country is on the "wrong track" or disapprove of the president's job, will be Kerry voters. I've also pointed this out before.
I disapprove of the president's performance, on many levels, think the country needs a new direction, and is on the wrong track. Am I going to be voting for Kerry? Of course not, because I'm afraid he'll derail the train completely.
I was amused yesterday, driving down the coast of Florida, as I listened to Sean Hannity's "man (and woman) in the street interviews" in which none of the Kerry supporters could identify a single accomplishment in his career, or a single position that he took that they agreed with, that would cause them to vote for him. Many didn't even know the name of his running mate. It was simply sufficient for him to not be George Bush. If I'd been doing the interviews, I'd have asked how they knew that they wouldn't be making things worse by electing a guy they admittedly knew absolutely nothing about. But Sean is never quite that quick on the uptake. In any event, one suspects that many of the empty vessels he interviewed won't bother to vote, despite their stated support for Kerry.
Anyway, this foolish tendency of the media to translate in their minds unhappiness with George Bush into automatic support for Kerry is one of the reasons that they continue to fool themselves about the latter's prospects in November. I suspect they're in for a shock.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:14 AMRichard Holbrooke has a column on Vietnam in yesterday's WaPo, and how it shaped his (and Kerry's) generation's world view. Greg Djerejian has some comments on it (and more importantly, on the potential implications of Kerry's Senate testimony in 1971--one more reason that he would be a dangerous CinC), but I noticed that he has (at least) one disingenuous sentence in it:
His personal saga embodies the American experience in Vietnam. First he was a good hero in a bad war -- a man who volunteered for duty in the Navy and then asked for an assignment on the boats that were to ply the dangerous rivers of Vietnam...
Yes, he volunteered for Swift Boats, and yes, they were (eventually) to ply the dangerous rivers of Vietnam, but my understanding is that at the time he volunteered, he didn't know that--they were only plying the much less dangerous coastal waters at the time. This is a point that many (all?) Kerry defenders somehow conveniently leave out (just as they ignore the fact that the National Guard in which George Bush enlisted actually was doing duty in Vietnam at the time he signed up).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:07 AMI had a rushed (in that I had no time for side trips, or pics) trip across the glorious southern US, but arrived safely in Florida almost exactly three days to the hour after I left California.
The only immediate post I have is on an interview of MoDo by Charlie Rose just before bed (I had little time for anything except drive or sleep) in a motel just east of San Antonio. She was explaining how she was having trouble deciding whether Bushie attacked Iraq because Saddam attempted to kill his father, or because he was trying to upstage his father (for not taking him out thirteen years ago). Then one of her colleagues suggested, "why not both"?
Hilarious. That one certainly must have had them tittering about the water coolers on West 43rd Street. And, of course, Charlie wouldn't ask the obvious question, so I will.
Why not neither, Maureen?
Why not employ Occam's Razor?
Isn't it possible that he invaded Iraq for exactly the reasons that he stated? That Saddam was determined to accumulate WMD, that he was in violation of every agreement since the end of the Gulf War, that we couldn't wait until the threat was imminent, that he was a continuing source of instability in a region? Is it really necessary to introduce oedipal motivations into this, which half your readers won't even understand?
Apparently the state of the Gray Lady is that, yes, it is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 PMIf you're a Kerry fan.
The Swift Boat controversy is taking its toll, even if it's not showing up that strongly in the polls yet. People have been dumping his stock for the last couple days. If they could sell short, they probably would.
[Update a couple minutes later]
And Kerry's chickens continue to come home to roost. His problems may be just beginning. Judging by the disproportionate impact of the Swift Vet ads, in terms of their funding, I suspect that this documentary will similarly have much more impact than Michael Moore's polemic.
[Yet another update a minute or two later]
Whoops, spoke too soon. Kerry's woes are showing up in the polls, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:48 PMThe (Clinton-appointed) FEC Chairman just shot him down.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:04 PM...demand that this web site come down? After all, it's what they expect Bush to do.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:52 PMCap'n Ed dissects a hypocritical piece in Business Week on the Swift Boat controversy:
So let me get this straight -- MoveOn is more credible because of the transparent nature of the illegal coordination between the Democrats and the 527, while the Swiftvets suffer because no one can establish these links? And they claim inside knowledge because they served in the same unit and the same area as John Kerry, much the way William Rood did -- they went out on patrols with Kerry and observed him from close quarters on rivers and canals where the two banks often spread less than 100 yards apart while they patrolled with their 50-foot PCFs. Peterson hasn't spent much time distinguishing the operational tactics of PCFs, which rarely if ever went out alone on patrols.Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:29 PMPeterson's perspective, then, is that while John Kerry's testimony should go unchallenged because he served four months in combat, the Swiftvets -- who to a man completed at least their one-year tours or left due to disabling wounds -- should shut up about theirs. And the candidate who didn't make his service any kind of qualification should expect to be slandered, but the nominee who wrapped himself in his four-month stint and surrounded himself with former shipmates for his nominating speech should get a free pass to avoid scrutiny of that record. It's a point of view, all right -- one that reeks of hypocrisy and self-service.
President Bush thinks that free speech is "bad for the system."
Is there much left of the First Amendment?
I really wish there were a realistic alternative to vote for this year.
[Update at 3:20 PM PDT]
The guys at Power Line agree, and have further thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:31 AMI'm sitting here listening to Rep. Jerrold (The Hut) Nadler call the Swift Boat Vets "a bunch of liars." I'm not sure why.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:22 AMI've been wondering how the Kerry campaign could have used such poor judgement over the past few weeks. We now have an answer--the candidate is in charge.
There were several conference calls and a couple of meetings. Everyone was screaming. I would consider it the low point of the campaign, our source told us. By taking the Vets on, John Kerry thinks hes demonstrating bravery. But its a horrible mistake, politically.Kerry also battled with his lawyers all week, insisting they distribute threatening letters to bookstores. According to our source, the Kerry legal team thought this, too, would be a mistake with a big risk of backfire.
Look, bookstores arent going to stop selling this book because John Kerry wants them to, our source told us. From what I understand, John Kerry made the lawyers send these letters out. Kerry ordered it personally! I mean, we just look desperate.
Our source also told us that several political advisors argued strenuously against threatening the bookstores and television stations, again fearing they would simply draw attention to the charges.
Oh, yeah, I want him as CinC. And as much as people whine about Ashcroft, can you imagine what the state of civil liberties and free speech would be with this guy running the country?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:50 AMDuncan Young asked in comments here whether or not there should have been a debate about Bob Dole's Purple Hearts in 1996.
Well, what do you know? There was.
We don't recall it because, for some reason, we didn't have all the outrage in the mainstream media about it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:12 AMBob Dole says that Bob Dole is skeptical about his friend Senator Kerry's Purple Hearts. He's not very kind to his friend Senator Kerry in general:
...what I will always quarrel about are the Purple Hearts. I mean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart -- he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts and you're out.
[Update a couple minutes later]
This Boston Globe editorial is simply mind boggling:
Kerry, on the other hand, may have done more than Dole to qualify as a genuine war hero. Although his tour in Vietnam was short, on at least two occasions he acted decisively and with great daring in combat, saving at least one man's life and earning both a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. That's not our account or Kerry's; it is drawn from eyewitnesses and the military citations themselves.
Ignoring, of course, the much greater number of eyewitnesses who dispute it, and the possibility that the citations are based on false testimony.
And this bit is amazing as well:
Rather than seeking debate, however, this group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is attempting political assassination, claiming in ads and a best-selling book that Kerry is "Unfit for Command." In many cases the charges conflict with statements the same men made in the past. Sometimes the allegations contradict documentary evidence.
"Rather than seeking debate"? They're eager to join in a debate, but the media refuses to interview them for the most part. It's John Kerry who is resisting debate. He won't even address the charges, instead slandering them and accusing them of being Republican attack dogs.
Anyway, on to the relevant part of the Dole interview with Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: First of all, Senator, what's your bottom line on this whole ad campaign?Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:38 PMDOLE: I think this can hurt Kerry more than all the medal controversy. I mean, one day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons. The next day he's standing there, "I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran."
And I think he's -- I said months ago, "John, don't go too far." And I think he's got himself into this wicket now where he can't extricate himself because not every one of these people can be Republican liars. There's got to be some truth to the charges.
But this is on tape. This is on television. This is before the Senate committee.
BLITZER: Just to remind our viewers, this is when he came back from Vietnam. He testified in 1971...
DOLE: Ran for Congress. BLITZER: Right. And he was quoting a whole bunch of other Vietnam veterans who opposed the war and making these allegations of atrocities, if you will, war crimes committed by U.S. troops.
And a lot of people have always suggested that what's really angered these Vietnam veterans, the other side, is, not so much what he did or didn't do when he served in Vietnam, but what he did when he came back.
DOLE: I think that's true. And I think this ad's going to take -- it's going to be tough on Kerry because -- and he says, "Well, this is all hearsay," what he picked up from other veterans. But he said it. He said it before a Senate committee. It had worldwide attention.
BLITZER: The fact that he said on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press" a few months ago he probably went too far. He was a young man just back from Vietnam, and he probably shouldn't have said some of those things during those statements when he came home from Vietnam. Does that ease the responsibility that he has?
DOLE: Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam.
And here's, you know, a good guy, good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out.
I think Senator Kerry needs to talk about his Senate record, which is pretty thin. That's probably why he's talking about his war record, which is pretty confused.
BLITZER: You know, the American public seems to be paying attention to these Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. There's a CBS poll that came out. I think this is the right poll. Here it is. Presidential choice among veterans, 37 percent support Kerry-Edwards, 55 percent Bush-Cheney. But after the convention it was at 46 percent.
He seems to be losing support among veterans, which is an influential bloc of voters out there.
DOLE: You know, I think it's too early to tell what -- nobody maybe in six -- how many days left? Not many. There are eight weeks. Maybe this will be forgotten. Maybe there will be something else. But I think this has certainly damaged Senator Kerry.
And I think it's partly his own doing. He can't lay out -- I remember in '96, I was the veteran in the race. Bill Clinton avoided the draft. And we didn't have all this trouble over my service versus his non-service. There wasn't much written about it. People accepted the fact that I had a record.
Now there's all the talk about Bush's National Guard service. Has he told the truth? Has he released the records? And one way, I think, for John Kerry, who I consider to be a friend, is to maybe apologize to all these people for something he may have said at a very early age, and let us have those records he's given to the author...
BLITZER: Douglas Brinkley.
DOLE: Douglas Brinkley, the records and the journals...
BLITZER: Who wrote a book about his experience.
DOLE: Yes. But somebody ought to find out the facts. I think this is going to be -- could be the sleeper issue.
BLITZER: Based on what I'm hearing you say, you tend to suggest that these Swift Boat Veterans have a point when they go out and make the statements they're making. If so, you would seem to disagree with John McCain, who's also a friend of yours...
DOLE: Yes, but, John wasn't there. He was up in the air. He wasn't any...
BLITZER: He was a POW.
DOLE: Well, yes. But he wasn't -- he was in Vietnam, but he wasn't on the swift boat.
BLITZER: But listen to what he said only this past week. I want you to listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I believe that President Bush served honorably in the National Guard, and I believe that service in the National Guard is honorable. And I believe that John Kerry served honorably.
And there are more compelling issues. Today, probably, an American will die in Iraq, a young American. We should be focusing our attention on winning that war, not trying to refight one that's been over for 30 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOLE: And John McCain is absolutely correct. But as I recall, it was Terry McAuliffe who made reference to President Bush as being AWOL. They dragged up all the stuff. I think there were 80 stories in the media about the National Guard. There's only been about eight or 10 on the so-called Kerry flap.
So it seems to me they've initiated it, and now they've got into some rather murky area. But I don't -- I wish they'd forget it. It's not about whether or not you're...
BLITZER: There's a lot more important issues in this campaign that should be focused on. But McCain earlier said that these attack ads against John Kerry, who he says is a friend of his, are dishonest, dishonorable, and he would like the president specifically to disassociate himself from these ads.
DOLE: Well, then he is cooperating with the committee. Then he is coordinating. I listened to John O'Neill the other night, who is one of the sponsors of these ads, saying in no way...
BLITZER: He's the author of this new book.
DOLE: Yes, he's the author of the book, "Unfit for Command," saying we're not going to listen to the president. There isn't any coordination. That would be coordination.
President Bush has disavowed the ads. What else can he do?
BLITZER: He's disavowed all these 527 ads, these so-called organizations, these independent organizations.
DOLE: Moveon.org, which is funding all these vicious attacks against President Bush.
You know, I would like to talk about -- you know, I think they ought to talk about the record. But Senator Kerry's record in the Senate, I served with him for 14 years, I can't remember a single piece of legislation that bore his name. And maybe he did a lot of good work, but it wasn't very obvious.
BLITZER: What a lot of Democrats are saying, they're suggesting there's a pattern here in going after John Kerry's Vietnam war record, similar to what Republicans did to John McCain in the South Carolina primary in 2000.
At that time, John McCain was in a neck-and-neck battle with the president for the Republican presidential nomination. I want you to listen to what he said to the president in that debate on February 15, 2000.
DOLE: I saw it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: But let me tell you what really went over the line. Governor Bush had an event, and he paid for it, and stood next to a spokesman for a fringe veterans group. That fringe veteran said that John McCain had abandoned the veterans.
Now, I don't know how if you can understand this, George, but that really hurts.
BUSH: Yes.
MCCAIN: That really hurts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOLE: Yes, that does hurt. I mean, I'm a veteran. And these same people now are going after Bush. I didn't see them going after Clinton in '96 because he didn't serve at all. They were going after me on my record.
That's why I say we ought to get back to the issues. Let's talk about the issues. Let's talk about taxes, the environment, jobs. John Kerry -- very articulate. You know, he's not a...
BLITZER: Well, because one of the things you're suggesting -- and I want to make sure our viewers are not left with the wrong impression, Senator, is that you seem to think there is some doubt whether John Kerry deserved those ribbons and medals that he got, serving in Vietnam.
I want you to listen to what Senator John Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a friend of yours, he was on this program sitting in that seat only one week ago. He was secretary of the Navy when John Kerry got that Silver Cross. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one, when it goes through the Secretariat. So I'd stand by the process that awarded him that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: The Silver Star he was talking about. You obviously believe Senator Warner.
DOLE: Yes, but I don't think Senator Warner drafted the citation or even, you know, they'd gone so far as to say Kerry wrote up his own record.
BLITZER: But what Senator Warner said is there was a process that, when it got to him, the secretary of the Navy, he had total confidence that it was justified. And that if he got the Silver Star, John Kerry, he believes it was justified.
DOLE: I don't quarrel with that. I said John Kerry's a hero. But what I will always quarrel about are the Purple Hearts. I mean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart -- he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts and you're out.
And as far as I know, he's never spent one day in the hospital. I don't think he draws any disability pay. He doesn't have any disability. And boasting about three Purple Hearts when you think of some of the people who really got shot up in Vietnam...
BLITZER: And speaking about people getting shot up in Vietnam, the Democrats, at least some Democrats, are now going after the president and the vice president for avoiding service in Vietnam. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, Democrat...
DOLE: He's not a very good one to complain because he was hiding out in Japan, claiming he was a Vietnam veteran.
BLITZER: Well, that's another matter.
DOLE: Yes, I know it is.
BLITZER: Let's talk about what he said. He said this. He said, "Those of us who served and those of us who went in the military don't like it when someone like a Dick Cheney comes out and he wants to be tough. Yes, he'll be tough. He'll be tough with somebody else's blood, somebody else's kids, but not when it was his turn to go."
So there's two sides to this type of debate.
DOLE: Oh, no doubt about it. You know, this is a very sensitive -- a lot of mothers and a lot of fathers and a lot of wives who have lost their husbands and a lot of mothers who have lost their sons -- this is a very, very sensitive area. And it ought to be treated that way.
Somebody ought to be, somebody like Wolf Blitzer, ought to take a week off and go out and give us the facts because people, the American people, will believe you.
Right now, there's probably a certain amount of truth here and a certain amount of truth there. But we don't know what the real truth is.
BLITZER: I'm not so sure the American would believe me if I...
DOLE: Well, I would.
(LAUGHTER)
Fred Barnes just predicted that Arnold will call Democrats "girlie men" in his convention speech, and that it will bring down the house.
I hope he does. It was pretty funny to see him stir up the hornet's nest in Sacramento (and San Francisco) the last time, in which they all got outraged and acted as though they were going to hit him with their collective purse.
If the Dems are smart, they'll be figuring out a way to respond ahead of time that doesn't make them look ridiculous, so they'll be ready for it this time. But so far, they haven't shown much sign of being smart.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:45 PMThat's the only word I have for this piece from the AP. It's a compilation of all of the Dem talking points in a single article. As someone at Free Republic said, they're not even attempting to pretend to be objective any more. There's an amusing howler in the first graf:
John Kerry's Vietnam War service records run to multiple medal commendations and a notation of "conspicuous gallantry" in combat. President Bush's file tracks the stateside career of a National Guard test pilot. Yet the combat veteran is the one under attack as a wartime pretender in the race for the White House.
The National Guard has test pilots? And George Bush was one of them? Who knew?
Apparently not David Espo.
Of course, if he was smart enough to know the difference, he'd also know that a test pilot has a much lower life expectancy than a Swift Boat commander in the post-Tet-offensive Mekong Delta of late 1968, after much of the Viet Cong had been wiped out.
The last line in the paragraph somehow reminds me of Monty Burns grumbling after he loses the race for governor: "Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election. And yet, if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail! That's democracy for you."
Read the whole thing, and be amazed.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:22 PMThe primary strategy (at least until his story began to implode this week) of the Dems this year was to put forth a decorated Vietnam vet, and attempt to contrast him with a president and vice president who hadn't served in that war. The hope was that they could set up his record as sacrosanct, and unquestionable. For the most part, until the Swifties came along, the Republicans went along with the deal ("No one questions Senator Kerry's service to his country in Vietnam").
But here's a problem with that argument that occurred to me the other night. The stock response from the Dems is "He volunteered to go to war, he gave his blood for our country, he fought bravely, he earned commendations."
But unfortunately, he's not the only person of whom all that could be said. Clearly, his four-month resume, by itself, even if accepted at face value, will not be sufficient to launch him into the White House. Now that his war stories have been severely damaged, the real battle in the fall will be what he's done since the war, and I don't think that it's going to be very pretty picture.
[Update at 12:30 PM PDT]
Am I the only one that sees nothing in this story to justify the headline "Kerry Campaign Unfazed by Bush Attacks"?
First of all, these aren't "Bush attacks." They're Swift Boat Vet attacks. And there's nothing in the behavior of the Kerry campaign that could be characterized as "unfazed."
And of course, trial lawyer John Edwards urges the president to violate the law, by coordinating with a 527:
"This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush," Edwards said at a Democratic rally. "We're going to see what kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is. ... We want to hear three words: Stop these ads."
And the Bush spokesman makes the excellent point that the only campaign that's denigrating the service of Vietnam veterans is the Kerry campaign (in their attacks on the Swift Boat Vets). And speaking of denigrating vets, check out this latest outrage from Pat Oliphant.
[Update a few minutes later]
No, of course I'm not comparing John Kerry to Benedict Arnold.
Sheesh.
Benedict Arnold was a competent military commander.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:48 AMSomehow, this headline takes on an irony that wouldn't have been discernable when it first appeared, over three weeks ago, right after the Dem's convention.
It will be quite amusing, and poetically just if, after raising hundreds of millions for these Dem-supporting groups to disseminate spin and lies, Kerry's campaign is sunk by a small group of dedicated Navy veterans and a few hundred thousand dollars. By the way, their fund raising has apparently been going great guns since the story has gained traction. They reportedly raised almost half a million yesterday alone.
Campaign finance laws are a disaster, and I agree with Andrew Stuttaford that signing McCain-Feingold was one of George W. Bush's more shameful acts as president. Even Michael Kinsley on NPR said this morning that the situation is hopeless, and that we need to get rid of all the rules, and just have full disclosure. I agree.
[Update a little after 11 AM PDT]
Power Line has a nice roundup of reader commentary on the Swiftboats, almost all of which is more intelligent than what we read in the vaunted mainstream press. Example:
The men who were best able to observe and judge John Kerry's performance in combat were the men who had the same level of training and expertise that he did; and those are the young officers and noncommissioned officers who commanded the boats operating in close proximity to his, young men whose very lives depended on the coordinated action of all units participating in any particular mission. Successful riverine combat maneuvers require inordinate observational skills. So were these officers and NCO's, all of them skilled observers, asleep at the wheel while some pillaging preppie ravished the countryside unbeknownst to all but himself?Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:57 AMWell, if you will but listen to them, no, they weren't. These men, these Swiftvets, several dozens of them, who ate, slept and fought with John Kerry will tell you that, no, they were quite aware of what was going on around them, and that their recollection of events is far different from those attested to in Congress by their onetime comrade in arms. They are as befuddled as the rest of us that a man who launched his political career on claims of being duped into committing war crimes in an unjust war wants to now use his service in that war as the foundation of his campaign for the presidency.
Think about this: John Kerry had to know that his fabrications were ultimately unsustainable and that the men he falsely condemned would not remain silent were he to run for the presidency. Yet he has ignored that reality and attempted to build his whole campaign on his wartime service and his questionable awards. It would be interesting to hear what a psychiatrist might conclude from such bifurcated reasoning. Which brings us, unavoidably, to this question:
Does this sound like the kind of judgment we want in a Commander in Chief in this time of terror?
Mark Steyn says that Canada needs to be broken up.
At a superficial level, Americas northern neighbour is taking on the characteristics of its southern one (pre-Vincente Fox): a ramshackle ersatz democracy where the ruling party never gets dislodged and the churlish resentment of the Yanqui is in direct proportion to the countrys economic dependency on him. This would be manageable were Canadas anti-Americanism strictly of the traditional variety the banal CanCon mood music playing in the Dominions elevator to nowhere. Im thinking of things like: As the United States descends into fascism, the importance of Canada, North Americas only civil society, is greater than ever.That was the opening sentence of an article by The Toronto Stars Christopher Hume. Mr. Hume doesnt write about politics or global affairs. Hes the architecture correspondent. Even more poignantly, he was writing about the new plaza on the Canadian side of the Peace Bridge between our two great nations.
But the US can afford to be relaxed about Mr Hume. He talks the talk but he has no inclination to walk the walk. Hes some arts-page pantywaist, so hes not going to be strapping on the old suicide-bomber belt and waddling over to Buffalo pizza parlours any time soon. Its on the long continuum between poseur Yank-haters like Christopher Hume and hard-core jihadi like the Khadrs that the judgments get more difficult to call.
Once you start thinking about it in American national-security terms, maintaining the territorial integrity of Canada seems easily the worst option, and all the permutations of coast-to-coast crack-up infinitely preferable.
I suspect that there are quite a few people in the western provinces that might prefer to become independent, but statehood might also be more preferable to them than the status quo. And if they were to secede, can anyone seriously imagine Ottawa raising an army to do anything about it?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:26 AMAccording to Brit Hume's show, Kerry is being defended by a group of expatriate Americans. In Hanoi.
[5 PM update]
Here's the link.:
HANOI, Vietnam (AP) -- Vietnam veterans supporting John Kerry for president made their case Friday in the heart of what was once enemy territory.Calling President Bush a draft dodger, the veterans in Hanoi donned T-shirts emblazoned with "Americans Overseas for Kerry'' and showing Bush's face with a line crossed through it.
You couldn't make this stuff up. Maybe they can help elicit more support for Senator Kerry from "foreign leaders."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:17 PMIt's being reported that the Kerry campaign is going to petition the FEC to pull the Swift Boat ads.
[voice="Jack Nicholson"]
The truth? You can't handle the truth.
[/voice]
This bespeaks desperation. And these folks call Republicans Nazis.
I wonder what their grounds for this egregious violation of the First Amendment will be?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:05 PMVirginia Postrel posts an email with some speculation about Kerry's Cambodia story. Read it if you still give a damn. Long story short: some of the problems with the story go away if you assume Kerry confused Christmas and Tet. Read it and make up your own mind.
Posted by Andrew Case at 01:50 PMWe now know why the Paper Formerly Known As The Paper of Record has waited so long to report on Senator Kerry's Excellent Southeast Asia Adventure. They had to gather enough chaff to thoroughly obfuscate the issue. Reading this piece, it's clear that the primary motive is not to report all the available facts, but to put up a solid phalanx against anyone standing in the way of John Effing Kerry becoming the next president. I'm sure that bloggers with much more time than I will dissect it line by disingenuous-and-one-sided line.
And so the media suck up to the Democrats, and associated decline in its credibility, continues.
[Update on Friday morn, and ignoring the brouhaha in the comments section]
The dissection begins. And Patterico lays off the LA Times momentarily to go after the Gray Lady as well:
The article accomplishes something that I would have thought impossible just two days ago. It makes the L.A. Times's coverage of the Swift Boat Vets look (almost) like responsible journalism.
That's gotta hurt.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:45 PMAl Gore was ticketed for 75 in a 55 zone.
Planet-hating monster.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:01 PMThey were desperate to dig up someone who would challenge the Swift Boat Vets' story.
They've found one. For now, I'll let you judge the validity for yourself.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:56 PMApparently, his journal isn't consistent with the official story of one of his Purple Hearts. No biggie. He can just say he lied to his diary. After all, the press bought it during the Clinton administration (see Steiner, Josh).
No doubt this will be their strategy, since Drudge is reporting that, in desperation at what horrible (as in "incompetent") liars both the candidate and his spokesmen to date are, the campaign wants to bring back the smooth Mike McCurry, whom the press all loved and were always willing--no, strike that--eager to believe.
I'm starting to think that "Unfit for Command" is likely to be viewed in the future as a much more reliable history of Kerry's Vietnam activities than Brinkley's hagiography.
[Thursday morning update]
Hugh Hewitt notes that Brinkley is AWOL:
As for historian Brinkley, he too is unavailable, even though the media wants him and such appearances could sell a lot of his books. His publisher must be wondering why Professor Brinkley is not accepting invitations to appear on cable or nationally-syndicated radio shows, which are the big wins for anyone peddling a book. (Believe me, I know about how books are sold these days, and Brinkley isn't acting like any other author I have ever seen.) Going to the mattresses hasn't worked for the past two weeks, and I don't think it will work for the next two weeks. The story has legs until we get the run down on John Kerry, secret agent man in Cambodia.
Hugh also has some questions for the historian.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:44 PMOne gets the impression from this particular bleat that, even in light of the anniversary, James Lileks isn't impressed either with minstrels spouting politics, or politicians who (pretend to) take them seriously:
I like Bruckner, and the Pet Shop Boys. I like 1930s pop music, except for country. So? These details give a false sense of intimacy, and while thats fine for tweens swooning because the latest issue of Tiger Beat says that Bobby Sherman loves hot dogs and OH GOSH I LIKE THEM TOO!!!, it doesnt really tell me much. I'd prefer to read an exchange like this:"What would I do? Well, if North Korea launched a nuclear missile that so much as grazed the 12 mile limit of our westernmost Aleutian island, I wouldnt hesitate to turn the entire country into a smooth sheet of glazed rock. You cannot take such an action lightly, because the world would be watching."
"But doesnt that conflict with your previous remarks about how much you enjoyed Dylans music?"
"What the Sam Hell does Dylan have to do with it? Were talking about war. Hes just a musician. Im not likely to base my foreign policy on some obscure metaphors warbled over a six-string accompaniment. I like Bobby Darin too. Does that mean I have to consult with the mayor of Berlin just because I whistle Mack the Knife from time to time?"
Definitely RTWT.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:13 PMIf some 527 were to run some ads with quotes from this story, would Kerry benefit, or Bush?
There is no question the Bush administration is unpopular in France, as it is across Europe, said the director of the French Center on the United States, Guillaume Parmentier.Bush himself is deeply unpopular. He is perceived as being non-presidential; even his demeanor makes Europeans uneasy......"On the streets of Paris, his candidacy is being welcomed with open arms.
He is very much admired in France, said a municipal office worker, Patrick Forestier, as he strolled with his lunch through the Latin Quarter. It seems like he will be more sympathetic to Europe .And of course anyone who is opposed to Bush will be popular with us.
A shop worker on Boulevard St-Germain, Dominique Van Oudenhove, said Mr. Kerry seems the perfect antidote to four years of Mr. Bush.
It is so important to have a president who knows Europe, whose spirit is open to its people and culture. Bush is so closed to the world.With Kerry there is a hope that we can start getting along with the United States again, she said.
Mrs. Borde said the French see in Mr. Kerry the kind of leader they are more accustomed to.
He is the closest thing that you will have to a French politician, with a certain diplomacy, a certain elegance, she said.He is more like a leader would be in Europe, Mr. Parmentier said. Asked in what way, he laughed and replied: Well, he doesnt look Texan.
Instead, he looks like the kind of American the French have always appreciated urbane, well traveled, and sophisticated.
Fortunately, they don't get any votes.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 PMJoe Scarborough just had a debate between John O'Neill and John Hurley. It's the first time I've seen a fair debate between the two sides, with no interruptions for ad hominems allowed.
I think that O'Neill has prepared the battlefield very carefully. I also think that Senator Kerry is in big trouble--his self-aggrandizement and lies for the past three-plus decades are finally catching up with him. One almost wonders if the Clintons are orchestrating this to keep the path clear for Hillary in four years.
[Update on Tuesday afternoon (6:20 Eastern)]
Brit Hume is interviewing O'Neill one on one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:59 PMOf course, to be fair, probably few of them have any actual firearms experience, given their stance on guns...
The Kerry campaign, in response to charges that he's soft on intelligence, says that he was Vice-Chair of the Intelligence Committee. This is an assertion easily proven false. Apparently whoever came up with this gem didn't know the difference between their candidate and his former colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey.
You'd like to think that, given how much baggage from his past the Senator apparently carries, he'd hire competent people to defend his record. You'd also like to think that the people he'd hire to help run the country, if elected, would be more competent than those he's hired to run his campaign.
Unfortunately, there's sparse evidence on the ground that either of these hopes will be other than forlorn.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 PMMickey Kaus has long noted that Senator Kerry does much better when he doesn't campaign. The less people see of him, the better he does in the polls. So this story, that he's taking the next three weeks off, isn't necessarily that surprising. However, I wonder if it's also a way to continue to avoid press questions about his Vietnam record, and hoping that it will somehow blow over by then? Clearly, his people still don't have a substantive response to the Swift Vets' charges, instead deflecting them with a non-sequitur:
Along the trail, the campaign also had to deal with a variety of distractions.A group of Vietnam veterans, angry at Kerry's anti-war activities when he returned from Southeast Asia, accused Kerry of misrepresenting his combat record, and the extent of his wounds.
Kerry aides called the charges ludicrous, contrasting their candidates' three Purple Hearts with the lack of war experience from Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Bush and Cheney's war records, or lack thereof, aren't the issue, of course, since they've never made them one. Neither of them has claimed their respective behavior in the late sixties as uniquely qualifying them for the job, as Kerry has. Try as the Kerry campaign might, such comparisons are spurious. The issue is not Kerry's record versus theirs, but his claimed record, on which he's staked his candidacy, versus the reality.
If Kerry doesn't fear the truth, he should be demanding that journalists investigate the claims of his former band of brothers, and validate him, instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks on them. But apparently that's a very big "if." Easier to go on vacation and attempt to change the subject.
[Late afternoon update]
Here's another Vietnam vet (he claims to be a former SEAL) who finds Kerry's Cambodia stories more than a little fishy.
[Another update, a few minutes later]
Brit Hume is not going to let this story go away. After getting into a heated discussion with Juan Williams over this yesterday on Fox News Sunday, he devoted half the panel to it today on his show. And Juan continues to be an obfuscating moron, claiming that the Washington Post and New York Times have already investigated the claims. Both Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke set him straight, but I'm sure that he still doesn't get it. Fred calls the mainstream media's failure to report this the biggest dereliction of journalistic duty that he's ever seen in his career.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:37 PMMcGreevey has suckered the gay community into supporting him.
This is pathetic. Don't they realize how much damage he's doing to their cause? Do they really want to embrace a "gay" governor who (ignoring the other rampant corruption in Jersey Democrat politics in general) hired his gay lover in a highly-paid position in national and state security for which he was utterly unqualified, in the middle of a war? If they had any sense, they'd be backing away and disavowing him as rapidly and vociferously as possible. But apparently sexual orientation conquers all. Even when it's possibly fake.
[Update on Monday morning]
Reader Scott Ferguson complains in comments that Barney Frank and the other people cited in the NY Post article aren't representative of the gay community.
Fair enough. Please provide me with someone who is. I'd be happy to link to criticisms of McGreevey from other prominent gay activists (or even some polling data), if someone can provide some.
Boy, what a time for Andrew Sullivan to be on vacation...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:11 PMI've always been singularly unimpressed by Douglas Brinkley--he's always seemed like a Democrat shill to me, but this affair has to really damage his credibility as a professional historian. It will be interesting to see how he manages to clarify, and validate, the current Kerry Cambodia claims. Hugh Hewitt points out, rightly, that there's absolutely no evidence that Kerry was ever in Cambodia. Errrr...except that he says he was...
I wonder how long Kerry's going to continue to avoid the press? I don't know what he's so worried about--they seem to be quite uninterested in the subject, so far.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:50 PMHe's not gay. He's bi.
True (male) homosexuals don't create children, except through artificial insemination. He can clearly get it up for a woman, even if he may prefer men.
I don't have a "preference" myself. The word preference implies that one can go either way, just that one is better than the other. Given a choice between a man and Rosie Palms, I'll take the latter every single time.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 PMI haven't said much about the McGreevey situation (anything, come to think of it), but it's clear that it was a clever PR ploy to come out of the closet, allowing him to play victim in our PC culture, and misdirect us from the real issues of his corruption. To really understand the situation, and put it in its proper perpective: what if Bill Clinton had made Monica Lewinski his National Security Advisor? Actually, now that I think of it, he did come close to this, in naming Craig Livingstone as Chief of White House Security. Though I'm pretty sure he wasn't shtupping him.
Anyway, that's the equivalent of what McGreevey is attempting to distract us from.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:32 PMEd Morrissey says that one of the vets who claims to have "served" with him, "on his boat," didn't:
He and Alston conspired to deceive people about Alston's service under Kerry. That conspiracy was intended to give John Kerry cover against exactly the kind of campaign he faces from the other Swiftvets.......This isn't just a guy embellishing his war record -- this is a deliberate and longstanding attempt to mislead and defraud people by creating his own witnesses after the fact. That he could have done such a clumsy job should disqualify him for higher office on that basis alone.
That point aside, if true, this knocks the legs out from under the dumb argument that one had to be on Kerry's boat in order to have "served" with him. Alston would have no more (and no less) credibility than any of the other, less complimentary, Swift Boat Vets. I wonder if the Reverend Alston would sign an affidavit?
[Update at 11 AM PDT]
Kathleen Parker describes what the real issue is with this (at least for me):
Like many Americans, I'm reluctant to second-guess anyone's wartime performance. None of us knows how we'd perform under the unique stress of battle. Whether Kerry was indecisive or heroic so long ago doesn't much interest me. Stories get told about war; details get lost or distorted by time and memory.There's something near tragic about this latest political turn of events--brother warring against brother--but also revelatory on a level that even Kerry critics might not have anticipated. What is revealed isn't so much Kerry's lack of consistency in reporting personal history as his studious pursuit of power and an insatiable need for attention.
[Monday morning update]
Byron York says that Alston did serve under Kerry, though perhaps for as little as a week, and that many of the stories about their service together seem to be embellished or exaggerated. Ed Morrissey concedes the point. The Swift Boat Vets were right to tell people to cool it on this particular issue.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:38 AM...whether or not this blog is serious, or if it's a put-up job by someone to make the anti-war types seem even dumber than many of them are. It drips of stupidity from every corner, even to the title itself ("...the most important issue of all time, ever: The Iraq war being wrong").
Either way, it's entertaining reading.
[after reading a bit more]
The more I read, the more I'm compelled to believe that it's a spoof. If it's not, the author is (as one commenter noted) suffering from some site-specific brain lesion.
[Update a little later]
I should warn that reading too much of this site will have a deleterious effect on your IQ. I think mine plunged about twenty points in as many minutes. It was fun, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:40 AMIf anyone doubts that the Dems have no coherent response to the Swift Boat Vets, other than ad hominem hysteria, read this CNN transcript.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:02 PMMany forget, but one of the things (besides Ross Perot, and the bogus supermarket scanner story, and his seeming unfeeling toward those who felt that the recovering economy wasn't recovering fast enough) that resulted in George Herbert Walker Bush's loss of his second term, was the limp response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Hurricane Andrew in the summer of 1992 before the election, in southern Florida. If his son is smart, he'll have FEMA ready to aid the Gulf Coast immediately this weekend, if Charlie is even a small fraction as devastating as many are predicting.
[Update at noon Pacific Friday]
Welcome, Corner readers. It occurs to me that this is now likely to be worse than Andrew was, in terms of property damage. It's at least as strong a storm, and there's a lot more population in the current track. The Gulf Coast hasn't been hit in over forty years, and there are a lot more people living there now than in the early sixties. It's very likely to set a new record for financial losses from a natural disaster.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 PMNo one who was paying attention should have been surprised by Senator Kerry's current public-relations problems. Emailer Mike Daily points out one of the indicators from this past spring about the "Boston Strangler" (and if true, what does that choice of code name tell us about Senator Kerry?):
Working with call sign Boston Strangler became problematical. I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders, recalls Wright. He had a different view of leadership and operations. Those of us with direct experience working with Kerry found him difficult and oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives. I believed that overall responsibility rested squarely on the shoulders of the OIC or OTC in a free-fire zone. You had to be right (before opening fire). Kerry seemed to believe there were no rules in a free-fire zone and you were supposed to kill anyone. I didnt see it that way.In Wrights view, it was important that the enemy understood that Swift boats were a competent, effective force that could dominate his location. To do that, you also had to control the people and their actions; to have them accept Swift boat crews and their authority. You couldnt achieve that by indiscriminate use of weapons in free fire zones.
It got to a point where Wright told his divisional commander he no longer wanted Kerry in his boat group, so he was re-assigned to another one. I had an idea of his actions but didnt have to be responsible for him. Then Wright and like-minded boat officers took matters into their own hands. When he got his third Purple Heart, three of us told him to leave. We knew how the system worked and we didnt want him in Coastal Division 11. Kerry didnt manipulate the system, we did.
"...personal, rather than unit goals and objectives." Combine that with his film crew, complete with retakes, and it continues to paint a pretty damning picture to me.
And given the apparently trivial nature of his wounds, for which many serving would have refused Purple Hearts (and which many did, for much worse), it was a joint manipulation. One suspects that Kerry was happy to get out with his medals, of whatever provenance, and footage, and his commanders were happy to see his rice-pelleted backside for the last time.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:36 PMFrom an interview at Hugh Hewitt's site:
"Well, on any movement we would do, we are talking four or five boats going in on an engagement, we were always within 50 or 75 yards of each other. And to be perfectly honest about it, if you were to look at an overview, if your were looking for an overview of a situation, you were better off being on another boat and looking at the rest of the other boats."
Read the whole thing.
[Update a few minutes later]
The first movie biography of John Kerry is about to come out.
Praise Allah.
[Via Roger Simon]
[Another update at 10 PM PDT]
Along the lines of my previous observation, Gary Aldridge has a warning for the Swift Boat Vets:
...the mainstream media does not like George Bush, and they will do nothing to help him win re-election. Did you think for a minute that they would rush to cover your press conferences and report the news that the majority of Veterans cannot stand John Kerry? Did you actually believe you would be invited on Sixty Minutes? Even now, reporters are out looking for your dirty laundry and trying to poke holes in your stories. After they find out that your stories match, have the ring of truth, and that youre decent folk just trying to do whats right, they will simply close their notebooks and quietly walk away.And dont expect to speak at the GOP convention in New York City or sit in the presidents box, like Michael Moore did at the Democrats convention. The GOP establishment doesnt like the ad it makes them very nervous. For example, it upset Senator John McCain, who rushed to defend his senatorial pal when he heard about it.
Of course, Senator McCain wishes all grass-roots types and ordinary folk would just go away. He has been instrumental in silencing a lot of Americans with his campaign finance legislation. Senator McCain is part of the establishment now, and the establishment does not care for boat rockers.
He should certainly know.
[One more update at 11:10 PM PDT]
Iowahawk has the real story about where Kerry was on Christmas Eve in 1968:
"Christmas '68, I remember it as if it were yesterday," Kerry is quoted in a 1985 interview with the Boston Globe. "There was Linus, and me, and Herbie the Elf, dodging tracer fire from reindeers and misfit toys alike, and unloading .50 caliber rounds into the Abominable Snowman. Herbie got taken out by AW fire from a spotted elephant. He was just a damned kid, who only wanted to get back stateside and study dentistry."Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:09 PMIn the interview, Kerry said the episode scarred him, turning him against the war and for truth in government.
"It was completely surreal," recalled Kerry. "We we taking clay fire left and right, and styrofoam shrapnel, and meanwhile the President was all over CNN claiming we weren't even there. It was then I finally realized that Ronald Reagan's Vietnam adventure was nothing but a lie."
One would like to think that there's no lower form of life in the Democrat party than Lanny Davis. Unfortunately for hopes of a livable world, there are worse.
I watched the segment myself, and I hope that Mr. O'Neill (a lawyer himself) knows what kind of smear machine he's up against, and has adequately prepared himself. Based on what happened this weekend, he may indeed have. I'd like nothing better than for Mr. Davis, at long last, to finally have to pay at least a financial penalty for his vicious calumnies.
What was particularly irritating about the Hannity & Colmes show (which is often the case) was how ineffective Hannity was in arguing with him.
Lanny consistently referred to the Swift Boat as a "ship" (a term that any Navy vet would find laughable). The intent is obviously to imply that Kerry was commander of a vessel in which the crew, and the crew alone, worked, ate, slept, laughed, shat, and most importantly, fought with him, and that no one else was in a position to know what happened on his "ship."
That is nonsense. It wasn't a ship. It was a boat (as implied by its name), and not one on which the men lived. They lived on shore with others who got up every day and patrolled by day, often in close proximity to each other.
If one accepts the Kerry defenders' arbitrary definition of "served with," no one served with George W. Bush except the people who flew in his (single-seat) F-102 with him (i.e., no one). One doesn't have to be in the same squad, or platoon, to "serve with" someone. There are higher levels of the hierarchy in which people still interact, often on a daily basis. The Swift Boat Vets all served together, despite the mud you'll see slung over the next days and weeks as this story continues to grow more legs than a mutant millipede.
The more this goes on, the more hysterical the defenders become (Colmes: "Isn't this despicable--how can they impugn the honor of a medal winner?" Ignoring, of course, the fact that many of those testifying against Kerry have their own medals, but Alan has no problem with smearing them as liars).
As I said, this is right out of the Clinton playbook. Ad hominem, trash the accusers, obfuscate the facts, use misdirection, like any skilled magician. At least this time, the nuts aren't sluts--they're attacking veterans and medal winners, not women victimized by Bill Clinton...
I suspect that this time, the illusion won't stand up.
[Update at 10 PM PDT]
I see that Snopes has already leapt to his defense, emphasizing the evidence in his favor, and ignoring any against. I hope that this will also blow up the myth about them being non-partisan.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:40 PMI don't know what the big deal is. All Senator Kerry will have to say is "I went into Cambodia before I didn't," and the press will eat it up like (almost literally, considering the time frame) ice cream in August.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:43 PMLast night I heard some Democrat flack claim that the current economy is the worst since Herbert Hoover.
Are people so historically ignorant that this kind of stuff is effective? For me, it's totally counterproductive, and just makes me want to see Kerry, and all Dems lose all the more.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:14 PMThat's how I'd describe Kerry's response to the Swift Boat vets.
It reminds me of when Clinton sent his lawyer (who would not be in any position to know) out to deny that he'd raped Juanita Broaddrick, but would never deny it himself.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:31 PMSenator Kerry steps in it again:
"I just came here from Bowling Green," Kerry told the crowd to subdued applause. "I was smart enough not to pick a choice between the Falcons and the, well, you know, all those other teams out there. I just go for Buckeye football, that's where I'm coming from."At that point, before all the boos began raining down upon him, Kerry seemed to realize his error. In an attempt to silent the angry crowd of University of Michigan supporters, Kerry said, "But that was while I was in Ohio. I know I'm in the state of Michigan and you got a great big M and a powerhouse of a team." Then his face, presumably, the Botox permitting, turned Big Blue.
If it's Monday, it must be wolverine country.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:19 AMI wanted to write something about it, but given how busy I am, I figured it would be better to just wait for Mark Steyn to weigh in.
It was worth the wait.
In 1992, pictures of a baffled George Bush pre marvelling as a supermarket clerk demonstrated a barcode scanner were seized on by the media as evidence of how out of touch he was. But barcode scanners were introduced to supermarkets during his 12 years at the White House, and a sitting president or vice-president doesn't get many opportunities to go grocery shopping. The difference between Bush Snr and Kerry is that Prince John of Gaunt seems far more isolated from the rhythms of American life and he hasn't even got to the White House yet.The tonal disconnect is only going to get worse between now and November. At the convention last week, Ted Kennedy urged Americans to make sure that, this January, John Kerry has a "nice new home". But, thanks to his wife's first husband, he already has five multi-million-dollar homes, including a 15th-century stone barn dismantled and shipped over from England to serve as their ski chalet in Idaho.
By contrast, George W Bush has one modest ranch in Crawford, a town no one would choose to live in unless it genuinely was his home. As Noemi Emery put it in the Weekly Standard, Kerry is not just "the richest man ever to run on a national ticket", but also "the most self-indulgent in his lifestyle, and the most quasi-royal in his sense of himself".
Again, you know what to do.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:08 PMGallup says that the convention cost Kerry support:
In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and John Edwards trailed the Republican ticket of Bush and Dick Cheney 50% to 46% among likely voters, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2%.Before the convention, the two were essentially tied, with Kerry at 47%, Bush at 46%.
The change in support was within the poll's margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points in the sample of 763 likely voters. But it was nonetheless a stunning result, the first time in the Gallup Poll since the 1972 Democratic convention that a candidate seemed to lose ground at his convention.
That may be because there are some other similarities with the 1972 Democratic convention.
The really bad news is that this was a partial weekend poll, which usually tend to favor Democrats (they seem to be home more for surveying on the weekends than Republicans).
Speaking of hamsters, there's some pretty phunny photoshopping here. I can't decide which I like better: "Saving Private Hamster" or the operating room scene with the bunny suit.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:17 PMMark Steyn has Senator Kerry pegged:
Kerry now says that Bush "misled" him on Iraq. But, if he was that easily suckered by a renowned moron, how much more susceptible would he be to such wily operators as Chirac. They would speak French to each other, and Jacques would blow soothingly in his ear, and Kerry would look flattered, and there'd be lots of resolutions and joint declarations, and nothing would happen. We'd be fighting the war on terror through the self-admiring inertia of windbag multilateralism.As for the home front, Kerry says: "As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that [the 9/11] commission." Whoa, hold on there. There's a ton of recommendations, and some of us don't like the part about concentrating all US intelligence under one cabinet secretary who serves not at the President's pleasure but for a fixed term. That effectively institutionalises the groupthink resistance to alternative ideas that led to the 9/11 failures. Leadership is about hearing different viewpoints and reaching a judgment. But Kerry gives the impression that, as long as he enjoys the perks of the top job, he's happy to subcontract his judgment to others.
He moans endlessly about the "outsourcing" of American jobs but, when it comes to his own job, he's willing to outsource American foreign policy to the mushy transnational talk-shops and to outsource homeland security to some dubious intelligence tsar. There's no sense of any strategic vision, no sense that he's thought about Iran or North Korea or any of the other powder kegs about to blow. I tried to ask him about some of these matters during the New Hampshire primary and he intoned in response, "Sometimes truly courageous leadership means having the courage not to show any leadership." (I quote from memory.)
The whole thing is like that. You know what to do.
Of course, he finished with a flourish:
...After an eternity, an aide stepped out from behind him and said, "The Senator needs you to move."Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 PM"Well, why couldn't he have said that?" muttered one of the old coots, as Kerry swept past us.
That's how I felt after the Convention: all week Senators Biden, Lieberman and Edwards made the case that the Democrats were credible on national security. Why couldn't Kerry have said that?
Because in the end he's running for President because he feels he ought to be President. That's his message to George W Bush: "The Senator needs you to move." And even then everyone else says it better.
The Warsaw Uprising began sixty years ago. Not the ghetto uprising--the other one that essentially destroyed the city as the Nazi regime was entering its death throes. It was a true display of the evil of both Hitler and Stalin.
By the way, I happened to watch "The Pianist" last night, and I was amazed at the level of destruction shown in the movie, and was wondering how accurate it was.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:18 AMI heard Kerry dredge up another old socialist chestnut today, when he was talking about health care. "I'm going to give every citizen the same health care that senators give themselves."
That kind of demogoguery is just as nonsensical now as it is when the senator's portly colleague, the senior senator from Massachussetts, used it over two decades ago.
Does he propose to provide every American citizen with a Senator's salary? With other senatorial perks and benefits, such as free haircuts and subsidized meals? Free gym memberships?
Secret Service security details? I'll bet a lot of people in the inner cities would like that one.
How about a generous pension?
No?
Then what's his point? Why should they get senatorial health care?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:00 PMJust heard a clip of Bush on his new tour (as in the title of this post)--a dig at Kerry's comment that the heart and soul of America was represented by Whoopie Goldberg & Co. He said "Springfield, Missoura." I wonder if that's a natural Texan pronunciation, or if he knows it's what the natives (outside of St. Louis) call it?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:31 PMIf you think that the prospects for Iraq are good, here's a way to make money on your belief.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:24 PM...is, to me, one of the most irritating people in public life. I'm listening to the 911 hearing stuff on the Hill. Like Algore, she talks to us like a kindergarten teacher, and she sounds a little slow herself. I really think of her as one of the dimmer bulbs in the Senate (which is really saying something, considering all the competition), and it's a little frightening to have her playing a significant role in this activity.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:17 AMI agree with Virginia Postrel:
Aside from the much-remarked-upon flag-waving-veteran talk, the speech was mostly made up of (in Kerry's anti-GOP words) "narrow appeals masquerading as values." Better a tongue-tied president than a demagogue.
To the limited (perhaps none) degree that it was possible, last night's speech only increased my antipathy to the junior Senator from Massachussetts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:38 AMYou have to feel sorry for the poor schmuck just interviewed at the convention who said that tonight was "...the greatest moment of my life up to now."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:39 PMI couldn't avoid watching Kerry's speech. I switched to Fox to watch a Simpsons rerun, but it was on every channel.
It was mostly platitudes, as expected. My summary of Kerry's foreign policy (which, assuming that the economy continues to improve, will be the main campaign issue): We will go to all lengths to avoid war, and we will only do so if we can get the French on board.
My recommendation for Karl Rove: We will go to all lengths to avoid another September 11th.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:23 PMFrom Lileks--too spot on to not quote a large section of:
I was at both conventions in 1992, and the GOP version was a dispirited affair. Clinton had sparkle, the big mo, and a foundering economy to hammer; Bush was your fathers Oldsmobile. Change was the mantra. After 12 years we needed Change, whatever that might be, and the sax-blowin shades-wearin hubba-double-Bubba ticket had a fresh cachet the Bush team could not match. The Buchanan speech was a disaster and not just for its effect on the swingers. I remember sitting in a bar the night of the speech with a portly squat guy covered in GOP buttons, listening to his lament. This isnt my party, he said. Okay maybe he has a point here, or another point there, but that speech thats not my party.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:36 PMIf Moore introduced Kerry and gave a typical speech The Republicans have hate for breakfast! how many delegates would later lament that their party had become something they no longer recognized? Dont know. Just asking. But I do know that the 96 convention had a different attitude towards the nominees than I sense from the 04 DNC convention. Bush 41 never really fired up the troops. But in 96 people liked Dole. They knew in their bones he was going to crater, and they knew that the Dole on the stump was a dull version of the real thing. Bob Dole was smart, peppery, funny as hell (really) and lacking in that ponderous self-importance that settles into a Senators heart. He was really a good guy. And he was going to lose. Ah well.
I dont sense the same affection for Kerry. I also dont think it matters. Right now I have a browser window open to Fark, and a T-shirt ad shows Bushs face with the logo American Psycho. What else do you need to know? As Teddy Kennedy said in his convention speech: The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush. Its really quite simple, isnt it? We live in a manufactured climate of fear ginned up by war-crazed neocon overlords. There is no threat. The only thing we have to fear is Bush, who sits as we speak in the Oval Office sucking the marrow from Whoopis shin-bones.
If so, I wonder why anyone agreed to the stringent security policies that characterize this years conventions. Why the bomb-sniffing dogs? Why the snipers? Why the metal detectors, the invasive inspection of bags? Is it all an elaborate defense against Bush crashing the party and setting off a bomb belt, shouting God is Great, yall!
No, theyre fearful of something else.
Damned if I know what, though. Damned if I know.
...this story isn't good news for John Kerry:
Despite weeks of bad war news including a rising casualty toll and increasing criticism of the administrations management of the war from Democrats in Congress the presidential race in Michigan remains a toss-up.Bush is in a statistical dead heat with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, with Bush favored, 44 percent to 40 percent, over the Massachusetts senator, the survey found.
If I were John Kerry, I would be concerned, pollster Steve Mitchell said. The race is tough for Kerry. Voters may disagree with Bush on some of his tactics, but he is perceived as being strong.
If Bush is even in Michigan (which he lost to Gore by about four points in 2000), the Dems are in big trouble.
The article doesn't suggest one of the possible reasons why. Southeast Michigan has the highest population of Iraqi-Americans (one of whom is my Baghdad-born sister-in-law) in the country.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 PMWell, actually not. This, if true, seems perfectly in character:
"Kerry would revisit ambush locations for reenacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero, catching it all on film. Kerry would take movies of himself walking around in combat gear, sometimes dressed as an infantryman walking resolutely through the terrain. He even filmed mock interviews of himself narrating his exploits. A joke circulated among Swiftees was that Kerry left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he had recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns."Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:29 AM
Orrin Judd has a little snippet that shows just how out of touch some people are:
Liev Schreiber is filming a book called Everything is Illuminated and went out of his way to hire an aspiring Iraqi filmmaker who he'd seen on MTV's True Life:"We felt really guilty about what our country had done to his country," says producer Peter Saraf. "And then, of course, he gets here, and it never occurred to me that he would say something like 'But I love George Bush--he changed my life!'"
Well, at least is shows that these people are sincere in their apparent belief that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. While there are certainly Iraqis unhappy that we removed him from power (they blew up seventy of their compatriots just a few hours ago, after all), to just what kind of mindset would it never occur that there might be some who are grateful?
Of course, if the Republicans take my suggestion, we can be sure that it will just be dismissed as right-wing propaganda, and the Iraqi patriots will be derided and vilified as quislings.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:15 AMI wonder if NPR host Scott Simon has just cut himself out of the fashionable cocktail circuit?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:04 PMAlan Colmes just announced that "...in a moment Barak Osama is going to speak."
[Update a minute later]
He just corrected himself. Doubtless someone told him what he's done in the bug in his ear.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 PMIf Karl Rove is smart, the Republican convention will feature some grateful Iraqis in prime time, just as a reminder.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:15 PMAnn Coulter provides the actual editorial comments from the clueless USA Today editor who spiked her column.
Apparently," said Coulter, "USA Today doesnt like my tone, humor, sarcasm, etc. etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them in the first place. Perhaps they thought they were getting Catherine Coulter.In a sort of package deal, USA Today plans to have Michael Moore offer commentary at the Republican National Convention next month. My guess is they will get his humor said Coulter.
Meghan Keane has given a similar treatment to Bill Clinton's speech last night.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PMAl Gore's going to speak at the convention tonight. Extrapolating from his most recent rants and ravings, I think that there's a good possibility that we'll get to watch his head actually explode, live on national television.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:36 AMIt looks like Christopher Anderson's new book isn't going to paint a very pretty picture of the junior Senator from New York.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:27 PMThe latest word is that not only did Berger lose documents, but he also added some to the files:
...the thrust of the federal investigation now looking into Mr. Berger's actions should center not necessarily on what was taken from the archived files but what was placed in them.
Trying to rewrite a little history?
And this part is very disturbing, at least to me:
...adding an entirely new layer of intrigue to the story is word that telephone calls made by Berger during those latter two visits may have been monitored by an "unauthorized agency."Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:18 AM
The endorsements just keep rolling in:
"Arafat is now waiting for the month of November in the hope that President Bush will be defeated in the presidential elections and turned out of his office," Ze'evi told the cabinet. Arafat also expects that Sharon will be toppled from the premiership, he said.
I'm sure he's hoping for renewed invitations to the White House, just like the Clinton years.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:11 AMThe Kerry campaign used a Rolls Royce as its press logo in Detroit. You gotta admire the attempts at spinning their way out:
Asked about the press-pass logo, Kerry spokesman David Wade said it was unintentional error by a campaign volunteer and then criticized President Bush's economic policies."I could say that the Rolls-Royce is the perfect symbol of who got the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but sometimes objects in the rearview mirror are closer than they appear," he said.
"Under President Bill Clinton, our strong economy actually helped bring Rolls-Royce jobs to the United States for American workers," Mr. Wade said. "Now, with health care costs rising and no end in sight under George Bush, American automakers say they may have to outsource jobs overseas. That's why John Kerry's health care plan offers relief to American companies and hope for the United Auto Workers who are fighting to put John Kerry and John Edwards in the White House."
I'm simultaneously amazed and appalled at people who can spout this stuff and keep a straight face.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:27 PMPeople in Poland are saying that Farenheit 911 is propaganda, worthy of Leni Riefenstahl.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:48 PMApparently the Kerry campaign has finally tossed Joe Wilson overboard. Check out what happens when you go to RestoreHonesty.com.
Down the memory hole.
Somehow, I suspect that, even after getting rid of Berger and Wilson, he's still got a lot of ballast to dump if he wants to win this fall, and he won't be able to do it without alienating the base. And his judgement (or lack thereof) in embracing them in the first place is one of the reasons that I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Bush this fall.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:53 AMVia Obernews, an item in Slate on the Republican party's growing abandonment of federalism. For me federalism was always one of the great appeals of the Republican party (along with not hating commerce), so this trend is particularly unfortunate. As the author points out, it's a bit of a stretch to expect elected representatives at the federal level to oppose their own power (though Gingrich and company did at least make a little progress in that direction). Still, it would be nice if there was a viable political party that believed the "small is beautiful" principle applied to government.
Incidentally, if you've got libertarian leanings and you like your politics with a twist of sarcastic humor, swing by Obernews from time to time.
Posted by Andrew Case at 09:07 AMFrom Lileks today:
Part of Beinarts frustration was Hewitts unwillingness to marvel at the feet of the 9/11 Commissions report. I understand. There are few words that stir the blood of a Beltway wonk like the Commission has issued its report. That means that those in the government must now react, importantly, and those in the media must now react as well dissect, digest, explain to the benighted groundlings what it means, and issue Important Recommendations by way of reasoned editorials aimed at the corridors of power, but more likely received by a schoolteacher in Iowa who photocopies it off and puts it on the bulletin board in the staff lounge with yellow highlight-lines through the better parts.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:17 AMThe commission has issued its report! Mo better, the commission has issued recommendations! And the Washington press corps open their beaks, spindly necks trembling, waiting for the savory worm to be dropped from the blue-ribbon mother bird.
Unless youve spent some time in DC you cant imagine the tremendous self-importance that possesses the people who feed off the government. Theyre like people who live in the same town where NASA has a tracking station, and think that it makes them all astronauts. And so it comes to pass that a perfectly reasonable talk show host wants to talk about an out-of-power guy stuffing annotated memos in his garters, and because he doesnt want to talk about the two tablets handed down by A COMMISSION, hes a blind hack.
You may or may not be surprised to learn that the Commission doesn't agree with Michael Moore's foolish and libelous characterization of Bush as being "too frightened to do anything without his handlers" after learning of the second aircraft strike. From pp. 38-39:
The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack. The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening.Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:45 PMThe President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15, where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He next spoke to Vice President Cheney, Dr. Rice, New York Governor George Pataki, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door.
There are reports that, among other things, Berger "inadvertently" requested that the rules be suspended for his visits to the archive and have monitors removed, so he could "inadvertently" have private phone conversations from the room in which the documents were held. I can't imagine this is normal procedure.
But he also reportedly took many unescorted bathroom breaks while going over the documents. Perhaps he has a medical problem that would account for this, but one has to wonder if he also found a way to "inadvertently" dispose of inconvenient documents while not even having to leave the facility.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:12 AMMickey has a couple questions to which I have answers:
if, as I suspect, Berger took the various drafts home simply because it's a lot easier to pore over them at home rather than at the National Archives, that may be understandable and ultimately excusable. But it would also mean Berger has tied himself up in ...er, veracity problems by saying he only took the documents "inadvertently." ... P.S.: The WSJ ed board has called for the "release [of] all the drafts of the review Mr. Berger took from the room." But wait a minute. The reason it was wrong for Berger to take the "review" documents is that they contained sensitive, classified information. If the drafts can now be actually released publicly without damaging national security, then why was it so terrible for Berger to take them home? The WSJ is making Berger's case for him.
If Berger simply took them home to review them in more comfort, then a) why didn't he simply check them out, as procedure allowed (assuming that he had a secure place to keep them)? Why be so furtive? And b) why did he not return them--why did they "inadvertently" disappear?
Sorry, but I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with an innocent explanation for this, particularly given the nature of the specific documents of interest. It appears very much to me that he was hoping that he could destroy original (and unique, with no copies) documents that may have contained very damaging information, either to him personally, or the administration that he served, or both. That is not to say, of course, that that's the case, but it's certainly how it appears.
Glenn has a lot more on this theme.
And I should add that it would certainly appear that way to the entire media establishment as well, and that this interpretation would be trumpeted from the rooftops, and most of the nation's ink supply devoted to saying it, were the political parties reversed here.
As for resolving the WSJ's call for release of the documents with Berger's behavior, that's quite simple. The Journal is calling for a declassification of the documents (in the absence of knowledge of their contents). Once declassified (perhaps with suitable redactions to protect the most important information), they can be released to the public. Whether this is a good idea or not cannot be known except to those with current access to them, though if it occurs, then we can all judge after the fact.
But they haven't been declassified, and Berger, at least in his current role as private citizen, cannot unilaterally make a decision to do so. They retain their classification level until someone decides to change it. That someone cannot be Sandy Berger, and he has to treat them properly until that situation changes. And unlike the Journal, he knows their contents. And at this point, with regard to the missing ones, he may now be the only person on the planet who does.
Or ever will.
[Update a few minutes later]
Iowahawk has further updates.
New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent defended the newspaper's scant coverage of the Berger imbroglio, pointing out that "newsprint doesn't grow on trees.""If you run the numbers, printing that Berger is a Kerry advisor would have cost the newspaper over $300 in additional ink costs, not to mention the potential strain on delivery trucks," said Okrent. "The Times has a fiduciary duty to its st0ckholders and employees to keep an eye on the bottom line."
Okrent said that 'Berger' may appear in an upcoming Sunday crossword, "if [editor] Will Shortz finds a suitable 6-letter space, and comes up with a really, really hard clue."
[Update at 10:40 AM PDT]
This is pretty funny, too.
While lawmakers on both sides of the aisle celebrated the discovery of Mr. bin Laden in the former White House aide's trousers, this latest episode left Mr. Berger, once again, with much explaining to do.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AMThe former adviser to President Clinton said that his lawyers would not permit him to divulge how, when, or why the world's most wanted man had found safe haven in his pants, but he did tell reporters, "It was an honest mistake."
At the White House, President George W. Bush ordered an immediate and thorough search of Mr. Berger's pants "to see what else might be in there," hinting that the discovery of Saddam Hussein's long-sought weapons of mass destruction might be at hand.
Anyone who doesn't appreciate how the Berger bunch has used the fortuitous timing to their advantage must have slept through the Clinton years. The defense is classic. First, the mean Republicans, then the meaningless personal testimonials--"if you knew Sandy Berger like I know Sandy Berger (or Betty Currie). . .," then the irrelevant--he is an extremely hardworking guy who was only trying to help the Commission (we're working, working, working here at the White House), and finally (the political use of FBI files, the lost billing records) the removal of the classified documents was "inadvertent."Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:50 AM
Looks like I called this one correctly. Bush continues to say that he'll sign an "assault weapon" ban, while not actually lifting a finger to make it happen. It's a safe straddle.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:45 AMI know, I know, it shouldn't be necessary, yet in defiance of all that is logical and decent, there are still people who think that Michael Moore's latest crockumentary has non-zero validity or value.
Andrew Bolt, Down Under, disagrees.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:36 PMJust in case you needed another reason to avoid Ben & Jerry's ice cream, Ben has taken to towing around an effigy of George Bush with flames coming out of his pants.
Well, at least classified documents aren't falling out of them.
You know, Jeff Goldstein has to be having a field day with this whole thing.
[a minute of so later]
Yup. He is.
[Wednesday morning update]
Tim Blair is having fun with this, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:40 PMThat's what Linda Ronstadt said.
Oh, what's that? She said it about Christians?
My mistake. No wonder the politically correct harpies aren't trumpeting it from the front pages.
You know, it's really sad that so many artists that I enjoy have to indulge themselves in this mindless politics. I used to love her stuff, particularly the torch songs with Nelson Riddle, but she'll never sound the same again.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:20 PMCavuto is reporting that Berger has resigned from the Kerry campaign as an "informal advisor" (I wonder what such a "resignation" means?).
I wonder if it isn't too late, though? It depends on why he purloined those documents. If they were used to generate Kerry speeches and talking points, and Kerry knew about it, this could be his own Watergate.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:12 PMYou gotta love the comment at this post about this story.
I think it's refreshing that a Clinton Administration official is in trouble for what he put INTO his pants.
[All via Instapundit]
[Update on Tuesday morning]
Reportedly, he also "inadvertently" stuffed documents into his socks.
I'm really having deja vu here--it's bringing back memories of all the Clintonian shenanigans and evidence tampering in the nineties. It's also a stark reminder of how unserious the Clinton administration was about national security. After all, it had a commander in chief who engaged in behavior that would have exposed him to blackmail.
[Update at 10 AM]
Gerard Vanderleun can sympathize with Sandy. Well, sort of.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:00 PMIf this on-line poll is to be believed, Arnold is right--California legislators really are girlie men. So far, the polling is running a hundred percent in favor of the proposition.
I think that the reaction of the Dems to this is hysterical, in both senses of the word.
[Update at 5:30 PM]
The legislators have gained some support. Now over one percent of the respondents don't think they're girlie men.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:33 AMA quick break from conference blogging to point out yet another reason, via Mark Steyn, in the wake of the exposed lies of Joe Wilson, why I can't even consider voting for Kerry:
Some of us are on record as dismissing Wilson in the first bloom of his unmerited celebrity. But John Kerry was taken in -- to the point where he signed him up as an adviser and underwrote his Web site. What does that reveal about Mister Nuance and his superb judgment? He claims to be able to rebuild America's relationships with France, and to have excellent buddy-to-buddy relations with French political leaders. Yet anyone who's spent 10 minutes in Europe this last year knows that virtually every government there believes Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa. Is Kerry so uncurious about America's national security he can't pick up the phone to his Paris pals and get the scoop firsthand? For all his claims to be Monsieur Sophisticate, there's something hicky and parochial in his embrace of an obvious nutcake for passing partisan advantage.
A comment from someone at Roger Simon's site, with which I have some sympathy (though I came to that realization during the 1990s, not as a result of the latest lying and viciousness in the war):
I ask myself why I feel such animosity towards the Democratic party, a party that I belonged to for so many years. Betrayal is the word I come up with, I feel betrayed by the triviality, immaturity, and sheer lunacy of the party. It's not like some other party, say the Republicans, whose oddities I can tolerate as the eccentricity of the neighbors, no, it's like finding that my wife has run off with a derelict with whom she had a long standing secret affair. Not only do I feel betrayed, but I wonder how I could have been such an idiot, overlooking all the signs and clues.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:37 AM
According to this test.
It was more than a little irritating, though, because all (not just a few) of the questions should have had a "No Clue" option.
I generally do well on multiple-guess tests, but I don't think they're a useful gauge of knowledge, and I particularly dislike those that don't have an "I dunno" option.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:13 PMBrad DeLong makes an excellent point about the torture memo:
It seems to me that Yoo misses a great many points. The hypothetical he describes--Osama bin Laden himself, a ticking nuclear bomb, a city that cannot be evacuated, et cetera--is not a situation in which torture should be legal. It is, however, a situation in which torture is pardonable. If you find yourself interrogating Osama bin Laden in such a situation, you do what you must do--and then you ask the president for a pardon. And the president has the power to give you one.
That's what the procedure is with respect to torture. And I think that's what the procedure should be.
As a nation we have no compunction about asking our defenders to risk death in order to protect us. Why are we so lilly-livered about asking them to risk legal hassles? Is it really worth sacrificing the legal protections that previous generations fought (and yes, died) for in order to spare someone in a highly unlikely scenario from having to ask for a pardon? I don't think so. Not only is the indictment vanishingly unlikely to ever be brought in the first place (since it would destroy the career of the attorney general who brought it), but even if a jury could be found that was willing to strictly construe the applicable law, there is still the presidential pardon available as a final stopgap.
The reason the administration wants to have the rubber hose option legally available has nothing to do with the ticking bomb scenario. The ticking bomb is such an unambiguous case that even a blatant violation of the law is not going to be punished. The scenarios in which the legal loopholes are needed are the ambiguous ones, the ones where finding an AG willing to indict, a jury willing to convict, and a president unwilling to pardon are a real possibility. It is precisely those scenarios where torture should not be used.
The alternative is a legal regime in which torture can slip through the cracks, growing in application to more and more crimes and suspected crimes. Once our expectations are renormalized to allow torture on people suspected of terrorism, it's only a matter of time before major drug crimes are included under the theory that drug money funds terrorism. From there we slouch on to lesser drug crimes, cybercrime, and so on. Perhaps you trust the current administration not to slip down this slope. But do you trust all possible future administrations?
What we give up by not legalizing torture is a small measure of safety. What we lose by legalizing it is not just the moral high ground, but also our own future safety from abuses by our own government.
The instinct to legalize torture comes from the same misguided mode of thinking that wastes time and effort figuring out all possible scenarios in which it's legitimate to violate traffic laws. Nobody is under the impression that it's wrong to blow a stop sign if you've got a guy in the back seat with arterial bleeding and you're headed for the hospital. There is no need for a legal exception, and if a cop stops you he'll more than likely give you an escort. Ditto the ticking bomb - if Alan Dershowitz is around, he'll help you clip the electrodes to the guy's nuts.
Posted by Andrew Case at 10:29 AMEven while traveling, Glenn has a good roundup of links about the collapse of the credibility of Joe Wilson, and continuing pathetic efforts to defend him.
This is the kind of thing that (like all of the lying, spinning and prevarication, and unashamed defense of it, in defense of Bill Clinton in the nineties) make it impossible for me to even consider voting for a Democrat any more. As a one-time Democrat in my youth, I went through the eighties thinking that I simply had policy disagreements with them, but since the Clinton years, and particularly since 911, I now think that it's simply too dangerous to put the fate of the nation back in the hands of such people. Joe Lieberman would have been the only possible candidate who could overwhelm my increasing distaste for the Donkeys, but they rejected him, and anyone like him, quite decisively.
Golda Meier once said that the Middle East situation would only be resolved when the Palestinians started to love their children more than they hated Jews. I'll think that we'll once again have a functional two-party system, in which I can vote for the candidate rather than the affiliation, when it starts to appear that the Democrats love truth and integrity more than they hate George Bush and Republicans in general. (Which is not to say that I'll necessarily vote Republican--with the ridiculous things coming out of the Libertarian Party since September 11, right now, I have no party.)
[Update at noon Eastern]
Michael Ledeen has more.
...sitting in a tree.
K I S S I N...
I think all this touchy-feely-huggy stuff is going to backfire on Kerry with the non-pansy male demographic.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:41 PMAllah is divinely inspired today.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:54 AMBecause I'm not opposed to the war.
This is a ridiculous assertion, but it seems to be prevalent, and I'm not the only victim of this mind-warped meme.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:43 PMMr. Lileks eviscerates Mr. Moore's latest bit of dementia.
Again, the high-school-level thinking: the rest of the world. Its simplistic to identify Iran, Iraq and North Korea as evil. Its simplistic to state in the immediate wake of 9/11 that nations are either with the terrorists, or the United States. But its a sign of complex nuanced thinking to say that the rest of the world . . . looks at us with disdain and disgust. Yes, the world poured out its heart; it cost them nothing. Hearts are easily tipped and just as easily refilled. When the French newspaper said We are all Americans now it sounded nice, and I suppose it was, but in retrospect it looks as if there was an undercurrent of appeasement and surrender: we are all Americans because we are all victims in a sense, non? We ceased to earn the precious coin of French approval when we fired the chief procurer for their favorite customer, Iraq. Cest dommage. We can live with it.Wait until France gets a hard shot in the nose. Wait until France reacts with some nasty work. Theyll get a golf-clap from the chattering class over here and a you-go-girl from Red America. France could nuke an Algerian terrorist camp and the rest of the world would tut-tut for a day, then ask if the missiles France used were for sale. And of course the answer would be oui.
Enjoy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 AMI'm not entirely sure, but I think that Andrea Harris is upset with Michael Moore.
[Caution: link is not suitable for young children. It contains the kind of words that one wishes to discourage them (and older ones as well) from using.]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:25 AMNot.
The SF Examiner is crying over the upcoming death of the "assault weapons" ban.
Boo hoo.
Remember all the upset with Bush when he said that he would sign a renewal?
I said that it didn't matter, because he knew that there would never be a bill to sign. It still looks that way. Whether his pledge to sign it will still hurt him politically still remains to be seen, of course, but I can't imagine the gun-rights activists being indifferent to a Kerry-Edwards presidency.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:24 AMAlan Murray implies that, with his pick of Senator John Edwards for veep, Senator Kerry just made a powerful enemy for himself.
...party wisdom that's been passed down by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Robert Strauss, and now resides with Democratic economic guru Robert Rubin, is that big business does matter to Democrats. To be successful, a Democratic presidential candidate doesn't need the active support of America's CEOs, but he does need to keep them on the sidelines. Jimmy Carter lost his bid for re-election at least in part because business was determined to dump him. Bill Clinton won election and re-election at least in part because the business community, while not strongly supportive, wasn't threatened by him.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:46 AM
Thanks, Mindles, for stating better than I could my ongoing frustration with people who assume that I'm a rabid right winger because I don't agree with rabid left-wing positions. There's only one part of the post with which I disagree:
Bush never saw a spending bill or entitlement he didn't like, all small government rhetoric aside.
What "small government rhetoric"? I've never heard any.
I had hopes that Bush planned to shrink government, despite his talk about "compassionate conservative," but it was hope based on faith, not evidence. All I knew was that he would be preferable to Albert Gore Jr.
I also know that he will be better than John F. Kerry.
That is to damn him with faint praise.
But I'm sure that I'll continue to be lambasted as a right-wing Bush lover.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:55 PMMark Steyn has, I think, the definitive review of Bill Clinton's turgid and overlong autobiography. My favorite bit:
The president appears to have accidentally modified his story and started his relationship with the comely intern several months earlier than he testified to at the time: "During the government shutdown in late 1995," he writes, "I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions."Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:03 PMTruly, that is one of the saddest sentences ever written. If I were the big spenders at Knopf, I'd have said: "Look, we understand that a politician with legal difficulties has to say things like 'inappropriate encounter.' And, if you want to write a memoir in dead pol-speak, that's OK, we'll pay you 20,000 bucks. But for 10 mil do us a favor and lay off the 'I had an inappropriate encounter' stuff. Shoot for more of 'The shaft of light from the dying sun through the Oval Office window caught the swell of her bosom as she slid the extra-large pepperoni across the desk. I knew it was wrong. I'd penciled in that evening for bringing peace to Northern Ireland, but what the hell, the two sides of that troubled island's sectarian conflict were separated by as deep a divide as the plunging cleavage now beckoning from her low-cut angora sweater. Ulster could wait.'"
There's an important story that's not getting enough press, so I figured I'd blog it to try to raise the profile a bit. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy just accepted a report from the ABA on the dysfunction in the US penal system. The upshot is that we are pissing away huge amounts of taxpayer money incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders thanks to mandatory minimum sentences created by politicians trying to seem tough on crime. The same political dynamics lead to the idiocy of alcohol prohibition. The ABA commission website has the text of the report, summaries, and some other useful material on the subject.
The system is deeply flawed, even if you think drug laws are a good idea. It makes no sense whatsoever to sentence a street level dealer to twice the amount of time given to someone who commits assault, but that's the way things are right now. We desperately need reform of the whole penal system - perhaps this report can begin the process.
Posted by Andrew Case at 08:27 AMVia a comment on this post, I came across an interesting blog that I hadn't seen before. The topic is k-12 education reform, something close to my heart since both my parents were high school teachers, my Mom for her whole career, and my Dad while he was in the Peace Corps[*].
I came out of an education system with high stakes testing, so I'm fairly comfortable with it. It seems to me that some sort of testing is necessary in order to measure teaching effectiveness. The stakes for the student should not be all-or-nothing, though. The ideal is testing that measures school performance, but which constitutes only a part of the student's grade. The teacher and school should be assessed on aggregate test scores across all students, presumably with some cross comparison with other schools in similar circumstances (since it doesn't make sense to compare inner city schools to suburban magnet schools, for example). The process of actually measuring school performance isn't simple, but it is necessary to have some sort of feedback mechanism that focuses teacher and administrator attention on a meaningful performance metric.
Testing is a bit of a fad these days, which is a mixed blessing. At least some testing schemes are stupid and destructive (all or nothing tests that track students into the smart kids track or the regular track, for example). The diversity of schemes being tried suggests that at least some will work, and hopefully the good ones will be adopted by other states and school districts. In the meantime some of the kids being experimented on will suffer needlessly thanks to political stupidity, but the alternative is kids suffering due to political neglect, so it's not obviously a losing proposition.
Anyway, go dig around the site a bit. Even if you don't have kids, you are directly affected by this.
[*] incidentally, IMO the Peace Corps is probably the best investment in foreign relations that the US has ever made. High level bladiblahblah doesn't last longer than the leadership of the foreign countries being engaged. Massive aid projects line the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats. Actual US citizens interacting one-on-one with local people and materially improving their lives spreads American ideals into the grassroots, and inoculates at least some people against rabid anti-Americanism in a way that lasts long after the volunteer has gone home.
Posted by Andrew Case at 06:55 AMIf true, here's a non-war reason to hope for a Bush reelection. Reagan could never do this, but he never had a Republican congress.
I should add that people are paying far too much attention to polls, including the approval ratings and "right-track/wrong-track" polls. It's way too early for them to have any significance whatsoever. The campaign hasn't even started yet, and it won't really kick in until after the Republican convention, and not really until after Labor Day.
At this point in 1988, Dukakis was several points ahead of the president's father, and stayed there through August. He barely got over a hundred electoral votes.
I don't think this race is going to be close--certainly not as close as 2000 (if for no other reason than regression to the mean). It's very unlikely that we'd have two elections so close consecutively.
I in fact think that it will be a landslide, one way or the other (and my money's on Bush, or would be if I participated in the Iowa electronic futures market, which currently agrees with me).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:31 PMHere is a compilation of what some people would like to see in the Great Prevaricator's book, when it's released next week. I have lots of these myself, but here's one that no one else mentioned:
Will he deny the rape charge? Will he call Juanita Broderick a liar?
He's never had a comment on this--whenever asked, he has simply said to talk to his lawyer. His lawyer denies it, of course, but that's meaningless since he has no knowledge.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 AMRalph Nader has violated campaign finance laws. Somehow it's all the fault of big corporations.
Posted by Andrew Case at 02:05 PM...dated today. But it looks frighteningly like the 1930s again in Europe.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:44 AMThere are still a few people attempting to fight against the now-prevailing wisdom that Reagan ended the Cold War through his policies, claiming that he just had the good luck to be president when it happened. Now, of course one can never know for sure what the causes were, but I find it interesting that some people are determined to continue to attempt to prove that it wasn't Reagan's doing. I wonder why they have such a powerful emotional investment in that?
They should consider something--if there were a good case to be made for their position, then it should have persuaded many of those on the fence, and perhaps even some who originally thought that it was Reagan's doing, to change their opinion, but I don't see that happening.
From James Lileks, to Bill Whittle, Matt Welch, Roger Simon and others, many people this past week have confessed that they thought Reagan was a dunce at the time, but they've seen the light now. This kind of commentary has abounded in comments sections as well. But I haven't seen a single post or comment anywhere to the effect that someone thought Reagan was great at the time, but now they realize he was an idiot who had nothing to do with defeating the Soviet Union.
I wonder why that is?
[Update a few minutes later]
And yes, I do realize that I've just motivated them to start leaving me spurious comments with unverifiable claims about how brilliant they thought that Reagan was at the time, but that now they're older and wiser.
I point this out preemptively to make their claims all the more ridiculous, since none have appeared spontaneously heretofore.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:16 PMThe day after his interment is the seventeenth anniversary of Reagan's famous challenge to Gorbachev. It happened on June 12, 1987.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 AMFrom James Taranto today:
We didn't have time to see the casket, but we did see the people lining up for the viewing--the backdrop for Couric's makeshift outdoor set. Reagan, of course, was more responsible than anyone else for the end of communism, a system among whose lesser horrors were that it forced people to spend much of their lives in queues for such necessities as food and toilet paper. Somehow then it seems a fitting tribute that thousands of free men and women would voluntarily wait in line to pay their last respects.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:25 AM
I'm watching the ceremony as the casket is being taken down the Capitol steps, and the cannons firing on the mall, and just thinking about how embarrassing it would be if they screwed up and put real loads in them, and took out a few government buildings.
Somehow, considering who it was in honor of, it would have been fitting, especially if they were pointing south toward HHS. If I ever get a state funeral, that would be one of my requests. They'd need a little more range, but I might have them target a certain building over on E Street, too.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:45 AMAndrew Sullivan has a nice collection of foolish quotes about Reagan from the eighties. This one in particular caught my eye:
"Are we rushing headlong into the next step of those 40 years of progressions by which we do something then they do something, by which we pretend that we're going to build this and it will somehow strengthen our deterrent then they do it, and low and behold, the next thing we know is, the President of the United States is addressing the nation saying, My fellow Americans, I hate to tell you this, but the Soviet Union is deploying more of these, and we have to respond, and I'm asking the Congress for more money in order to respond. Star Wars is guaranteed to do that, and it's guaranteed to threaten the heavens -- the one line we haven't yet crossed with weaponry: the heavens."Senator John Kerry, on SDI, the program that brought the evil empire to its knees, August 5, 1986.
I always found this argument that SDI was "militarizing" space specious and fraudulent. In its essence, what it really meant was "we must keep space a sanctuary through which our weapons (and particularly their weapons, which are the only thing containing our overarching imperialism) can pass unimpeded."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AMKrogers and the Perkins restaurant chain are taking down their idiotic "Please Come In And Rob The Disarmed Victims In Our Establishment" signs in Ohio.
In a letter announcing the removal of the signs, Marc Teaberry, the executive vice president of Perkins Family Restaurants, noted that the restaurant chain has "numerous locations in Pennsylvania, which has always had a concealed weapon law, and have never had any problems." Teaberry added that the company, in posting the signs, had received "bad advice" from its attorneys.
That's putting it mildly.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry said it also has received reports that Kroger stores in the Cincinnati Division (which includes greater Dayton) had begun removing their "no guns allowed" signs.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:16 AM"It is not yet known if this action is in any way related to the assault and robbery of a 70-year old Kroger customer outside a posted store on May 23," Ohioans For Concealed Carry said in a press release.
Yes, they are.
We are very happy that the coup failed because we have now really destroyed the communist empire, the Soviet state, and of course, as Ronald Reagan said, it was indeed an evil empire and we are glad that it is gone from the earth.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:18 PM- Andrei Kozyrev, Yeltsin Foreign Minister, speaking to ABC's Sam Donaldson, after the communist hard-liners coup attempt failed in 1991.
I don't know if people have speculated about this previously, but as an alternate history, what if Reagan had beaten Ford for the nomination in 1976? Would he have beaten Carter then, or did we have to live with him for four years to realize what a lousy president he was?
It's not clear to what extent Ford lost because of general backlash over Watergate, or because of the Nixon pardon, or because of the debate gaffe, in which he said that Poland wasn't under the thumb of the Soviets. Reagan would have likely suffered only from the first factor. If he did lose to Carter, would he have gotten the nomination again in 1980 and beaten him then (I suppose the answer to that depends partially on how close the race was in '76)?
And if he'd won, would the Cold War have ended that much sooner as well? Would we have avoided the stagflation, the sky-high interest rates? Would we have avoided the Iran hostage crisis, which was arguably our first of many acts of irresolution toward Islamic aggression, which ultimately led to September 11?
One more thought--one wonders how much different things might have gone if he hadn't been shot. That was what gave him the political momentum to get much of his agenda passed in his first term. Ironically, while Reagan didn't fire a single shot to win the Cold War, perhaps John Hinckley's single shot was responsible...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:57 AMHas the anti-globo looniness run its course?
...the demonstrations have been nothing short of a dud, and the 20 or so protesters who quietly rallied yesterday were unable to hide their disappointment at the meager turnout."I think we overestimated ourselves," Sandra Kwak, 22, said with a laugh in a light drizzle in expansive Forsyth Park. "But even if the few people who are here learn something, it's not a total loss."
Denied access to Sea Island for security reasons, two groups of around 150 people each gathered in the cities of Savannah and Brunswick on Tuesday to kick off three days of planned protests. But by the second day of the summit, only a fraction remained out in force.
"It's a victory just to have this event," protest organizer Kellie Gaznik said Tuesday. "If we didn't have a place for people to do their art and make their statements, they would just walk around and maybe break things, which doesn't accomplish anything."
No, Kellie. No it doesn't.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:43 AMSteve Hayward has unearthed a nice quote from Reagan's sixties debate with Bobby Kennedy:
One of my favorite bits of this exchange was the rhetorical question Reagan asked about Americas brief monopoly of nuclear weapons in the 1940s: Can you honestly say that had the Soviet Union been in a comparable position with that bomb, or todays Red Chinese, that the world would not today have been conquered with that force?Winston Churchill said this in 1948: What do you suppose would be the position this afternoon had it been Communist Russia instead of free enterprise America which had created the atomic weapon? Instead of being a somber guarantee of peace it would have become an irresistible method of human enslavement.
Of course, to listen to the loony left and anti-globos, that's exactly what happened, with Amerikkka running the world.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:26 AMI concur with the thoughts in this Freeper thread about Kerry's potential plans to visit the Reagan Library. If he wants to pay his respects (and this isn't just grandstanding), fine, but he should stand in line for hours with everyone else. None of this "Do you know who I am?" business.
Of course, as another commenter pointed out, he does have a natural face for mourning. I suspect he'll get many opportunities to use it in the coming months, particularly in early November...
By the way, as I was driving up to Chatsworth this morning, the sign in Sepulveda pass said that there was an eight-hour wait at the library. I usually drive up the 405 to the 118 (the Simi Valley Freeway) and across, then take DeSoto down, but this morning, after hearing traffic reports, I decided to go across on the 101 instead.
[Update a few minutes later]
You know, this actually could be a good political move for him, as long as he does stand in line and take the bus (and that should include having his "family's" SUV sit out on the 118 for hours as well, just like the rest of us). After all, he claims that he's taking the week off from campaigning out of respect for President Reagan. What better way to show that he really is than by spending a few hours of his own personal time, on queue with the commoners? It would be all the more admirable, because it can't be expected to be a friendly crowd to someone like him. It would be an opportunity to show, despite all previous evidence, that he really does have the common touch.
This, of course, is exactly why he won't do it. I fully expect him to revert to character, and try (and maybe even succeed) to pull a "Do you know who I am?". But maybe he'll surprise me.
[Update]
He met my expectations, and Iowapresidentialwatch isn't impressed, calling it "indecent exposure."
At issue: The need for a Kerry visit to the Reagan Library in California. As reported by Rush Limbaugh, a Kerry spokesperson had already announced Kerry would attend the State Funeral for Reagan on Friday in Washington, D.C.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:36 AMAt issue: The photographer accompanying Kerry into the Reagan Library. Clear guidelines (handed out to everyone prior to entering the library to view Reagans casket) state: Absolutely no photography will be allowed inside the Library. A photographer entered slightly ahead of Kerry and took pictures of Kerry while he was there. These pictures were posted as Associated Press photos on YahooNews news 30 minutes after Kerrys visit.
At issue: The timing of the Kerry visit to the Reagan Library in California. Dignitaries could view the casket at the Reagan Library in California before the general public or after the general public; or in Washington, D.C. during the time set aside for the other government big wigs to attend. California Governor and Mrs. Schwarzenegger were in attendance during regular public viewing hours at the personal request of Mrs. Reagan who did not take Kerrys personal phone call to her, and did not issue an invitation to Kerry.
A commenter over at Roger Simon's site says:
I'm not a Republican, but the Democratic party seems to be trying its damndest to make me into one.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AM
What you dont know when youre 22 could fill a book. If you write that book when youre 44, you havent learned a thing.
He's a national treasure himself.
I was never a big Reagan fan, but he was always clearly the best candidate in every race he ran. His "charisma" and "communication" (like Clinton's) were always lost on me. I never saw myself what the big deal was, but it was clear that he had it, judging by his apparent effect on other people more susceptible than me to such things.
As a space enthusiast, even the much-vaunted Challenger speech didn't impress me all that much. "So he quoted Magee," I thought.
Big whoop.
I vaguely remember a teevee ad in the sixties, perhaps for the Air Force, that used the whole poem. It was almost too obvious (in fact, almost inappropriate, because the poem is much more about atmospheric flight than spaceflight, with its talk of sun-split clouds, footless falls of air, shouting wind, and wind-swept heights, none of which occur in the vacuum of space--it's limited appropriateness derived only from the fact that the crew didn't quite make it into space, or at least nowhere near orbit). And even now, how many people think that he wrote the words, or that one of his speechwriters did?
And yet, it was clear to me in the eighties that Reagan was going to be appreciated by history much more than he was at the time, but I didn't realize that it would happen this soon. Or, depressingly, maybe it isn't this soon. Maybe the time has just flown by faster than I'd like to think.
Wandering around the blogosphere in the past couple days, I'm quite amazed at the number of people who express the same opinion--they thought that Reagan was an idiot movie actor at the time, and were appalled that he was president of the country, but they now realize that he was right about Soviet communism, and they were wrong, and that he was in fact the greatest post-war president of the century, even if they didn't agree with all of his positions.
I wonder how many will be similarly reassessing George W. Bush in two more decades? And I wonder what these so-called historians would have said about Ronald Reagan at the end of his first term?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:41 PMDavid Brooks has an excellent op-ed in the NYT on partisanship. It's as balanced a piece as you'll find anywhere, and it's backed by real data. This is a pet interest of mine, as it's a pervasive cognitive phenomenon. People create a model of the world and then select data which reinforces it. Man is a rational animal only occasionally.
Posted by Andrew Case at 12:00 PMSenator Kerry is suspending his election campaign in respect for President Reagan's passing.
I'm going to channel Mickey Kaus here, and note that this is a good deal for him. It lets him look classy, while minimizing his exposure to the American public for a few days, which should boost his poll ratings.
And in seriousness, his statement today was classy (surprisingly, to me). I didn't expect him to say anything unclassy, but I thought he might avoid comment, or have minimal comment, so as not to upset his Bush (and Reagan) hating base.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 PMBoy, now nobody can accuse Senator Kerry of not having a sense of humor.
My sides still hurt from the all the hijinks and hilarity.
Oh, and in case you didn't get it, that was a joke.
Or was it (like Senator Kerry's supposed bon mot) sarcasm? Either way, I guess it beats calling it another flip-flop ("I was going to announce my VP before I wasn't going to...")
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:03 PMApparently Arnold is as ignorant about the "assault weapons" ban as many others. But it probably won't hurt him much in California.
In fact, supporting an extension of the ban, while having no practical effect, may give him cover to veto some of the loonier things that the legislature does in Sacramento (e.g., the ammunition tax, or the requirement to report gun ownership when renewing drivers license registration) without being called an NRA stooge.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:40 PMSeveral years too late, George Tenet has resigned. Now, can we please get rid of Norm Mineta?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:54 AMNow that a county can no longer have a cross as part of its official seal, it's clearly just a matter of time before cities (and counties) like "El Pueblo de Nuestra Seora la Reina de los Angeles de Porcincula" (LA's full name) or San Diego, or San Francisco, or Santa Rosa, or San Luis Obispo, or San Simeon, are going to be forced by the ACLU to change to something more secular.
We might as well come up with some good candidates now. Maybe we could just formalize some of the already-existing nicknames, like LaLaLand, and Baghdad-By-The-Bay.
By the way, I don't really care whether or not the official seal of Los Angeles County has a cross in it, but I think that it says something about the ACLU that they think that this is one of the most important things that they can be doing. As long as they're going to waste their resources on things like this, they shouldn't be looking for any contributions from me. Maybe we need to start a new organization that actually takes civil liberties (including the right to bear arms) seriously.
[Update at 5:21 PM PDT]
Mike Rappaport points out that there may have been collusion with some members of the Board of Supervisors who wanted to remove it, but didn't want to risk the voters' wrath.
[Update late on Wednesday evening]
Lileks agrees with me, albeit (as usual) more eloquently:
Boil it down to this: a piece of paper with the city seal comes down the pneumatic tube. Winston Smith places masking tape over the crosses, picks up his speaking tube. MemRec insert, city seal doubleplus ungood possible thoughtcrime godsign, new file city seal ungodsign postdate.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:21 AMAnd the crosses on the seal go down the memory hole.
What compels these people? How small are their lives that they worry about this?
Apparently the building that houses the UN is as decrepit as the institution itself.
Sounds like a good excuse to give it a new HQ.
Perhaps in Paris, or Brussels.
With someone else's money.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:03 AMSenator Kerry displayed the middle digit to a fellow Vietnam veteran who disagreed with his post-service behavior.
In front of schoolchildren.
He also accused him (without basis, as far as I know) of being "a felon."
[Update on Wednesday afternoon]
I'm going to amend this post to "Newsmax claims that Senator Kerry displayed..." since I can't find any other sources for the story. I still don't find it out of character, though.
[Wednesday evening followup]
Here's some more on the story, but unfortunately, it's still Newsmax.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:36 PMI'm hearing that John Effing Kerry is going to accept the nomination at, of all strange places and times, the convention. What a weird world we live in, that this is big news.
Actually, I think that he declined to accept it there before he decided to accept it there. We'll see how many times he changes his mind again between now and July.
And for those who didn't see it via Glenn or other places, Mickey has a pretty funny (and vicious) take on this (no obvious permalink--look for the May 26th, 2004 posting if you're reading this from the future).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:52 PMJust when you thought that the Reform Party couldn't get any more incoherent and lacking in principles of any variety, it endorses Ralph Nader. Recall that their last presidential candidate was Patrick J. Buchanan.
What a joke.
It's good news for Bush, though--it will put Nader on the ballot in a lot of states he wouldn't otherwise get.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PMOr it would be, if it had a chance of being enacted. I knew that Zell Miller had been talking about it, but I hadn't realized that he has introduced a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:12 AMLet's get this straight. The Ketchup Queen can call Dick Cheney unpatriotic, but no one's allowed to criticize her?
And note that the Reuters reporter can't be bothered to point out Theresa's slander.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:01 PMAndrew, Pete Knight certainly deserves to be recognized as a pilot and a space pioneer, but he was also a very controversial political figure in California. He was the driving force behind the legislation to keep gay marriage illegal (the law that the San Francisco mayor was flouting earlier this year), and he was regularly denounced by the left as a rabid right-wing homophobe (I don't know to what degree that's true, but considering the sources of much of the criticism, I'm inclined to think that he wasn't as much of a neanderthal as his political enemies made him out to be).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:53 AMHot off the press, the New York Times says that Europeans don't like Bush very much. Frankly, reading this article just makes me even more inclined to vote for him, just to cheese them off.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:47 AMI think that the headline of this story tells it all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:24 AMOnly his auto dealer knows for sure.
Kerry's SUV flip flopping gets worse than denying that he's part of his own family. He apparently told a New Hampshire audience that he sold them all, when he didn't. This wasn't nuance, or Clintonizing. It was a lie (and that's not a word I use lightly).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:11 PMMark Steyn has finally figured out why Kerry seems like he flip flops. It's all an illusion:
When Kerry talks about ''any Benedict Arnold CEO or corporation that takes American jobs overseas,'' he's not referring to someone who ''takes jobs overseas.'' Perish the thought! He's all in favor of taking jobs overseas. It wasn't him who attacked all those ''Benedict Arnold CEOs,'' just his ''overzealous speechwriters.'' And the minute he discovered it was going on, he called them to say, ''Look, that's not what I'm saying.''I mean, OK, it was what he was saying in the narrow technical sense of words emerging from between his lips, day after day, night after night, all through primary season. I had a quick rummage through the Nexis database, and found a mere 746 citations for Kerry and the expression ''Benedict Arnold.'' I myself have personally been present on three occasions when he attacked ''Benedict Arnold CEOs'' who ''take jobs overseas,'' and on two of them he didn't have a TelePrompTer or even a script. He just stood in front of us and the words came out of his mouth, almost as if they were what he himself believed...
...Well, it's good to know the senator has finally found a way to neutralize the flip-flop question. Many of us assumed that, when he was for the war and then he was against it and then he was for it again, that he kept changing his mind. But now it's possible he was just being entirely consistent -- he's always been for it, or against it, it's just that his ''overzealous speechwriters'' kept putting the wrong words in his mouth.
RTWT
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:44 PMOf the people baying for Don Rumsfeld's head now, I'll take the ones seriously who were demanding the same of Janet Reno in 1993 after Waco.
[sound="crickets chirping"]
[/sound]
This kind of obnoxious demagoguery is one of many reasons that I cannot pull the lever for Kerry for president.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday if he were president he would not be "the last to know what is going on in my command..."
Like most or all of Kerry's promises, there are scant details on how he thinks that he could make such a guarantee.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:24 AMI heard an interview on NPR last night with the guy who ate McDonalds for a month to prove that it wasn't healthy to do so, and had many of the thoughts that Jacob Sullum expresses about it.
I wouldn't enjoy eating exclusively at McDonalds for a month straight, but I could certainly do so and remain healthy (or at least as healthy as I am now). This clown went out of his way to eat as unhealthily (and otherwise live unhealthily) as possible, and then blame the fast food industry for the fact that he gained twenty-five pounds. As Jacob says:
Spurlock easily could have eaten three meals a day at McDonald's while staying below the 2,500 calories his doctor said he needed to maintain his starting weight of 185 pounds. For instance, an Egg McMuffin, orange juice, and coffee for breakfast; a grilled chicken bacon ranch salad and iced tea for lunch; and a double cheeseburger, medium fries, and diet Coke for dinner total fewer than 1,800 calories. By contrast, Spurlock says he consumed some 5,000 calories a day, while deliberately avoiding physical activity. In short, his experiment proves nothing but basic physics.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 AM
Kerry's first Purple Heart is looking increasingly bogus, and part of a plan for an early ticket home, having gotten his tickets punched and establishing his JFK creds. According to the attending physician:
Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.
What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.
I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.
The wound was covered with a bandaid.
Emphasis mine. Even ignoring the unsubstantialness of the wound, if it occurred as his boatmates claimed, it wasn't the result of enemy fire, which would make him ineligible for the medal. In fact, if he really did that, it should have resulted in discipline.
That may be just a tip of an iceberg of self-aggrandizement that resulted in this morning's press conference (click on the "Media" link), in which many of his band of former brothers declared him unfit to be Commander-in-Chief. A press conference which, by the way, the media seems to be studiously ignoring. The only mention of it that I can find with a quick Google is in the Boston Herald.
And no, before anyone asks, I'm not saying that he fired the mortar round deliberately to injure himself. I rarely attribute an act to conspiracy that is as easily explained by incompetence. I'm just saying that it strongly appears that he was looking for every wound he could to get to his magic three.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here's the letter that the other Swift Boat vets sent to Kerry.
[Wednesday morning update]
The Globe has covered it now. Interestingly, the supposedly right-wing Fox News doesn't seem to have any web coverage of it, at least not on their politics page.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:49 PMI thought that would be more kind than "I don't fall, that son-of-a-bitch sand ran into me."
Of course, the worst thing about this, from the standpoint of the Kerry campaign, has to be the picture. It's no Dukakis in a tank, but it's definitely geek central, even without the daisy zipper pull.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:11 PMMark Steyn has a couple of must-read play reviews of don't-bother-to-see plays. He endures this, so you don't have to.
Well, I cant speak for everyone, but I had a grand old time at Tim Robbinss Embedded. By the midway point, I was laughing so much that my neighbors at the Public Theatre were beginning to stare. They were, by this stage, feeling not so much embedded as embalmed, in Mr. Robbinss burial of his own play. The audiences dissatisfaction arose from a simple confusion: theyd assumed Mr. Robbinss work was a satire on the way the Bushitler and his lying liars lyingly lied the country into a war with Iraq. In fact, its a delightful satire on the lefts inability to satirize.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 PM
P0rn is being outsourced, to Brazil.
Will Kerry add this tragedy for American workers to his next stump speech?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:00 PMI just got an email alert from the Airline Pilot's Security Alliance:
...Washington, DC - Today the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance (APSA) alerted its members around the country to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's (R-PA) opposition to the arming of Americas airline pilots against terrorism. President George W. Bush signed the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) Program into law as part of the Homeland Security Bill, in 2002, after the United States Senate approved the program by a vote of 87-6. Senator Specter was one of the six dissenting votes.
APSA wants to make it clear to pilots and the people of Pennsylvania that Senator Specter opposed the creation of this important program, which is a vital layer of our national defense against terrorism.
"This common sense security measure was supported by liberal Democrats like Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA), but we couldn't count on the support of Arlen Specter," said Bob Lambert, former APSA president and Pennsylvania resident. "You would expect that those officials representing Pennsylvania, the site of one of the devastating September 11th attacks, would be more responsive to the security needs of the American people..."
There are still three hours to vote in Pennsylvania.
I'm sure it's not his hairdresser. It's probably his family's hairdresser. And I'm sure that she was flown in on his family's Gulfstream V, not his.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:52 AMIt's almost become a cliche in politics about a candidate peaking too soon, but the opposite seems to be happening to Kerry, at least from the standpoint of the Republicans. If it were really true that this were part of the Republican Attack Machine™ they wouldn't be instigating the medal meltdown now--they'd wait until after the convention, when it's too late.
There's a serious danger that the Dems may abandon Kerry if he's tanking too much in late spring, and replace him with a serious candidate (e.g., Lieberman or Biden). In fact, I wonder if the current medal feeding frenzy means that the press has decided that Kerry doesn't have a chance, and they're turning on him now in the hopes that they can make it happen.
On the other hand, given the internecine state of the party, it's not clear that they can really come up with a better one at this point. Hillary might be eyeing it, but I think that her negatives remain too high to win. People may have forgotten her shady past by 2008, but not yet.
[Update]
Here's an example of Donkey enthusiasm for their candidate (warning: language).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:38 AMGlenn wonders why Bush hasn't fired Tenet. Me, too. Of course, if I'd been president, I'd have replaced him before 911, along with a lot of other Clinton holdovers.
I think that it's one of his weaknesses--he barely seems capable of firing anybody. The only ones that I can think of that he has are Paul O'Neill, and Jay Garner.
Anyway, if Woodward is correct on this, and Tenet really did convince Bush that Iraqi WMD was a "slam dunk," what does that do to the credibility of the "Bush lied, people died" crowd, or those who bellow about him "betraying the country"? Not that they ever had much to begin with, of course.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 AMOK, what's John Effing Kerry whining about now?
I thought that he thought it was a great idea for foreign leaders to be in favor of presidential candidates.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:01 PMThe Branch Davidians were incinerated eleven years ago today, and nine years ago, the Murrah Federal Building was bombed in Oklahoma City. We still don't know everyone who was involved. In light of that this should stir things up a little.
[Update on Tuesday morning]
Clayton Cramer has more disturbing details from the trial.
How much else did the prosecution suppress in their effort to keep this case neat and tidy?
Good question.
[Another update, a little later]
As Jon Goff points out, there are some things to celebrate on this date as well--the beginning of the first American revolution.
A reminder of an event that makes Michael Moore all the more odious.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:02 PMNow here's a shocking headline. In related news, the Pope remains Catholic.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:58 AMGo read this and find out. And laugh. Or weep.
"But I do maintain that if it were a Stalinist state they certainly do a great job of concealing it."
With some people, such deception is apparently pretty easy. Useful or not to Mr. Castro, his idiocy and ignorance is confirmed not just by the contents of the interview itself, but by the fact that he allowed it to occur with such a knowledgable interrogator. Simply amazing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:39 AMThe UN scandal over the Iraqi "Oil for Food" program isn't going away any time soon.
In a scathing letter sent to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on March 3, which he made available to Insight, Hankes-Drielsma called the U.N. program "one of the world's most disgraceful scams," and said that "based on the facts as I know them at the present time, the U.N. failed in its responsibility to the Iraqi people and the international community at large."In an earlier letter to Annan, to which he received no reply, Hankes-Drielsma noted that allocations of "very significant supplies of crude oil [were] made to ... individuals with political influence in many countries, including France and Jordan," both of which supported Saddam and his regime to the bitter end.
Under the U.N. program, the Dutch company Saybolt International BV was paid hefty fees to inspect oil tankers loading Iraqi crude in Basra, to make sure no cheating took place. "Now it turns out that the inspecting company was paid off," one investigator said, "while on the ground, individual inspectors were getting cash bribes." Saybolt denies it received an oil allocation, although the Iraqi documents show it was down for 3 million barrels.
And Richard Gwyn, in a Canadian paper, shock of shocks, says that the UN is in no position to lecture us, or anyone:
While the Americans have been trying to get Iraq turned around in the right direction for only a year, the U.N. and Atlantic alliance have been at work in the much smaller society of Kosovo for almost five years now.Kosovo's economy, though, is probably weaker than Iraq's despite the ongoing insurgency in the Middle Eastern country. Kosovo's only successful "industries" (not counting those working for one or other of the many international agencies there) are prostitution, drug smuggling, money-laundering, illegal immigrant smuggling and car theft.
Ouch.
If this kind of story continues to get serious traction, what does it do for John Kerry's vague "let's bring in the UN and have a 'real' (as though Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, etc., aren't legitimate states) international coalition" policy? How will it look to the American people come early November? Or even late August?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:39 PMThis story has been around for a while, but now it's appearing in major newspapers. It will be interesting to see if it develops any legs. If so, it could take a lot of the wind out of Kerry's "wounded in Vietnam" persona.
During the Vietnam War, Purple Hearts were often granted for minor wounds. "There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts--from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, who served as a commanding officer to Kerry during another point in his five-month combat tour in Vietnam. (Kerry earlier served a noncombat tour.) "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes." Under Navy regulations, an enlistee or officer wounded three times was permitted to leave Vietnam early, as Kerry did. He received all three purple hearts for relatively minor injuries -- two did not cost him a day of service and one took him out for a day or two......Back at the base, Kerry told Hibbard he qualified for a Purple Heart, according to Hibbard. Thirty-six years later, Hibbard, reached at his retirement home in Florida, said he can still recall Kerry's wound, and that it resembled a scrape from a fingernail. "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," said Hibbard, a registered Republican who said he was undecided on the 2004 presidential race.
It has an appearance (at least to me) of a deliberate attempt to get a "million-dollar wound" that would get him home early, while burnishing his presidential credentials in a Navy gunboat, a la the original JFK. It's certainly a better way of "maintaining his political viability" than Clinton, but it doesn't look great, particularly considering that Max Cleland, who lost three limbs, didn't get a Purple Heart at all (though apparently his injury wasn't a direct result of combat).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:46 AMYes, I'm tired of it, too.
This week, as last, there will be no lack of air time for the Jersey Four, or journalists ravenous for their views. CBS's "The Early Show" yesterday brought a report from Monica Gabrielle, attesting that her husband might have escaped from the South Tower if the facts about the Aug. 6 "PDB" memo had been shared with the public. The saga of the widows can be expected to run on along entirely familiar lines. The only question of interest that remains is how Americans view the Jersey Four and company, and how long before they turn them off.
"Turn them off," is exactly the right response, in my opinion.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:37 PMThat's not the phrase that the president used tonight, but he could have, given that it's one that he's used effectively in other contexts.
Overall, I grade him a "B" and better than expected.
Worst moment: when asked why he and Cheney insisted on appearing together before the commission, he had no satisfactory answer. My politically-incorrect response: "Because this has shown itself to be a partisan witchhunt rather than an investigation into how 911 occurred, which was its stated charter. There is safety in numbers."
But there's truly no good explanation for that.
Best moment: when he chastised those who thought that Iraqis couldn't build a democracy because they had the wrong skin color.
He went some distance toward explaining "why Iraq," but not sufficiently so to silence the critics, particularly since he can't tell the whole story for continuing diplomatic reasons.
I don't know if this helps or harms in the short run, but in general it gives me confidence for the upcoming presidential debates this fall.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 PMIt looks like the Dems have lost their little PR war. Rasmussen says that the public views Condoleezza Rice much more favorably than Richard Clarke.
In the wake of Condoleezza Rice's testimony before a national television audience, 50% of American voters have a favorable view of the nation's National Security Advisor. Just 24% have an unfavorable view, while 26% are not sure or do not know who she is...Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:58 AM...Rice's numbers are far better than those for Richard Clarke, the former Clinton and Bush official whose testimony two weeks ago kicked off a media frenzy. Following yesterday's testimony, Clarke is viewed favorably by just 27% of voters and unfavorably by 42%.
Glenn has pointed out (rightly or wrongly, I don't know--I don't get around the blogosphere as much as he apparently does) that so-called "right-wing" blogs were much harder on Trent Lott than the lefty blogs are being now on Dodd in his own "Trent Lott" moment.
There are at least four things going on here, I think, though I should start by clarifying terminology, because a lot of the so-called right-wing blogs (including, among many others, this one, Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan) aren't really right wing, except in the very narrow definition of "not opposed to the war."
Now, if someone were to use such a restrictive definition, and put our round pegs in such an otherwise square hole, then part of being "right wing" is intrinsically liking Republicans, and being at least somewhat racist. Thus, it might have appeared surprising to people who confuse such things that these "right-wing" bloggers were attacking the leader of the Republicans in the Senate for simply saying things that we all agree with in our hearts anyway.
Of course, the reality is that few of us are truly "right-wing," and many of the sites that were did in fact defend Lott, not because they are racist or knee-jerk Republicans, but because they saw a double standard being applied (as the current Dodd situation amply demonstrates). Two examples that come to mind are Sean Hannity and Fred Barnes (who is even this week using the Dodd case as an example of why Lott was treated unfairly).
So, anyway, this notion that "right-wing" blogs took down Lott is mistaken--he was taken down by libertarian blogs that were offended by such statements coming from anyone, particularly someone in a national leadership position.
But the second thing was that many, including me, never liked Lott to begin with, for many reasons having nothing to do with dumb racist remarks. Many Republicans considered him a disaster, always rolling over for Tom Daschle (most notably during impeachment), and were happy to use this as an excuse to rouse up the Democrats to make getting rid of him a quick and bi-partisan effort. I'm not aware of any similar unhappiness with Chris Dodd among Democrats.
The third, of course, is that there's a perception that the Republicans have a history of racism to live down, so a Democrat can get away with things that a Republican cannot, as has been demonstrated by the object of the controversy, Senator Byrd, for decades. This is, of course, nonsense, since Republicans remain the party of Lincoln, and the Democrats have much more recent history in such matters (their dirty little secret remains the fact that much of the sixties civil rights legislation would never have passed without significant Republican support--too many southern Democrats opposed it). But the myth carries on, and the donkies feel that by pandering to the black community they inoculate themselves against charges of racism, and unfortunately, given the mindset of the media, they're probably right. Because of this unfair perception, there is a need for Republicans to bend over backwards to censure any hint of true racism, and Lott certainly appeared to be guilty of that.
The fourth is a simple matter of integrity. Democrats tend to defend their own much more viciously than Republicans, almost always placing party over principle. The most notable example of this is to compare the difference between how Republicans treated their criminal president, sending senior party leaders down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House to tell Richard Nixon it was time to go, while Democrats rallied around the corrupt Bill Clinton almost to a man and woman. Or compare Clinton's treatment to Bob Packwood's.
So don't hold your breath waiting for any denunciations of Chris Dodd from the port side of the blogosphere in any manner resembling the fire that Lott received from either the true or so-called right.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:32 AMThis probably isn't a new low for Gary Trudeau--I can't recall all of his previous outrages over the decades--but it's pretty bad.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:17 AMThere's been speculation about this for the past few months, but if this story is true, Senator Kerry's war record and medals may be a little... less potent a weapon...in the campaign than many Democrats had hoped.
If they're smart, though, they won't release this stuff too soon. Better to hold it until after the convention.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:08 PMAnne Applebaum may not know much about space, but her new Pulitzer is well deserved. As Andrew Stuttaford says, you could probably generate a few kilowatts if you hooked up Walter Duranty's corpse to a generator right now.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:28 PMInstapundit points out an article in which a police union says that police officers and their families should be above the law, at least when it comes to traffic infractions, including speeding.
While this is outrageous in itself, it would seemingly put the lie to the notion that the purpose of such laws is for public safety, since it's no "safer" for a police officer's wife to speed than it is for anyone else. It's a tacit admission that it's all about revenue generation, and just as government workers shouldn't necessarily have to pay taxes (since they're paid from taxes), they shouldn't be subject to this revenue de-vice either. Remember this the next time you hear a lecture from a cop about how dangerous it is to exceed the speed limit.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:50 PMMark Steyn doesn't believe John Effing Kerry:
''Oh sure. I follow and I'm interested,'' says John Kerry. ''I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important . . . I'm still listening because I know that it's a reflection of the street and it's a reflection of life.''Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:08 PMReally? You're ''fascinated'' by rap and ''listening'' to hip-hop? You're America's first flip-flopper hip-hopper?...
...If only that MTV guy had said to Kerry, ''Yeah, right. Name a song.'' Think Kerry could've? Reckon if you bust into his pad and riffled through his and Teresa's CD collection you'd find a single rap album? Of course, you wouldn't find any in George and Laura's CD collection either. The difference is that President Bush doesn't feel the need to pretend...
... This isn't entirely a matter of trivialities. The fads and fashions of the world aren't confined to the Billboard Hot 100. All over the planet, men in late middle age are pretending to like stuff just 'cause it's what the likes of Maureen Dowd tell them people want to hear. John Kerry pretends to like gangsta rap. Russia pretends it supports the Kyoto Accord. The European Union pretends Yasser Arafat is committed to peace with Israel. The Security Council pretends its resolutions mean something. Kofi Annan pretends the Oil-for-Fraud program is a humanitarian aid effort for the Iraqi people. The International Atomic Energy Authority pretends the mullahs in Tehran are good-faith negotiators on the matter of Iranian nukes.
It's easy to pander to fashion -- whether on pop music, the environment, the Middle East ''peace process'' or sentimental transnationalism. But on MTV, Kerry wasn't done yet. After coming out for hip-hop, he managed to blame the Bush administration's ''behavior'' for making terrorists become terrorists. I guess that terrorism's just a ''reflection of the street,'' too. Doubtless there's ''a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it.'' The MTV crowd loved the line, and no doubt Jacques Chirac and the Arab League will as well. Welcome to John Kerry's hip-hop foreign policy: Ask the multilateral gang what's hip, and hop to it.
Some folks at Free Republic are starting a betting pool on how long "Hot" Air America (as Ralph Nader called it so memorably yesterday) lasts. Based on the reviews I've read, from both sides of the spectrum, it may indeed soon be "Dead Air America."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:45 AMEurophiles will hate this week's column by VDH. He says that it's time to throw our sixty-year-old kid out of the house and make him grow up:
In contrast, the withdrawal of Americans throughout Old Europe sober analysts can adjudicate a remnant figure of about 30,000 or so, down from our present numbers in Spain, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Greece will encourage Europe to rearm or face the consequences of institutionalized appeasement. That radical step despite popular misconceptions that it is either impossible or unwise is more a good thing than a bad one.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:15 AMThat way we will not be dealing with a spiteful teenager any longer, but a mature adult partner. And if after we leave Germany invades France or Poland a third time, then there is simply no answer to the European problem anyway. Instead we must trust in our confidence that Europeans are wise enough to settle their own affairs peacefully. Perhaps socialists who won't fight much abroad at least won't be likely to fight among themselves either.
So we must be farsighted and confident enough to encourage the emergence of an associate rather than a dependent. Parents are happy when their sixty-year-old sons move out and get apartments not angry that they have lost the opportunity to feed and launder balding and perpetual adolescents.
Could this photo be the 2004 equivalent of Dukakis in the tank?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:24 AMIt is reported that Theresa Heinz Kerry is requesting that her husband be provided with a Secret Service agent who knows how to wind surf.
Great, now when he falls in the water, he'll have someone else to blame and vituperate.
Actually, considering Kerry's truly favorite athletic activity, perhaps he'll need agents who can keep up with him when he flip flops.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 AMBill Whittle has a new essay up, on the difference between intellectual and intelligent.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:59 AM...What a brilliant point hes making in the course of preening his anti-Americanism before his audience of U.K. intellectuals. What does Sept. 11 remind him of? The way Americans are killers. Sept. 11 becomes, in his lovely leap of logic, really about Americans being pure-hearted killers capable of "no end of mayhem," infinite evil deeds. Doesnt everybody think that way? (Everybody in his little circle, I imagine). Sept. 11 reminds them that Americans are first and foremost murderers, so lets not spend a moment acknowledging that little matter of Sept. 11 being a day on which 3,000 Americans were murdered by the "pure-hearted killers" of Al Qaeda. Who, when not committing mass murder, stone women as punishment, torture gays, crush free thought by executing dissidents. No, they get a pass (and the 3,000 become non-persons). Because they hate America, they must be for liberation, and so we cant blame them; we must accuse ourselves of being killers. In fact, we should thank them for providing our witty writer with an occasion for reminding the world that the "American everyman" is a killer......Heideggers peculiar neutrality-slash-denial about Nazism and the Holocaust after the facts had come out, and the contemporary Lefts curious neutrality-slash-denial after the facts had come out about Marxist genocidesin Russia, in China, in Cambodia, after 20 million, 50 million, who knows how many millions had been slaughtered. Not all of the Left; many were honorable opponents. But for many others, it just hasnt registered, it just hasnt been incorporated into their "analysis" of history and human nature; it just hasnt been factored in. America is still the one and only evil empire. The silence of the Left, or the exclusive focus of the Left, on Americas alleged crimes over the past half-century, the disdainful sneering at Americas deplorable "Cold War mentality"none of this has to be reassessed in light of the evidence of genocides that surpassed Hitlers, all in the name of a Marxist ideology. An ideology that doesnt need to be reassessed. As if it was maybe just an accident that Marxist-Leninist regimes turned totalitarian and genocidal. No connection there. The judgment that McCarthyism was the chief crime of the Cold War era doesnt need a bit of a rethink, even when put up against the mass murder of dissidents by Marxist states...
A small bit of Ron Rosenbaum's much longer explanation of why he can no longer associate himself with the left.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:18 AMHerbert Meyer says that one of the reasons that we don't have as many jobs is that we punish entrepreneurs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:06 AMIs it just me, or does the title of this post seem appropriate for the title of this NYT piece?
This, from the man who thinks that discussions of his voting record, or congressional testimony after Vietnam, are "attacks."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:36 PMHere it is.
Having served both the 42nd and 43rd Presidents, Clarke was supposed to be the most authoritative proponent to advance the Democrats' agreed timeline of the last decade - to whit, from January 1993 to January 2001, Bill Clinton focused like a laser on crafting a brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, but, alas, just as he had dotted every "i", crossed every "t" and sent the intern to the photocopier, his eight years was up, so Bill gave it to the new guy as he was showing him the Oval Office - "That carpet under the desk could use replacing. Oh, and here's my brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, which you guys really need to implement right away."Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:00 PMThe details of the brilliant plan need not concern us, which is just as well, as there aren't any. But the broader point, as The New York Times noted, is that "there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism".
Yessir, for eight years the Clinton administration was relentless in its commitment: no sooner did al-Qa'eda bomb the World Trade Center first time round, or blow up an American embassy, or a barracks, or a warship, or turn an entire nation into a terrorist training camp, than the Clinton team would redouble their determination to sit down and talk through the options for a couple more years. Then Bush took over and suddenly the superbly successful fight against terror all went to hell.
Richard Clarke was supposed to be the expert who could make this argument with a straight face.
With Terry Nichols' trial opening up soon, LA Weekly reporter Jim Crogan remains on the case of linkage between OK City and the Middle East.
And I wasn't aware that Jayna Davis is coming out with a book on the subject in a couple weeks. This could have unpredictable effects on the presidential race this fall. It certainly won't do anything for Mr. Clinton's legacy.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:06 PMI wonder if Mr. Clarke has perjured himself? If this is true, it's hard to come to any other conclusion. He either did it then, or this week.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:45 PMCan you imagine the howls of outrage from the punditocricy if an RNC head had done this to Bill Clinton?
Just when you think that McAuliffe can't sink any lower...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:46 AMI always get irritated when I see opinion polls, particularly on elections. One of the most misleading questions, in my opinion, is the one on "right track, wrong track" or "presidential approval." There is always a presumption, that I don't think is necessarily valid, that this translates automatically into prospects for the reelection of the incumbent. This is probably because the people who do the polls tend to think that voters are really as binary as the myth of the two-party system would indicate.
Perhaps I'm atypical, but you would not be able to figure out how I was going to vote on the basis of my answers to those questions.
I think that the country is on the wrong track, and has been so for decades. I disapprove of the president's performance in many areas. If you asked me those questions, I'd answer, "wrong track" and "disapprove."
Does that mean that I'm going to vote for John Kerry in November? Many would infer that, but there's no logical reason to do so. Almost all of the issues on which I think that we're on the "wrong track," and of which I disapprove of the administration policy, would be vastly worse in a Democrat administration.
The polls don't seem to take into account the fact that many (or at least some) voters will be holding their nose in the booth and voting for the lesser of two evils, as the result of the evil of two lessers, which renders those poll questions, if not meaningless, extremely misleading.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:16 PMMany airports want to return to private security screening.
To gauge how well federal screeners were doing, Congress ordered five commercial airports to use privately employed screeners who are hired, trained, paid and tested to TSA standards. Those airports are in San Francisco; Rochester, N.Y.; Tupelo, Miss.; Jackson, Wyo.; and Kansas City, Mo. A report comparing the performance of both kinds of screeners is due next month.John Martin, airport director at San Francisco International Airport, said screeners are hired and trained more quickly there than at airports with government screeners.
"Bottom line: we don't have long lines at San Francisco," he said.
I'll look forward to seeing the report.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:06 PMSounds like Mr. Clarke will fit right in with the Kerry campaign.
He says he agreed with the president's policy before he disagreed with it, and that he thought there was a Clinton plan after he thought there wasn't. And that he implemented the Bush policy at the time, before he didn't.
Which Dick Clarke are we supposed to believe? The one who's just got a new book out in an election year, after not getting the plumb administration job he wanted, or the one who was the administration spokesman at the time? I'm so confused.
[Update on Thursday]
David Reinhard has some good questions:
He's worked under four presidents -- three Republicans, one Democrat -- at the highest levels. He was a counterterrorism official when the war on terror began. He's making grave charges. What he says should be taken seriously. Except the disgraceful Clarke has made that impossible.Consider the timing and context of his charges. If they're true, why did he wait so long to make them? Why didn't he make them the day he resigned his post in the Bush administration? A presidential dereliction of duty so vast would have required no less.
If he wanted his allegations treated seriously, why did Clarke make them in a book published in the middle of a presidential campaign in which his pal, Rand Beers, happens to be the top foreign policy adviser to John Kerry? If Clarke didn't see the need to make his charges right after he left the administration, why didn't he make them in an interview or think-tank seminars after the election? That way Clarke couldn't be accused of having a financial or political motive. This offended official's charges could be examined solely on their merits.
[One more follow up]
This one is a little surprising due to the source--Time magazine. Mr. Clarke does indeed seem to be at war with himself.
[Friday update]
Lileks has some thoughts on this, and the media coverage of it.
Former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson, a Republican, took up the presidents cause inside the commission hearing. We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true? he challenged the witness.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:52 AMNow, Im just an opinion writer who doesnt dabble in objective journalism, but Id think this would be an excellent point in the story to point out the differences between the briefing and the book. Or at least explain what your press briefing means.
But the story declines to elaborate. Tit for tat, he said / she said, the she being Condi Rice. One is left with the impression that asking a witness to square contradictory accounts is "taking up the presidents cause. Partisan conflict is the second theme. The first theme is Bushs responsibility for 9/11. The third theme is how the Clintons did everything they could. There is no fourth theme in this story.
I sent some money to the Kerry campaign, before I stopped payment on the check.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:04 PMDo the Donkeys think that this ad will be effective?
It starts by complaining about the five trillion dollar budget deficit, and then immediately segues into whines about budget cuts.
Huh?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:14 AMHugh Hewitt explains why Senator John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Effing Kerry will lose this fall.
And I loved this part of Dick Cheney's speech yesterday, in which he gutted the putative Democrat nominee's "nuance" like a Rocky Mountain trout.
A few days ago in Pennsylvania, a voter asked Senator Kerry directly who these foreign leaders are. Senator Kerry said, "That's none of your business." (Laughter.) But it is our business when a candidate for President claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy. American voters are the ones charged with determining the outcome of this election - not unnamed foreign leaders...Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:46 PM... Senator Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a "golden age of American diplomacy." He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition - allies and friends of the United States - Senator Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Senator Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed."
Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Senator Kerry describe Great Britain - coerced, or bribed? Or Italy - which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf - was Italy's contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect.
Anti-semitic loon Mahathir Mohamad has endorsed him.
"I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world," Mahathir, who retired in October after 22 years in power, told The Associated Press in an interview."But in the U.S., the Jewish lobby is very strong, and any American who wants to become president cannot change the policy toward Palestine radically," he said.
[Update at 3 PM PST]
I guess that Mr. Kerry isn't thrilled with that particular endorsement. In fact, now he's finally caught a clue, and changed his tune (what a shock):
This election will be decided by the American people, and the American people alone. It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in Americas presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:23 AM
This is one of the many reasons that I don't like the Bush administration, though there's no reason to suppose that a Democrat would be any better (Clinton certainly wasn't). The "Drug Czar" says:
John Walters, in Las Vegas to push for a crackdown on the abuse of prescriptions drugs, said legalizing marijuana is "not an area for legitimate debate."
No, it's only an area for spewing nonsense by imperious federal officials.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:53 AMLots of people are pointing out this story about how great it was in Gitmo for at least some of the Afghan POWs.
Actually, from the way they describe their experience, despite all the whining from Human Rights Watch, it sounds like their situation was better than that of most Cubans. And they got to leave...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:09 PMI used to be fairly close to Keith Henson (who is, among other things, co-founder of the L-5 Society), back in the late seventies and early eighties, but I haven't heard from him since he took refuge in Canada, a few years ago, from an adverse court judgement in his little war with the Scientologists. So I found this interview with him [via Clark Lindsey] quite interesting. You may as well.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:20 PMGlenn asks, "Can Max Cleland deliver Georgia as a VP nominee?"
I don't think so. He couldn't win the state on his own, as an incumbent. How could he pull a northeastern liberal across the goal line?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:00 PMI think I've figured it out. He's going to lose every primary, but make it up in volume.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 AMI've never been as impressed by doctors as I'm supposed to be. It's a lot of work to get through medical school, but I've never seen much evidence that it requires a lot of intelligence, at least not as much as some would have you believe, and certainly not enough to justify the arrogance of many of the practitioners of the medical profession. I've seen too many medical screwups, and known too many (successful) pre-med students who didn't seem all that brilliant to me. I'll confess that I probably couldn't either get into med school, or through it, but not because I lack intelligence--it's because I lack the more important qualities--persistence (not to mention desire) and a good memory.
Anyway, this is preamble to linking to a column by Marjorie Williams, in which she puts her finger on something that's been bothering me about Howard Dean as well. He's an MD, with a manner to match. I agree with her that her thesis has great explanatory power.
Of course, I don't know if we can generalize this to all physicians. After all, Bill Frist has been a fairly successful politician, and as far as I can tell, his medical training doesn't seem to have harmed his career--he's one of the people to watch to replace Dubya in 2008.
[Update on Tuesday]
Galen, who runs a doctorblog, says that one reason that doctors won't admit error is fear of losing lawpractice suits. And congratulations to the new addition to the family and the planet (go to the main page and scroll down).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:01 PMA Florida judge has denied Rush Limbaugh's attempts to keep his medical records private. On Fox News, I heard a replay of Rush reading a statement from his attorney, Roy Black, in which Mr. Black claimed that this was a violation of Rush' "constitutional right to privacy."
I wonder if Rush agrees with his lawyer that he has such a thing?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:23 AMHugh Hewitt thinks that being a cybercampaign has made the Deaniacs too insular, insulating them from reality.
The nuttiest 1 percent of the American electorate is going to number around 1 million voters. Gather those people in one place, let them talk to each other and cheer each other on, and they are going to begin to assume that their 1 percent is much more numerous than it is, much more powerful, much more authentic than the 99 percent not at the rally.This appears to be happening among the Deaniacs. They believe themselves to be far more numerous than they are, and to think that their self-referential assurances of virtue and victory carry weight beyond their chat rooms.
Someone over at Free Republic commented that the Dean campaign is just "one extended flash mob." I think that's a good characterization.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:45 PMHere's a Democrat who could give George Bush a real challenge on foreign policy. Luckily for the Republicans, he's not running, and if he were, he'd almost certainly not be nominated by the moonbattery that is the current Democrat Party.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:36 AMRich Lowry describes how we rewarded terror and attacks on us in the nineties, in the Khobar Towers bombing.
When Freeh told national security adviser Sandy Berger there was evidence to indict several suspects, Berger asked, "Who else knows this?" He then proceeded to question the evidence. A reporter for The New Yorker who later interviewed Freeh about the case writes that the FBI Director thought "Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing."The price of not getting to the bottom of the matter ? although the Saudis opened up somewhat in response to Freeh's proddings and allowed the questioning of suspects ? wasn't just shrugging off the murderer of 19 Americans. It was failing to understand fully the changing nature of the terror threat. "Khobar provided the keys that unlocked the new terror world," says one terror expert. "Everything you needed to know about the new terror network, the cooperation between all the different sects and factions, the rise of Wahhabi radicalism in Saudi Arabia, the changing dynamic of the Middle East ? it all was present in that case."
I would note that, similarly, we've never really found all of the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing, for the same reason, with an additional one. Not only would proof of a Middle East connection have required undesired action on the part of the Clinton administration, but it would have diluted the politically-useful message that this was the sole act of "angry white men," the same ones who'd been stirred up by Rush Limbaugh into giving the Republicans control of Congress the previous fall.
One other interesting parallel.
The pattern of Saudi non-cooperation had been set after the Riyadh bombing, when the Saudis denied FBI agents access to four suspects, and swiftly beheaded them to lend finality to that lack of access.
And interestingly, Tim McVeigh is also no longer around to tell the whole story (had he ever been willing to do so--it appears that he wanted all the credit for himself, and wouldn't want it to look like he needed foreign assistance).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 AMLileks, as usual, has General Clark's supporters' number.
...Of course, if the Republicans put a retired general on the ticket, half the chattering classes would take to the fainting couch: bonjour fascism, au revoir America.But Clark's different! He's pro-choice, pro-high taxes, at least at press time. And he wants "a new patriotism," the old one presumably sullied beyond use by the boot-clicking usurpers who foul the Oval Office now. "No administration has the right to tell Americans that to dissent is disloyal, and to disagree is unpatriotic," he said in a recent speech.
Oh, absolutely. That's why we need Clark: Enough of those big banners in the train stations telling us to SHUT UP AND OBEY, and the endless mandatory TV shows about our Glorious Leader and his plans to increase the radish crop by 170 percent for the next five-year plan. Don't you wish your TV came with an off switch, so you could avoid the propaganda? Don't you wish you could skip the Tuesday night book burnings? Don't you wonder if we crossed the line the night John Ashcroft personally executed Al Franken on "Saturday Night Live"? I miss America, too.
Read all.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AMNow that the Perfumed Prince is in the race, is anyone going to challenge him on this bit of historical ignorance?
GEN. CLARK: Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren?t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it?s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don?t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should?one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.
No, General, this country was founded on the principle of no federal income tax at all. We had to pass a Constitutional amendment, within the last century, in order to levy it.
[Update on Thursday morning]
There's a debate ongoing in the comments section, but in the meantime, Professor Volokh has some thoughts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:50 AMThey've (temporarily) postponed the recall election until March, prolonging the circus and giving Davis a much better shot, by having his fate decided by hordes of Democratic primary voters. It's another attack of the chads!
We'll see if the SCOTUS weighs in to preempt this nonsense.
[Update at 2 PM PDT]
The ever-perspicacious Eugene Volokh asks a great question:
Assuming that punch card ballots are generally less reliable than the alternatives, why should we think that using punch card ballots in several counties in Oct. 2003 would be less reliable than using the alternatives for the fist time in those counties in Mar. 2004?
Idi Amin has finally died. It didn't happen soon enough--several decades sooner would have been much better.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AMHere's an interesting piece from the LA Times about how postmodernists have taken over film schools. I found this particular paragraph revealing, though I'm not quite sure of what:
From Kevin Brownlow, the world's leading silent movie historian, author of "The Parade's Gone By . . .," and co-producer, with David Gill, of acclaimed documentaries: "You would think, from this closed-circuit attitude to teaching, that such academics would be politically right wing. For it is a kind of fascism to force people practicing one discipline to learn the language of another, simply for the convenience of an intellectual elite. It's like expecting Slavs to learn German in order to comprehend their own inferiority. But they are not right wing. They are, regrettably, usually left wing?quite aggressively Marxist?which makes the whole situation even more alarming."
I would have liked more elaboration why that was "alarming," rather than completely unsurprising. Apparently, even some leftists are embarrassed by this stuff.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:00 PMIt's been twenty five years now, and the AP has a story of the anniversary of the Love Canal debacle. It was the event that created the insane Superfund for environmental cleanup, most of the money for which is siphoned off into lawyer's wallets.
And of course, what the AP doesn't mention is that it wasn't Hooker Chemical's fault--they just ended up being the fall guy for stupid bureaucrats.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:21 AMFour marines were attacked and wounded in San Juan Capistrano. When will they learn that they're not welcome there? We need to have elections as soon as possible, and remove the occupying forces. October 7 isn't soon enough.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:48 PMJoanna Weiss has an article in the Boston Globe about blogs and their growing influence on politics, using Oliver Willis and the Dean campaign as an example.
And wonder of wonders, there's no mention of Instapundit.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:41 AMGennifer Flowers' defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton has been reinstated.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:27 AMBecause they have Charlie Rangel as one of their spokesmen (sorry, no good URL):
The U.S. acted illegally when its soldiers attacked and killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, a leading Democratic congressman complained on Tuesday, before mocking the military maneuver that succeeded in eliminating the brutal duo.Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:42 PM"We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody," Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."
"We tried to assassinate Castro and we paid dearly for it," the Rangel contended. "And when you personalize the war and you say you're killing someone's kids, then they, in turn, think they can kill somebody."
When an incredulous Sean Hannity expressed dismay at Rangel's comments, the Harlem Democrat shot back, "How can you get so much satisfaction that two bums have been killed? We got bums all over the world and some in the United States."
Then Rangel mocked the U.S. military's success in killing the two Hussein heirs, saying, "I personally don't get any satisfaction that it takes 200,000 troops, 250,000 troops, to knock off two bums."
Here's my nomination for the most obtuse blog post in response to the news that Saddam's sons are with their virgins (or not--my hope is that they're shoveling brimstone sans air conditioning).
Read the 200+ comments as well, if you can get through it (I'm not referring to the length...)
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:31 PMThe anti-globo morons have come up with some brilliant and practical ideas to deal with the G8's choice of Sea Island for the next summit.
A posting by the group Food Not Bombs in Berkeley, Calif., said it may build a "a floating food warehouse and communal kitchen to serve delicious vegan meals to participants arriving at the island by kayak."Or perhaps protesters could take up a collection to buy one of Sea Island's 500 "cottages," which range in price from $1.3 million to $18 million.
"If ten-thousand people chipped in half a grand each, we could collectively own it, and then throw a REALLY BIG HOUSEWARMING PARTY," wrote a messager using the name "mj," who included a link to real estate listings on Sea Island's Web site. "It'd have to be illegal to keep us off the island."
But here's my favorite:
One messager using the name "wispy" suggested trying to breach the island with flotilla of boats flying pirate flags and blaring composer Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries."
I love the smell of salt-sprayed vegans in the morning.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 AMYesterday, in a momentary fit of insanity, I defended Bill Clinton in an email to the Mickster.
Here's what I wrote him:
Mickey--You quoted Bill Clinton as saying "We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block," and implied that it was semantically equivalent to Howard Dean's statement. Now, I'm normally the last person to defend Bill Clinton (or Chris "the weasel" Lehane), but I don't see the two statements as equivalent. Like most of Mr. Clinton's pronouncements, it is somewhat ambiguous and lawyerly.
He's saying that we ought to build a world as though we weren't the most powerful nation in it, even though we are. I don't infer that he's saying that we necessarily may not be in the future (or, of course, that he's not saying that either--as I said, ambiguous). That is, he's making a moral imprecation, not a practical recommendation. Sort of like the Golden Rule.
Dean's statement was much more explicit, and therefore more attackable.
Mark this day--I'll probably never defend Mr. Clinton again (and in fact, I don't agree with his comment, or at least what he actually means by it, which is just more of the transnational gooiness that he and Ms. Albright gave us, and got us into this mess).
Happily, he set me straight. (Sorry, no permalink. It's near the top now, but for archival purposes it's the April 30 posting.)
When provided the full context, I agree that it's clear that Mr. Clinton did mean exactly what Governor Dean said--that we will decline, and we should prepare for it. I'm relieved to know that on the rare occasion that I defend the ex-sinkmeister, that I'm wrong.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:24 AMA reader emails:
Regarding your section "Lies, Damned Lies And Statistics" on your weblog today, you quoted Bob Weiner as saying that THC was the second leading cause of car crashes. I did some quick research and this certainly appears to be false. In fact, the studies specifically find that THC is only statistically significant if used in combination with another drug.See the following links:
The definitive review would appear to be this one, because it appeared in Epidemiologic Reviews:
Unfortunately, this journal does not have full-text articles (or even abstracts) available on-line to that date.
What, a (former) government official lie about effects of illegal drugs? I'm shocked, shocked...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:41 PMWell, the people in Michigan have been allowed to exercise their Second-Amendment rights for a year now, and the handwringers are still waiting for blood to flow in the streets a la Dodge City.
But Michael Zagaroli, a Grand Rapids attorney who represented the state's police chiefs in their fight against the law, said it's too early to draw conclusions."I can't sit here and say there's been a huge problem that has cropped up, but it's only been one year. What may happen over five years? I just have to believe that injecting so many tens of thousands of additional guns into the public realm is not going to lead to good things."
"I have to believe, brother! Testify! Show us the power!"
To heck with rationality, or statistics, or empirical results, or...reality. He has to believe, thus demonstrating that anti-gun hysteria is irrational, and religious in nature (which we knew all along).
Here's another man who remains true to his faith:
Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth expected the worst. He envisioned an armed populace "overreacting" and pulling guns to shoot purse snatchers. He was among 17 prosecutors across the state to quit their county's gun boards in protest of the new law."You just can't convince me that allowing everybody and anybody to carry a gun concealed on their person is going to make it a safer place to live," Forsyth said at the time. He did not return calls for this report.
I particularly like that last sentence. Rather than speaking in tongues, his fervent worship has apparently struck him recently dumb. Errrrr...mute. Based on the above, it sounds like the dumbness has been a longer-term problem.
Oh, but wait!
Maybe this is the reason that Michiganians haven't been perforated and desanguinated in record numbers over the past twelve months--they've been keeping the guns out of the hands of vicious criminals:
"Looking at your application, it shows you have a life- preserver violation," said Ottawa County Assistant Prosecutor Gregory Babbitt, who ran the meeting.Vitunskas sank in his chair as he recalled fishing for catfish on the Grand River in June 2001 with two buddies on his 10-foot, flat-bottom boat. He said he didn't know it was a misdemeanor when he signed the DNR ticket for having two life jackets instead of three.
Sharp eyes, there, Mr. Prosecutor! That's right, we all know that it starts with life preservers, and from there it's straight down the steep and slippery slope to bank robberies.
But not all of the potential evildoers were so obvious:
A Grand Haven man was denied because he pruned a tree while deer hunting in a federal forest -- a misdemeanor......Forrest Brown figured he'd breeze through. The 45-year-old Grand Haven man expected to walk out of Ottawa County's May gun board meeting with a permit. His record is clean, except for the ticket he got from the state DNR in October 2000.
Brown said he didn't know he was committing a misdemeanor when he trimmed branches of scrub oak in a national forest to create a shooting lane for his father, who recently had hip surgery.
Yes, it would never have occurred to me, but the authorities know better--it starts with trimming branches, then it moves on to felling whole trees, and the next thing you know the perp's walking down Grand River Avenue plinking at baby carriages.
But alas--they're not perfect. Here's the one that slipped through the cracks, and really has me wiping sweat from my brow, as I contemplate the potential mayhem now that this fiend has gotten hold of a gun:
"There are still some holes in the system, some substantial holes," she said. "This is very much a self-reporting system. It's likely that if somebody wanted to represent themselves as having a clean record and had knowledge of how to do it, they may get away with it over a period of time."A hole became apparent at a recent Kent County gun board meeting as members considered an applicant named Jason. The board didn't know about his misdemeanor criminal conviction for illegal use of a telephone in Montcalm County until he told them. A background check had turned up nothing.
They gave a gun to a...a...telephone user. And not just any telephone user, either. They gave it to an illegal telephone user. And I'll bet it was a concealed phone, too.
This is a man who shouldn't even be walking the streets, free to call people at will, perhaps telemarketing to them. But no, they not only let him roam free, but these incompetent ninnies give him a gun.
There's no telling what nefarious activities he's carrying out even as I type this, because of their malingering insouciance. He's probably using one hand to sell long-distance service for 4.8 cents a minute, and gunning down innocents with the other.
Well, at least, as we start to get the first news reports from the Great Lake State of the great telephone and gun massacre (I'm sure it will happen any day now, if not any year), some peoples' faith will be justified and renewed, and we'll finally be able to overturn this insane law that allows people to protect themselves.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:39 AMInstantman has been running several long posts on the Pink Pistols (a gay gun-rights group), and their interactions with the NRA. It's interesting to read the whole story, but what struck me about it was the intolerance of the gay and liberal community.
From one of Glenn's correspondents:
I would say there is a consistent bias in the media, both gay and straight but particularly gay, in the way that gun owners and their views on GLBT people are represented. But I don't think it's so much a reporting bias as an editorial bias. Now Steve writes an article on the NRA convention. It says what happened, calls out a speaker who was inappropriate, and talks about the Pink Pistols, giving fair coverage to the point that most gun owners are not homophobic. Steve has done his job. But PlanetOut has never before covered the Pink Pistols in any other context. We've been the fastest growing gay sporting organization in the country, probably the fastest growing gay group, and we've had a pitched legislative battle with a lesbian senator whose most notable achievement was to amend gun- control legislation to allow arbitrary discrimination against anyone, including gay people, and particularly women and the poor (and who was subsequently endorsed by HRC). During that time, news media from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Blade covered the Pink Pistols, but PlanetOut was nowhere to be seen. Hmm.
Continuing along that line, I note that I never read an article in the gay media like "Gay gun owners say NRA members pretty friendly to them". We got positive coverage in Gun Week and Guns & Ammo. Does PlanetOut report that? "Gay gun group praised in Guns & Ammo" is just as important a headline as "At NRA gathering, speakers ridicule gays", isn't it? Everyone expects Schlussel to mouth off, so is that really bigger news than a gay-friendly gun group getting great coverage in gun media and being invited to speak at lots of pro-gun events, which many gay people claim is impossible?
I found it interesting (but no longer surprising, particularly after the Dr. Laura deal), that the gun rights people seem to be much more tolerant of gays, than the gay and liberal community is of gun activists. It really shatters the stereotypes, and further highlights the hypocrisy of their ongoing demands for "acceptance" and "tolerance." Don't expect to read about this in the mainstream press...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:09 AMJonathan Last is shocked to discover that gun owners are not only human, but they're, well...good people.
And I'm shocked to discover that the editor of the Weekly Standard on-line is shocked by this. This, to me, is simply evidence of how pervasive anti-gun hysteria is in our culture.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:51 AMThe always-dependable (when it comes to spouting imbecilities) Richard Reeves sends in a missive from whatever planet he inhabits--it's clearly not this one. The basic theme is that Mr. Bush is not up to the job, and that he will therefore be a one-termer.
It's so full of chocolaty stupidity, I hate to excerpt it, but I will anyway. Fortunately, it's short. His talent (as it were) is such that he manages to pack a whole universe of idiocy in a very brief bit of mental flatulence.
This was a day in the life of the president of the United States, Thursday, April 18, 2002:
Well, it seems to me that things have been a lot more peaceful over there in the past couple weeks. At least no more Israeli bat mitzvahs have been interrupted by murderers disassembling themselves.
No, he's only given to flamboyent language when the subject is Israel. When it comes to Arafat, and his bomb factories, and his exhortations to murder, and his booby-trapped refugee camps, and his unending lies, and his general violation of every single tenet of the Oslo agreement for which he won his Norwegian peace prize, our Norwegian friend seems to have lost his tongue.
Yes, Richard. This is war. And even if weren't, people are often killed in training (typically a couple dozen per year in each service, I believe). It is tragic, but these are real weapons, with real explosives, and sometimes things happen. It's not a good day for a President when they do, but it's certainly not a challenge to his presidency.
Incompetent? He seems to be pretty competent at retaining power, like most thugs. And I didn't hear Mr. Bush say any such thing, but then, as I say, Mr. Reeves lives on a different plane of existence.
From there he drifts off into total incoherence and irrelevance. And when I get to the end, I still don't know why Bush will only serve one term.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:19 PMWhat an interesting day to break this story--the seventh anniversary of the OKC bombing.
If it's to be believed, the Clinton Administration and FBI covered up evidence that Terry Nichols met with Iraqi agents prior to the bombing.
Why? We may never know for sure, but I would presume that it was more politically useful for Mr. Clinton, in the midst of his post-1994-loss-of-Congress irrelevancy, to demonize the American "right wing," in the form of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and to not distract people from that with Middle East connections that would then have to be actually dealt with...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:11 PMIt will be interesting to see what effect this will have in November at the polls. If it's true, the Dems are in big, big trouble.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:09 PMRemember the vandalism to the White House by outgoing Clinton Administration staffers, that was later denied (and basically ignored by the Bush Administration, which wanted to "set a new tone")?
Well, the GAO has confirmed that it was true.
Those who have seen the GAO report, a preliminary document, say as many as 75 computer keyboards had to be replaced -- at a cost of more than $5,000 -- because Clinton staffers had broken off the W keys, a jab at George W. Bush, the winner of the bitterly contested 2000 presidential election, who was often referred to during the campaign as W.
I wonder if those are special keyboards of some kind? Seventy bucks for a keyboard seems kind of pricy, but I tend to go for the five-dollar specials at Fry's.
Two historic doorknobs were stolen from the Old Executive Office Building along with a presidential seal, valued at $350, said the sources, who could not detail how the rest of the damages were inflicted.
Chairs and telephone tables were broken, desks were overturned, garbage was strewn in offices and telephone lines were cut, the GAO report says, but does not, in each case, attribute the acts to vandalism.
OK, now let's pull the string on the top, and let the spinning begin...
Democrats dismissed the findings of the investigation ? which they say cost about $200,000 to conduct just to find $14,000 in damages.
So, generously assuming that those numbers aren't lies, let me make sure I have this right. No one should have to be held accountable for their actions if the cost of identifying misbehavior exceeds the cost of the actual damages. Is that the argument here?
So, if someone is burgling, and they only steal a couple hundred bucks worth of stuff, but holding a trial might cost many hundreds, or thousands, of dollars, we should just ignore it?
In what moral swamp do these people reside?
And now that the truth is out, it also demonstrates just what kind of juveniles were running the country for eight years.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:11 PMJohn McWhorter and others have described how many of the things that hold blacks back in America are a function of their own cultural attitudes, in which studiousness or scholarship are derided, or even ostracized, as "acting white."
This phenomenon carries through all the way to college, in which many talented people are channeled into "African-American Studies" (just as many innocent women are cheated of a true education in "Women's Studies" departments), rather than into something that offers prospects for professions and productive endeavors beyond being African-American Studies professors.
I ran across this very good article in the Village Voice that deals with the specific issues of black scientists involved with NASA and astronomy, and how they're often denigrated and discouraged by their own community. I highly recommend it.
But less obvious is that NASA's move injects life into color-blind disciplines that black scientists say have been eclipsed within their own community by more overtly Afrocentric pursuits. Some top students lifted their faces from difficult physics textbooks only to receive what amounted to a slap from a black hand.
One example: Two African American undergraduate students on the Harvard University wrestling team were walking from the gym. The younger one, a kid from the Bronx named Neil, complained that his astrophysics courses weren't leaving him time to sleep. The banter stopped as abruptly as their footfalls.
"Blacks in America do not have the luxury of your intellectual talents being spent on astrophysics," declared the elder student, waving his hand in front of Neil's chest. That indictment, recounted in Neil deGrasse Tyson's autobiography, The Sky Is Not the Limit, rings fresh in him today, though he's an astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, where he also teaches classes for the CUNY program.
No, obviously what blacks in America need are more Cornel Wests, not people who discover, and impart real knowledge.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:35 PMI'm seeing some reports from people on the ground in Florida that a story's going to break tomorrow that Juan Gonzales (remember, Elian's poppa?) requested asylum three times from Janet "Roast the Waco Kids" Reno while he was holed up in the Cuban embassy in DC, and was repeatedly denied.
The implications for both the integrity of the INS during the Clinton administration, and Janet's gubernatorial bid, are immense.
[Wednesday morning update]
While it isn't direct confirmation of the original rumor, the Miami Herald is reporting that INS was considering granting asylum to Elian, because there was some evidence that Poppa had requested it for himself. The real news, though, is that Doris Meissner ordered the relevant memo destroyed the day after it was written, and furthermore, ordered that no more written communications on the subject occur.
I wonder if Ms. Meissner's phone logs are available, and if they'll show any calls from the White House?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:38 PMCommenting on my post about a possible Iraqi connection to OKC, fellow blogger John Hudnall makes an additional point that's worth repeating.
After 911, Bill Clinton was whining to his toadies and sycophants about how cruel and unfair history was--he never had an opportunity to be a great president, because he didn't get to preside over a war. That sum'bitch Bush just had all the luck.
But as I pointed out, there was a lot of evidence of international connections to the OKC bombing, which was the biggest terrorist attack on US soil up until that time (since the first WTC attempt in 1993 was unsuccessful). But the Administration actively avoided following the evidence trail.
I already pointed out one reason--they wanted to demonize their political enemies, and not dilute any of the blame. But the other reason is perhaps that, had they actually found hard evidence of Iraqi involvement, they would have had to do something about it, and the public would have likely been unimpressed with lobbing a few cruise missiles at aspirin factories. Particularly considering Mr. Clinton's own history, and his cabinet picks, this was not an Administration with either the temperament or talent to fight a real war.
So Mr. Clinton potentially had his opportunity for a war against terrorism in Oklahoma City. He chose instead, as Mr. Hudnall says, to use it for crass domestic partisan advantage. Had he instead sought to find the full truth, and properly responded to it, what happened on September 11 might have been avoided.
And thus the legacy continues to build.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:13 AMMost political observers agree that the Oklahoma City bombing resurrected Bill Clinton's political career, or at least initiated the process. The Democrats had just lost the Congress in the 1994 elections, due to the health-care debacle, gun control, and a number of other overreaches. There were stories in Time and Newsweek about the "incredible shrinking President" and whether or not he was "relevant."
OKC changed all that almost overnight. It not only allowed the Big He to go out on one of his "feel your pain" trips, but he and his minions used it to blast militias, talk radio, and evil Right-Wing Republicans, blaming them and their "hate speech" for the bombing.
All of this slander was contingent, of course, on the fact that the job was done, and done solely, by a member of such a "right-wing group." So Tim McVeigh was the perfect fall guy, from the Administration's point of view. Once they had the goods on him and Nichols, they basically quit looking for anyone else. Remember "John Doe #2"? Few others do, either, because all evidence that could implicate anyone but McVeigh and Nichols was excluded from their trial, and it became quickly forgotten.
While it could be argued that such evidence was irrelevant to the case against them, and thus properly excluded, it was also convenient to those who wanted to demonize the "right," since it allowed the finger of blame to be pointed only at the evil right wingers. That full justice was never served wasn't as important as making clear how evil McVeigh and like-thinking people were.
Well, now that we're digging into terrorism, and terrorist connections, in light of the past few months, some old skeletons may be starting to clatter out of the closet, as described in this article at Insight. In the process of seeking additional justifications to go after Saddam, yet another old Clinton coverup may finally see the light of day.
Note the last, and key, paragraph:
But one thing is clear: Bill Clinton and Janet Reno exulted when they found a domestic conspiracy behind the Oklahoma City bombing, say administration insiders, and immediately ordered the FBI to call off its investigation of any international connection. Details of that connection finally are beginning to emerge.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:02 PMI'm getting a little tired of having my home town of Flint, Michigan being continually slandered and libeled by the Australian oppressor and others, including Michael Moore. He is not from Flint. That benighted town has lots of problems, some even of its own making, but spawning the likes of Michael Moore is not one of them.
According to one of his many contradictory stories, he himself claims that he was raised in rural Lapeer county, and according to one of his fan websites, he was actually born in Davison (now a suburb just east of the growing city, but at that time a small town outside of it). Of course, I didn't have to look it up on the Internet. Being there at the time, I knew that.
In 1954, Michael Moore was born in Davison, Michigan, a suburb of Flint, to an Irish Catholic family of laborers.
Well, now we know that being a laborer is not genetic.
At 14, Moore, impressed by the Berrigans, joined a diocesan seminary. But a year later, he was asked to leave.
What a shocker.
Moore cited girls as the main proponent.
And the girls no doubt cited him as the main repellent.
He was forced to return to Davison High School, where he became a star of the school debate team, a student-government organizer and even authored a school play.
Note: Davison High School. Not a Flint high school.
In 1970, Moore received the Eagle Scout award. His Eagle Scout project was a slide show exposing the worst polluters in Flint.
Was he part of the show? Based on first-hand reports of his personal hygiene habits, inquiring minds want to know.
And we have good reason to be suspicious. After all, he is famous for creating exposes of things for which he himself could be a poster child (e.g., "Stupid White Men").
Though, I suppose he'd be exempt in this particular case, being a resident of Davison.
After high school, Moore worked several jobs, including one at Buick, which he quit on his first day.
How does one "work" a job that one quits on the first day? This is a logical miracle achievable, apparently in some immaculate way, only by someone who is the offspring of "laborers."
In 1972, spurned [sic] on by Donald Priehs, his former government teacher, Moore decided to run for the school board and won; at 18, Moore became the youngest member to sit on the Flint City Council. Shortly after, Moore lobbied to get Priehs fired.
Isn't he a gem?
Moore caused so much trouble for the town that a recall drive was attempted. Moore dropped out of the University of Michigan, Flint because he was too busy suing his town in court.
And the University rejoiced.
Shortly thereafter, he headed out to infest San Francisco, and tormented my poor city no more until he came back in the late '80s to stalk Roger Smith.
And, as someone who was born within the city limits (the year after Mr. Moore) and a resident through my third year of college, I can assure all that Flint is nothing like Manhattan, a fact that I regretted throughout my childhood...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:12 PMEveryone else has been linking to Lileks' latest handiwork, so I wasn't going to bother, but it occurred to me that it would be funny if every time someone googled "Michael Moore," they would get Lileks' screed instead.
So...
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Instantman, in reference to an article about women and the sexual revolution, says:
This kind of stuff, by the way, is the reason why a lot of Democrats who are basically in agreement with the Republican party are still afraid to vote for Republicans.
This seems to be a common attitude among many libertarians (and to the degree that labels apply, I think that one fits Glenn about as well as any), particularly the ones who approached that philosophy from the left (i.e., former Democrats). I once had an extended email discussion (back during the election) with another libertarian friend (who's also a blogger, but shall remain nameless) about how as much as he disliked the socialism of the Democrats, he felt more culturally comfortable with them. Again, this is a prevalent attitude of products of the sixties. You know, Republicans were uptight fascists, and Democrats were idealistic, free-living, and hip.
While I'm not a conservative, my own sexual and drug-taking values (and life style) tend to be. I just don't think that the government should be involved in either of these areas. But my voting pattern is that I'll occasionally vote Republican (I voted for Dole over Clinton, the only time I've ever voted for a Republican for President), but I never vote for a Democrat for any office. The last time I did so was in 1976, and I'd like that one back.
There are at least two reasons for this.
First, I've found many Republicans who are sympathetic to libertarian arguments, and in fact are often libertarians at heart, but see the Republican Party as the most practical means of achieving the goals. There may be some Democrats out there like that, but I've never run into them. That's the least important reason (partly because I may be mistaken, and have simply suffered from a limited sample space). But fundamentally, the Democratic Party, at least in its current form, seems to me to be utterly antithetical to free markets.
But the most important reason is this--while I find the anti-freedom strains of both parties equally dismaying, the Democrats are a lot better at implementing their government intrusions, and there's good reason to think that this will be the case even if the Republicans get full control of the government.
This is because many of the Democratic Party positions are superficially appealing, if you're ignorant of economics and have never been taught critical thinking.
Who can be against a "living wage"? What's so bad about making sure that everyone, of every skin hue, gets a fair chance at a job? Why shouldn't rich people pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes?--they can afford it. Are you opposed to clean air and water? What's wrong with you? How can you be against social security--do you want old folks to live on Kibbles and Bits?
To fight these kinds of encroachments on liberty requires a lot of effort and argument and, in the end, it often loses anyway. Consider for example, the latest assault on the First Amendment that passed the Senate today, sixty to forty. Many Republicans voted against it. I don't think any Democrats did.
[Thursday morning update: Best of the Web notes that two Democrats did vote against it--John Breaux and Ben Nelson. Good for them. They also have a hall of shame for the Republicans who voted for it.]
On the other hand, the things that libertarians like Glenn and Nameless fear that conservatives will do (e.g., in matters sexual), are so repugnant to most Americans that they'll never get made into law, and if they do, the legislators who do so will quickly get turned out of office. So, you have to ask yourself, even if you dislike the attitude of people who are uncomfortable with the sexual revolution, just what is it, realistically, that you think they'd actually do about it if you voted for them?
The bottom line for me is that Democrats have been slow-boiling the frog for decades now, and they're very good at it. I tend to favor Republicans, not because I necessarily agree with their views on morality, but because I see them as the only force that can turn down the heat on the kettle, and that they're very unlikely to get some of the more extreme policies that they may want, because the public, by and large, views them as extreme.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:01 PMJust in case there was any doubt, Harry Browne has completely lost it. As a libertarian, this saddens me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:32 AMDennis Prager is on fire about the Red Cross banning songs with the words "God" or "prayer" from their event in Orange County. His take is that they didn't really apologize--they just regretted that anyone found their decision offensive. It's not quite that bad. If you read their press release, they do admit that they made a "mistake in judgment," but the general tone is as Dennis said. They stand by whatever "principles" resulted in that judgment.
This is political correctness run utterly amok, and it seems to have appropriately ignited a firestorm when carried out by an organization called the American Red Cross.
As Dennis says, by their warped criteria, they can't say "American" and they can't say "Cross" because these terms are deemed potentially offensive.
That only leaves "Red."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:26 AMThe budget crisis in Sacramento may affect California's bond ratings with S&P. This bombshell will hit this summer, when people are starting to pay attention to the race.
While Davis is indeed a vicious campaigner, I don't think that anything that he can do at this point can reverse his negatives in peoples' minds. The Republicans could probably run Goofy against him and win in November. Simon is still ahead in the latest Field Poll (though it's within the margin of error).
But when an incumbent can only get 40% support for reelection right after the primary, he's in deep, deep kimchi.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:54 PMI want to thank Glenn for pointing out that my knuckles don't drag (and Richard Bennett, for implying that they do--as long as he spells the URL right...). Well, maybe on the keyboard...
Anyway, higher praise than that no man can ask.
And actually, I was pointing to Free Republic primarily for entertainment value (which it always provides, on several levels)--not to buttress my own arguments.
And Richard, really...
Astute politicians know how to navigate these new political waters, as Riordan did in LA...
It is to laugh. "Astute politicians" don't spit in the face of the core constituency of their party, as Riordan did. McCain made the same mistake. They also don't willfully give copious campaign donations, and aid and comfort, to the opposite party. I mean, come on, he gave donations to Maxine Waters. And you call that an astute Republican politician?
It's possible to run as a moderate without demonizing your own base, but Dick Riordan sure didn't know how to do it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:19 PMI don't think so.
Ken Layne's latest Fox News column is up. He (an admitted Democrat-turned-temporary-Republican) bemoans the fact that California Republicans seem suicidal because they won't nominate a Democrat (Riordan) to run against Grayout Davis.
Well, he's right that California Republicans like to lose, but it's not because they nominate conservative candidates. It's because they take occasionally idiotic policy positions (like Prop 187), or nominate candidates who are even more colorless than Gray (e.g., Matt Fong, Pete Wilson).
If running as a liberal/moderate was such a great idea, why did Mike Huffington lose, Ken? Bruce Herschenson was the last interesting candidate that they ran in my memory, and he came close to beating Barbara Boxer. He primarily lost because it was "the year of the (Democratic) woman," and some last-minute dirty tricks.
Anyway, sorry, Ken, win or lose in November (I actually think he's got a good shot, given the quality of the opposition, the lingering memories of the energy fiasco, and the changed mood of the country) Bill Simon is almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee. And it's not because Republicans like to lose. It's because they like to run Republicans--particularly Republicans who don't go out of their way to sneer at the base.
[Update at 11:13 AM PST]
Joseph Britt agrees with Ken, and disagrees with me.
California conservatives are much happier complaining about liberals than actually exercising power themselves.
You don't exercise power as a conservative by electing a Richard Riordan. To a conservative (a category in which I don't place myself, by the way), Riordan is actually to the left of Davis on many issues. They just don't see the point.
The GOP primary wouldn't even have been close if they'd thrown their weight behind Bill Jones, but he wasn't pure enough or rich enough.
Blame the White House for that. Riordan is their creation. Now they're desperately making overtures to Simon, since they can read the handwriting. Simon will be a much stronger candidate than Jones, partly for the same reason he's trouncing Jones--he can bring his own money to the table.
With Rudy's endorsement, and Bush coming out here to campaign for him, and the upcoming budget battles in Sacramento, in which Davis will be blamed for the lack of funds due to his idiotic energy deals, I think that almost anyone will be able to knock him off this fall.
[Another update at 11:30 AM PST]]
The folks over at Free Republic are masticating Ken's column and spitting it out. Many are making the same points that I do (though in a less genteel way). But then, I like Ken...
[Yet another update, at 11:46 AM PST]
Hugh Hewitt weighs in as well (on the race--not on Ken's column)--he's for Simon as well, and says why:
I decided on Simon after interviewing all three GOP candidates on my radio program last week. He's upbeat, energized, ready to answer baseless attacks, and he doesn't condescend to the voter. After the attacks on America, Simon is an almost ideal candidate to deliver the big three: honor, candor, and purpose. Simon will not only run strong in California, he's a perfect new face for the GOP nationally as well.
The central issue in California in 2002 is the almost breathtaking incompetence of Gray Davis, a career political hack who found himself in the biggest job in the state and froze. On issue after issue Davis has fumbled the ball and called it a touchdown. He believes he can spin himself out of his disastrous handling of the state power shortage and his mismanagement of the state's budget. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" is not a question for voters, it's a laugh line. As the Simon campaign reminds people, Davis' slogan four years ago was "Experience money can't buy." Now we know why --there'd be no takers, period.
So Davis will attack, and attack, and attack. Here is where the real Reagan parallel comes in. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter was surrounded by the ruins of his first term in office and confronting an upbeat optimist from the West Coast in Reagan. So Carter attacked, again and again, and tried to persuade America that Reagan was a reckless ideologue. But 1980 was one of those years in which the American voter was unwilling to be spun. Americans were held hostage, and a war had broken out in Afghanistan. It was time for a change, and a big one. Reagan won in a walk.
Sound familiar? If Bill Simon stays upbeat and on message, if he focuses on California's tottering economy and collapsed schools, and if he conveys the same wide-open embrace of all hard-working Americans, the worst governor in California's history will also be the first one in a century to lose his first campaign for re-election.
[Yet another update, at 1 PM PST]
Richard Bennett comments:
California's not the same state it was in the Reagan Era, it's not even the same state is was the Pete Wilson Era -- a lot of the Mexicans that Wilson went loopy over have registered to vote, and they take great pleasure in voting. It's not the same state it was in 1994 when Reeps won a majority in the Assembly, either. But it's still a state where most Republican voters believe that the Governor's job has something to do with Roe v. Wade or the Second Amendment.
Well, it's not just Republican voters who seem to believe that. And they aren't asking for a governor to do anything with the Second Amendment--they just want one who will recognize its existence, and support things like e.g., concealed carry, and oppose things like state "assault weapon" bans.
In a democracy, we get the government we deserve; since Reeps nominated Dan Lungren last time, that means we get Gray. In a Simon- Davis matchup, as soon as the Dems learn that Simon has never held office and is ardently anti-abortion, we're gonna deserve four more years of Gray as our penalty for being stupid.
If being anti-abortion is a problem, then it must mean that Democrat and independent voters also believe that a governor has something to do with Roe v Wade. I think that he can get around this problem, if he has competent campaign managers.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:24 AMShiloh Bucher pointed me to an article on the electoral college, and why it would be a very bad idea to get rid of it. Over a year after the Florida debacle, it's easier to discuss this a little more dispassionately, but I suspect that whatever hysterical movements were afoot at that time to abolish it are also much diminished, to the point of irrelevance.
But it's worth making one more point about it, that was never really discussed at the time. Many bemoaned the fact that Bush was elected with less than fifty percent of the vote (though he got a higher percentage than Bill Clinton in either election), and more legitimately, that he got a lower percentage than Gore. But you can't change the rules after the election. I know for a fact that in my case, had the election been predicated on the most popular vote, I would have voted differently.
I wanted Bush to win, given the realistic alternatives, but because I am a Wyoming voter, I knew that it was safe to vote for someone else, because Bush was going to win Wyoming handily anyway. I also knew that the popular vote could be close (though I expected Bush to win it with margin to spare). As it turned out, I voted for Nader (holding my nose) just on the theory that if he got enough votes he would be eligible for future public funding, which would make him an ongoing thorn in the Democrats' side, and I was confident that he had no chance of winning, especially in Wyoming. But if it was to have been solely decided on the popular vote, I certainly would have voted for Bush.
That's just one reason why attempts to change the rules after the election were just...wrong.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:53 PMDick Riordan had a rough weekend at the California Republican convention. He lost the straw poll, was booed several times, has received numerous negative endorsements from many party luminaries, and was stalked by a guy in a rhinocerous costume, symbolizing his perception as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). George Deukmajian (former governor) has stated flat out that he will not support a Riordan candidacy.
Bill Simon, who won the straw poll, is coming on strong. He's getting some key endorsements, and he's got plenty of his own money. People have been predicting another potential Bloomberg-like win here, with the liberal Riordan running as a Republican of convenience, but I think it's looking less and less likely that he'll get the nomination. Party activists tend to be much more conservative than the even the registered Republican voters, especially in California.
And if he does, I fully expect to see a third-party movement spring up, led by Mr. Simon. It's not clear to me whether he'd pull more votes from Riordan or Davis...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:13 AMIf you're interested in a view from an alternate universe, you may be interested in news from the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK). When a country has to include both "democratic" and "republic" in its name, it's a safe bet that it's neither...
Anyway, there are several amusing articles there, with titles like, U.S. use of biological and chemical weapons assailed, KCNA on U.S. futile attempts, Bush's projected trip to S. Korea opposed, and Full play to advantages of Korean socialist economic management called for.
Some of the articles are en espanol. Don't ask why.
They also have an enlightening article about the Dear Leader, called Anecdotes about President Kim Il Sung. It's a real hoot:
...when the president gave field guidance to Kaesong area on September 14, Juche 61 (1972). He asked officials there what was the special food of the area.
None of them could give a correct answer to the questions repeatedly put by him in the course of the on-the-spot guidance.
While visiting factories in the city he met old men who had lived there for years and found out that loach soup was a special food of the city.
And he made sure that a new restaurant was built there to serve only loach soup to the customers.
Markets? We don't need no stinkin' markets! We've got a leader.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:26 PMThe paper formerly known as the Paper of Record says that Jesse Jackson won't judge Ken Lay.
Hey, those dodgy bookkeepers have to hang together, or they'll hang separately. Besides, we all know that Jesse's always looking for the good in every Lay.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:34 AMPolitically, it was a home run.
And from a war standpoint, I could have asked for no more.
From a policy standpoint, I found it disappointing on the domestic front.
While it was general and thematic, the themes were definitely not federalist or classically liberal ones--we, the federal government, are responsible for security, local and national; we, the federal government, are responsible for your health care; we, the federal government, are responsible to see that you have a job, or get prescription drugs, or don't get screwed if the company you work for goes under. We, the federal government, are responsible for your lives--not you.
On the other hand, it's good political strategy. It looks to me like Rove & Co. have made a political judgment that they want to put the Dems in a box, and take back the Senate, and build their strength in the House. We didn't get into this socialist mess overnight, and we won't get out of it quickly either. I'm willing to wait until 2005 to start to roll back this crap--I just wish that I had some sense that this was really what they're planning...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 PMI'm wondering on just what planet Brian Linse was living during the Clinton Administration that could cause him to type the following with (presumably) a straight face (re: Ken Lay):
Regardless of what illegal shenanigans the Enron boys may or may not have gotten up to in the past, Bush will and should be judged for having such a miserable scumbag as a close friend and supporter. Even with all of his problems, the Slick One never had an albatross like Lay around his neck.
Ummmm, let's see, just off the top of my head...
Dan Lasater (Convicted Drug Dealer)
David Hale (Convicted of Fraud)
Jim And Susan McDougal (Convicted Fraud Artists)
Buddy Young (Strong-Arm Enforcer)
Jorge Cabrera (Convicted Drug Dealer)
Web Hubbell (Convicted Felon)
Arthur Coia (Corrupt Union Official)
Ron Brown (Corrupt Commerce Secretary)
Marc Rich (Fugitive From The Law)...
I'd go on, but I don't want to get carpal tunnel syndrome.
[Thursday morning update]
And I didn't even mention the relatives...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:21 PMEveryone's been noting that this is the anniversary of Roe v Wade, but it's also the first anniversary of the introduction of that Congressional abomination, the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance" (read, "make the world safe for continued major-media free-speech monopoly") legislation.
Fortunately, it didn't pass, but in following the time-honored rule of hijacking current events to pass ill-thought-out and irrelevant legislation (see, e.g., gun control and Columbine, or Airline Security Bill and 911), the fall back position of the Democrats, should they not be able to pin Enron on the Bush Administration, will be to use it to pass some new campaign finance law.
In honor of the anniversary, I went back and read the bill.
The part I like the best is where no one can buy any ads within sixty days of an election. As an exercise for the lawyers in the audience, go back and read a few copies of the NYT and WaPo during October of 2000, and see if they broke the theoretical law by providing in-kind ads to various candidates.
In other words, since they sell column-inches, column-inches for their own editorial content could be considered to be of value (since they had to forgo advertising revenue for it). Thus anything that they print in preference to ads could be considered purchasing ad space for themselves. If they used it to put forth points of view favorable to one candidate or another, either on the editorial page, or even in the so-called "objective" news stories, then it seems to me that one could make a case against them under McCain-Feingold.
It will be quite amusing if the bill or something similar to it passes (well, actually, that won't be very amusing at all) and ironic, if someone actually files such a complaint against them, since they're the biggest cheerleaders for the legislation, and their hero McCain.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:31 PMThere's been a little ongoing discussion amongst Alex Knapp, the Uberblogger, and Boja Willy at Protein Wisdom, about the justice of prison rape (at least, I think that's what the discussion is about).
I've got to go with Alex on this one. California politician Bill Lockyer was rightly castigated when he wished upon Ken Lay a sodomizing roommate named "Spike" a few months ago. That rape ever occurs in our prison system is an appalling indictment of it as an expensive, inhumane failure (at least to the degree that we have any hope for it being rehabilitative--it's hard to see how this can contribute to an offender becoming a better citizen later), and the cause is the private (and occasionally public, as in l'affaire Lockyer vs Lay) attitudes and casual acceptance or blind eyes of our public officials to it. The War on (Some) Drugs, by overpopulating the system with non-violent offenders who are even more vulnerable to the few violent predators who haven't been removed from it, in order to make room for them, makes it even worse.
If we truly believe that forced copulation is an appropriate punishment for anyone (though I have trouble conceiving of that as a just desert for anyone except perhaps, in the spirit of eye for eye, a rapist or child molestor), then we should make it the explicit punishment in law, and see if it will get past the Supreme Court and Bill-of-Rights scrutiny (gee, sounds like "cruel and unusual" to me, but what do I know...). Instead, we have a system in which the prison warden is simply given tremendous and arbitrary power over the well-being and ultimate punishment of the prisoners, far beyond what most legislators intended, or even conceived, when defining punishments for various illicit behaviors. And we all know what Lord Acton said about power...
[Monday Errata]
In my original post, I attributed the "Spike" comment about Ken Lay to Secretary of State Bill Jones. A thousand apologies. It was Attorney General Bill Lockyer who, as chief law enforcement officer for the state of California, should be even more ashamed of himself.
[2:10 PST Update]
Reader Quinbus Flestrin has a useful expansion on my theme:
Your presumption that rehabilitation is even a legal purpose of prisons or imprisonment in California is in error. Our betters have made it clear that they do not want anyone ever convicted of any crime to become "better citizens". They just want to put people away, preferably for nonviolent and victimless "moral" offenses, and use them for slave labor.
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
SECTION 1170-1170.9
1170. (a) (1) The Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment. This purpose is best served by terms proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with
provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offense under similar circumstances. The Legislature further finds and declares that the elimination of disparity and the provision of uniformity of sentences can best be achieved by determinate sentences fixed by statute in proportion to the seriousness of the offense as determined by the Legislature to be imposed by the court with specified discretion.
* * end CPC cite * *
This provision, enacted overwhelmingly in the 80s IIRC, takes "rehabilitation" out of any legal issues regarding prisons. The only issue is whether punishment is "cruel and unusual". As prison rape is hardly "unusual", the only issue left is whether it is "cruel". Even that is mooted by SCOTUS rulings (don't ask for a cite, but IIRC the sainted "conservative" Thomas wrote one such decision), that "cruelty" can only be an issue in the *sentence*, not in how the sentence is carried out. If the judge doesn't say "I sentence you to be raped in prison", there is no issue.
So, if prison administrators, or prosecutors, decide to set forth prison rape as a policy (the administrators by encouraging it, the prosecutors by not prosecuting offenders), there is no real legal impediment to their doing so. (Don't ever believe a prosecutor who says they have no discretion over which criminal accusations to prosecute--they have complete discretion.)
With the passage of California's Prop. 21 in '98 or so, prosecutors now have virtually complete discretion in whether juveniles are tried and sentenced as adults. Around the same time, Prop. 179 allowed prisons to contract out prisoners for labor in private industry.
The circuit for moral and financial corruption in California's criminal "justice" system is complete. Prosecutors and police can select children for rape fodder to be used by prison administrators to further debase and corrupt their prisoner slave laborers.
Those who voted for such propositions, or who supported legislators enacting such laws, and who further cried out for more harsh criminal court procedures and sentencing, and "zero tolerance" for kids who even unwittingly carry a plastic butterknife to make their school lunch sandwiches, can now congratulate themselves. Of course, when their child is sent up the river to be Bubba's girlfriend for carrying a butterknife to school in his lunchbox, they'll whine that they didn't really mean it. But the courts will say "Tough, the law is unambiguous. Government can do any of this. It's nice work if you can get it. If you don't like it, change the law."
Don't get me started on "Zero Intelligence^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HTolerance." I'll save that rant for another post.
Moral: Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.
Indeed.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:39 PMIn an article titled "The Enron Box," author Matt Bivens and The Nation attempts once again to pin the tail on the elephant.
Here's the lead sentence:
When George W. Bush co-owned the Houston Astros and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron.
Only one problem. Bush co-owned the Texas Rangers, not the Houston Astros.
Do you, like me, wonder what else they got wrong? Considering the source, is it even worth bothering to read the rest?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:11 PMIn the most recent year, nine out of ten of shooting fatalities in Kenya were police shootings, according to this story.
One must get a certificate in order to own a firearm in Kenya. This is issued only after a detailed personal investigation and must be justified.
But police and other public officers and members of rifle clubs are the exception to the rule.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:50 PMFor all those fantasists who think that Enron will be George Bush's Whitewater (and who, like Bob Scheer, apparently never had the cerebral propensity to understand Whitewater), the WSJ has an entertaining little reminder of the real Whitewater, and the continuing stark difference between this administration and the previous one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:41 AMDavid Carr has a little commentary at Samizdata on Amnesty International, which, in its support for gun control, is shown to be yet another "average post- modernist left-wing lobby group":
Far from being a 'Candle in the Darkness', Amnesty International is just another one of those organisations that know everything about human rights and nothing at all about human liberties.
Not to mention human nature...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:56 PM...should be an Olympic event for liberal pundits. I haven't said much about the Enron situation, other than to point out that the only administration for which there is actually any evidence that favors were granted to Enron for political contributions was the Clinton Administration.
But Shields and Brooks on MacLehrer tonight was hilarious, watching the mental and logical contortions that Mark Shields was going through to try to pin the tail on the elephant. Given the paucity of real scandals, after the scandal du jour, the scandal continuum of the previous administration, this is the pathetic state to which their desperation finally leads them.
First, it was the old ploy of guilt by association and reputation--most of Enron's contributions went to Republicans, Bush was good buds with Lay, then he tried to deny it, Bush has a reputation of being for the wealthy and powerful, blah, blah, blah..
When Brooks points out what I did previously--that Enron actually did get rides on diplomatic missions in exchange for contributions to the DNC and White House (with associated eventual contracts)--and there is not only no evidence that the Bush Administration helped Enron when they asked for it, but that instead there is abundant evidence that they hung them out to dry, then Shields says, "Well, it's not what they did, it's what they didn't do. They wanted to not be regulated."
Then, when it is pointed out that if this is what they wanted, and they actually got it (not at all clear), it seemed to not do them any good, since they are now bankrupt, the story shifts again. "Well, but they're such crumbums, letting their business go under, and their stock melt down, and hurting all those employees, and widows, and orphans, and their puppy dogs." Thus we progress from "Enron bribed the Bush Administration to grant them favors" to "the heartless Bush Administration let Enron go under, hurting all those poor people..." (This is a tactic that Henry Waxman is shifting to as well.)
I suspect that this whole thing is going to go over about as well as Daschle's absurd attempt to blame the depth of the recession on tax cuts that haven't happened yet (i.e., like a uranium Hindenburg).
If there is a scandal here, it's not a campaign finance scandal (unless the SEC was paid off to look the other way). It is a scandal of corporate governance and the accountability of accountants, and while Enron is about to go mammaries up almost immediately, it's also going to be long-term damaging (and appropriately so) to Arthur Anderson.
The latter company has built itself into an accounting and consultancy powerhouse, but if we are to judge by the Enron case, its clients have been getting poor value for their money (unless their intention is to use it as a high-paid consiglieri to keep a double, or even triple set of books, which are promptly burned at the first sign of the G-men...). This is what Enron paid twenty-seven megabucks for? Nice work, if you can get it. And stay out of jail...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:40 PMFor those who were complaining about some peoples' (including moi) "insensitive" comments about the recent departure of the Clinton canine, here's an interesting little nugget from Andrew Sullivan's lunch with Dick Morris.
I also inquired about Buddy. All Dick said was that he had never seen Clinton so much as touch a dog in private. Figures.
Assuming that you believe Dick Morris (I always will, when it comes to his word against that of an admitted perjurer), this is why I had no compunction about Buddy commentary. Like his Wyoming vacation, or tears-on-command at Ron Brown's funeral, Buddy was a show dog--Clinton probably ran a focus group beforehand to figure out which breed he should get.
I feel bad for Buddy, but he's in a better place now. It's hard for me to work up much sympathy for a sociopath.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 AMAnother great read from Mark Steyn.
...Let's take it as a given that George W. Bush lacks the intelligence to hold down a really demanding job like columnist at the New York Times or Slate. Let?s take it as read that he's a stupid man leading the stupid party of a stupid country. Granted all that, his blissful indifference to the hotshots of the International Who's Who is as brilliant a distillation of global reality as any. Bush couldn't name the Prime Minister of Hoogivsadamistan, but in the weeks before 11 September, having already spotted his predecessor's neglect of the matter, his administration was working on new strategies to combat international terrorism. What a chump, eh? Too dumb to be Prime Minister of Canada.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:01 PMHere's a nice little bit of news from the Flint Journal, my old home-town newspaper.
Concealed weapons permits are up 400% since the new CCW law passed in Michigan, but for some reason, contrary to hysterical warnings from the gun-(i.e., freedom)-control movement, the place hasn't turned into the Wild West. In fact, there's been no noticeable increase in gun crimes...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:11 PMAccording to the AP, Bill and Hillary Clinton were "deeply saddened" at the news that their dog, Buddy, was "hit by a car." It was an "accident."
Best of the Web helpfully points out the other occasions when the Clintons were "deeply saddened."
I suspect that a couple of those 2200+ occasions were the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown. I wonder if Buddy was about to write a tell-all book?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:30 PMJohn Leo has a nice little piece this morning on the continued glum and frustration of the chatterati, as all of the multi-culti, anti-freedom values they've been pushing for decades are being rejected by the American people in the wake of the September attacks.
The big picture is galling, too. Leading roles on the national stage haven't been played by the thinking elite but by the semi-disdained non-chatterers who act physically in the real world: the military, the police, firefighters, agents of the CIA. And the values of the non-chatterers -- heroism, patriotism, self-sacrifice -- are on the rise. Crowds aren't lining the streets and holding up "Thank you, chatterers" signs as pundits and professors drive by...
...None of the elite's wartime moves have worked. The effort to avoid U.S. retaliation for Sept. 11 by calling in the United Nations was a non-starter. The attempt to demonize the "racial profiling" of Muslims at airports fell flat, rejected by huge majorities, including a large majority of blacks. The left's mind-boggling attempt to turn the anti-globalization crusade into a '60s-style "campaign against war and racism" also collapsed. Even more amazing was the refusal of the feminist movement to support any show of force against the Taliban. Let's see, who shall we support? America or fanatics who deny all rights to women and whip them on the street if they walk too noisily? Hmmm. Too close to call.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:40 AMGuess I spoke a little too soon yesterday--the Washington Post did run their obligatory JFK-death anniversary story, with all the usual foofaraw about "lost youth and promise," with the bonus, this year, of attempting to put it in the context of what happened on September 11. They failed, in my humble opinion.
Still, I think there was a lot less attention paid to the anniversary this year than in any previous year--possibly just because it got crowded out by falling on Thanksgiving, but also, I think, because of the dramatic change in the national mood this year. Not to imply that they necessarily have that much in common, but both peace protests and JFK worship seem passe this fall.
Thanks to Glenn Reynolds who, in picking up on my comment yesterday, brought it to the attention of Best of the Web. My first (and hopefully not last) appearance there. Even though it's indirect, they spelled the URL right, so it can't hurt traffic. I'm curious to see just what kind of spike I get.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:21 PMIn response to my comments on David Brin's piece, a reader suggests that:
I don't relish a fire fight in the cabin, but I suspect that the only damage to the aircraft from small arms fire would be the flying flesh and blood. That would be very rare if everyone could be armed. The crime rate in concealed carry states appears to be dropping. There have been few or no reported instances of licensed individuals starting trouble and many just the opposite. So there's the answer pass out Browning 9's at the gate to any one who wants one (collect a deposit of course).
I call that the Archie Bunker solution, because Archie once proposed it during the heyday of hijackings to Cuba. Norman Lear obviously thought that it was a ridiculous idea (as was his opinion of almost all ideas attributed to Archie), but after 911, it has more appeal to me, at least relative to our current approach. However, to say it is better than the current philosophy is to damn it with faint praise, and I am more than a little nervous about untrained people with heavy weaponry on board.
My preferred solution is to allow anyone who is licensed to carry on the ground to be able to carry on board. That would include active and retired military and law enforcement, and citizens with CCW permits (though the state-specific issues with CCW complicates life quite a bit--how would one handle a flight from DFW to Logan?). In addition, flight crew should be allowed to be armed, with stun guns and pepper spray for flight attendants, and there should be a little pepper sprayer in the back of every seat. Make sure there are harsh penalties if air ragers use it for non-self-defense purpose. Anyone who attempts to put on a pepper-spray-proof mask gets tasered and subdued immediately
I do believe that the current approach does little to improve safety, and is destroying not only the airline industry, but is extremely damaging to the economy. In fact, this weekend, I may take a WAG at just what the hidden costs of the current airline security fiasco are--I've seen no one else do it.
A reader notes that:
There's an old joke about carrying your own bomb on a plane as the probability of two bombs on the same plane is nill.......ultimately the terrorist who seems adapt at forging passports will do the same thing with CCW permits.
True, but beside the point. The purpose of the permit is not to exclude terrorists and criminals who may indeed forge one--it's just to keep the clueless from carrying, as it is in the rest of society. Under my scenario, I fully expect a determined terrorist to be able to carry a weapon on board. What I don't expect is for him to bother--the notion that there will be others on board with weapons who know how to use them, and he won't know who they are, or how many, will deter.
There is no substitute for stopping the terrorist before he gets anywhere near the airplane...like stop him while he is still in the cave in Afganistan.
True, if possible. But I'm not sure that it always will be--we must be vigilant in addition.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:59 PMApparently, prayer in NY public schools is OK, as long as you're Muslim. Now, I'm not real big on praying myself, and in fact think that the best way to resolve this issue would be to simply abolish public schools, but given that that's not going to happen any time soon, can someone from the ACLU explain to me why you can pray to Allah, but not to Christ, in a public school? Why a generic prayer (or even a moment of silence) is "government establishment of religion," but an explicitly Islamic prayer on school grounds, during school hours, is not? My email address can be found to the left, for any who wish to take up the challenge...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:01 AMA few weeks ago, I asked the rhetorical question--since 911, are Democrats still calling some members of the opposite party "Taliban Republicans," as Julian Bond did at the NAACP convention last summer?
Question answered. Apparently, according to US News and World Report:
Democratic lawmakers have adopted the language of the antiterror war to mock Republican conservatives, especially Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, House Majority Leader Dick Armey and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay.
Says a prominent Democrat: "They're the Republican Taliban."
I wonder how that prominent Democrat would feel if he (or she) and colleagues were called "the Stalinist wing of the Democratic party"? It would be equally odious, and equally accurate.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:55 AMBrit Hume on Fox News just blasted what happened up on the Hill today. Apparently, the House just decided to close up shop because of the anthrax scare. The irony is that the only place that it's been found is on the Senate side, and they're staying in session. Brit appropriately pointed out that for all of the fuss and fury, we have had only one death, and only one serious illness from this, that the situation has been overhyped (e.g., it turns out that all the claims about the Senate attack being "weapons grade" were nonsense), and that if we're going to react like this to such a relatively trivial concern, what will we do when we really have a major problem?
Right on, and I wish more of the press would be as clear thinking and rational as Brit. Congress is supposed to lead by example. Now, normally, I'm all in favor of Congress shutting down, and recessing early, on general principles, but this sends the entirely wrong message to whoever has been sending out these little love letters--that for a tiny investment in "powdery subtances" (aka powder, even wheat flour) and postage, they can shut down the American government.
Denny, you're supposed to be a wrestling coach. Get a testosterone injection.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:23 AM
.