A Second Hand Conjecture

Dilbert

No Comments »

There’s a lot that can be said about the “stimulus bill” winding it’s way through our legislative process, but nothing compares with just seeing what’s in the bill. McQ over at QandO does a good job of breaking it down (via NRO.)

No Comments »

Andrew Cochran reports that some media organizations he’s familiar with have reassigned terrorism specialists to investigate Sarah Palin. Andrew sees this as part of a long-term decline of media interest in the threat of transnational terrorism and US counterterrorism policy, in favor of more marketable domestic political squabbling. Atlas on the other hand, takes it as a doubling down of media efforts to defame Palin through the investigation of nugatory gossip. Hmm. The two causalities can coexist quite agreeably, says me.

No Comments »

Edwards, 55, now admits that he had an affair with Hunter, now 44,in 2006, but denies that he is the father of the child she had in February. Andrew Young, another former Edwards aide, has said he is the baby’s father. In a statement released Friday, Edwards said he was willing to take a paternity test; doubtless we’ll hear more on that issue.

But what’s really significant here is the cone of silence the nation’s major newspapers — including The Times — and the cable and broadcast networks dropped over this story when it first appeared in the tabloid during the presidential primary campaign. Next, the Enquirer reported that the unmarried Hunter was pregnant. Still no mainstream media interest. Indeed, never in recent journalistic history have so many tough reporters so closely resembled sheep as those members of the campaign press corps who meekly accepted Edwards’ categorical dismissal of the Enquirer’s allegations. Late last month, Edwards came to Los Angeles, and Enquirer reporters trailed him to the Beverly Hilton hotel, where he met Hunter and her daughter in their room.

The Enquirer went with the story, and when no major newspaper or broadcast outlet even reported the existence of the tabloid story, bloggers and online commentators redoubled their demands that the mainstream media explain their silence. The tabloid followed with a story alleging payments of hush money to Hunter and, this week, with a photo of Edwards holding an infant in what appears to be a room at the Beverly Hilton. As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer’s stories had been “confirmed.”

It’s interesting that what finally forced Edwards into telling the truth was a mainstream media organization. ABC News began investigating the Edwards affair in October, but really began to push after the Beverly Hilton allegations. When ABC confronted Edwards with its story (which confirmed “95% to 96%” of the tabloid’s reporting, according to the network), he admitted his deception.

With that admission, the illusion that traditional print and broadcast news organizations can establish the limits of acceptable political journalism joined the passenger pigeon on the roster of extinct Americana.

No Comments »

Money in a freezer.  Sex scandals on either side of the aisle.  Cozy relations with developers, lobbyists and businessmen.  Someone call the Ethics Committee!

Done.

Here’s why.

No wonder it’s difficult to find almost any profession with ratings lower than those of Congress.

No Comments »

Last night Joshua argued that Saakashvili, having quite obviously failed to recapture his renegade territories, is certain to be finished one way or the other. Either overthrown by the Russian army, or by the Georgian people at the ballot box. This is a bit of an analyst consensus as you look around the web. Not so fast, says me.

It should be said that the mere fact of the Russian demand to remove him has supplied a method for his political redemption — which is why it was so important for the United States to leak the Russian foreign minister’s views on this. If Russia fails to bring him down, he can easily emerge as a defiant patriot who defeated the one Russian objective they most desired, through force of personal will.

The trouble with pressing your advantages and changing your objectives to increasingly ambitious goals, is if you get to a point where you cannot (or will not) actualize the final measure, you can create the circumstances for a political defeat. With the world aware that the Russian goal is to remove Saakashvili, if they don’t do it now, that can (and probably will) rescue him as a political leader.

No Comments »

From an interview by Stephen Moore (HT: GR):

So what if a President Barack Obama were to impose 50% or 60% tax rates on these CEOs and other big earners? Mr. Gramm pounces: “When you help a company raise capital, to put its idea to work, and you create jobs, those jobs are the best housing program, education program, nutrition program, health program ever created. Look, if a man in one lifetime is responsible for creating 100 real jobs, permanent jobs, then he’s done more than most do-gooders have ever achieved.”

And this:

“Why is America the richest country in the world?” he asks. “It’s not because our people are more brilliant; it’s because we have a better free-market system. Why has Texas created 1.6 million jobs in the last 10 years whereas Michigan has lost 300,000 jobs and Ohio has lost 100,000 jobs? Because governance matters, taxes matter, regulation matters. Our opponents in this campaign are so dogmatic in their goal of having more government because they love the power it brings to them that they’re willing to let it impose costs on the working people that they say they want to help. I am not.”

Gramm is apparently advising John McCain’s campaign. It could use the help.

No Comments »

According to social psychologist William Szlemko, people who adorn their cars with bumper stickers are far more likely to engage in road rage. Seems like a perfectly sensible conclusion to me. Anyone who would in effect vandalize their own car just to try to force a point to some nameless stranger behind them, has to have a peculiar sense of proportionality to begin with. Or *ahem* lacks a blog.

No Comments »

R.I.P. Tim Russert:

Tim Russert, NBC News’ Washington bureau chief and the moderator of “Meet the Press,” died Friday after being stricken at the bureau, NBC News said Friday. He was 58.

Russert was recording voiceovers for Sunday’s “Meet the Press” broadcast when he collapsed, the network said.

He had recently returned from Italy, where his family was celebrating the graduation of Russert’s son, Luke, from Boston College.

No further details were immediately available.

Russert was best known as host of “Meet the Press,” which he took over in December 1991. Now in its 60th year, “Meet the Press” is the longest-running program in the history of television.

But he was also a vice president of NBC News and head of its overall Washington operations, a nearly round-the-clock presence on NBC and MSNBC on election nights.

This may be a bigger deal to the inside the Beltway crowd, but it is huge for any political junkie.

No Comments »

Cross-posted from Registan.net, your one-stop shop for news and analysis of going on in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

Thirteen months ago, I noted the problems caused by the U.S. State Department having dramatically different divisions than the military COCOMs.

The DoD considers Pakistan part of the Central Command, or CENTCOM (which includes the Middle East and Central Asia), but places India in the Pacific Command, PACOM. Meanwhile, the State Department places all of Central Asia in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, while neighboring areas like the Middle East are a part of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. How Africa policy is divided up is even more chaotic.

The end result is a confusing, bureaucratic mess, in which multiple and otherwise fairly independent military commands have to coordinate with multiple State Department bureaus to execute the President’s foreign policy goals, whatever they may be. (There is a side issue to this, which is that nearly 93% of the U.S.’s foreign policy budget is military and only 7% is diplomatic and aid, but that’s a larger post not entirely appropriate to this space.)

In that post I was lamenting the problem of considering Pakistan outside of its relationship with India, since Pakistan filters almost all of its foreign policy through the formulation of India as its primary threat.

It seems I’m not alone: Mountain Runner, an excellent blog about public diplomacy, linked to this paper on the ways the DOS needs to change to better adapt to the modern operating environment.

In order to increase American diplomatic power and improve interagency coordination, it is critical to create a diplomatic post on par with the military’s theater combatant commander, providing leadership and oversight, and coordination of regional diplomatic efforts with emphasis on crisis response, stability operations, and “soft power” projection. Placing some diplomatic expertise in the combatant commands, as is being done with USAFRICOM, appears to further the notion that the regional military commander is the “most influential USG representative” and in a “position of preeminence.” DOS must make bold moves to reorganize and revitalize its ability to project diplomatic power and lead the U.S. government’s interagency efforts overseas.

And so on. It’s a damned fine idea. Meanwhile, the State Department is gently reminding us that al Qaeda remains a threat to world security. Pity they can’t field any useful teams of agents to the region most likely to harbor future al Qaeda operatives.

5 Comments »

I have no idea who’s going to win the election this year, but as I attempt to handicap the race I’m drawn to the old saw that the person with whom most people would rather sit down at a local watering hole and knock back a few tall cold ones with will be the eventual winner.

Going back through the elections that I can remember, this bit of conventional wisdom rings true:

(1) Reagan vs. Carter — A movie star versus a moralistic, beta male. Not even a close call on this one.

(2) Reagan vs. Mondale — Ditto.

(3) Bush vs. Dukakis — Clearly, the guy who seemed like he’d look better in a tank was going to be the one you’d want to take Jaeger shots with. Dukakis made the mistake of proving who that was.

(4) Bush vs. Clinton — The guy who plays saxophone and has a reputation for womanizing is pretty much a lock here. And really, who wants to drink with their grandfather?

(5) Clinton vs. Dole — The grandfather rule applies again, even though Bob Dole’s wit would come close to making up for it.

(6) Gore vs. Bush — Even though Bush doesn’t drink anymore, I would rather hang out in a bar with him than Gore any day. Even so, Gore does have a good sense of humor, so he wouldn’t be all that bad. The American electorate seemed to agree that this was pretty much a push.

(7) Bush vs. Kerry — I can’t think of anything that would be fun to do with John Kerry. Enough said.

So, if the old saw is true, then who amongst the current class is the person who you’d most like to have a beer with? In my mind, that’s got to be Obama.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure that Clinton and McCain would be interesting to talk to over a few beers, but Obama just strikes me as the one who would be easiest to get along with in such a situation. He seems much more comfortable in his own skin than either of the others, he’s much younger, and he smokes. That’s bar material if you ask me.

John McCain would thrill you with stories, I’m sure. The guy really is a legend as far as I’m concerned, and there’s not a doubt in my mind that it would be a fascinating evening. But, the grandfather rule applies here as well. War stories can be riveting, but that’s not necessarily how I want to fill my evening out. Plus, McCain’s known to have a temper, and angry drunks are just no fun.

Hillary seems like she would be a total bore. The only way things would get interesting with her, is if she got tipsy enough to start dishing dirt. But she’s entirely too controlled and controlling to let that happen, so I’d expect it would be a pretty boring outing.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that, if the old saw really does work , and Obama can survive the primary season, then he will be our next president.

Agree? Disagree?

18 Comments »

The Man of System…is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it… He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it.

Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part VI, Section II, Chapter 2 

No Comments »

photo: Talatu-Carmen

Tony Harnden: “Initially, it was said just young people voted for Obama. Then it was young people and affluent white. Then it was young people, affluent whites and black people. Then it was young people, affluent whites, black people and white males. Well, in Maryland last night he won women, Hispanics, Catholics and seniors as well. The way this is going, there’ll soon only be one-legged Asian-American old ladies for Hillary.”

1 Comment »

For your viewing pleasure, watch Ayaan Hirsi Ali effortlessly dismantle the typical leftist tropes thrown at her in an interview with Avi Lewis (Naomi Klein’s husband). The quote serving as the title comes across as venomously pointed when read, but when Ali delivers it towards the end of the interview it sounds perfectly reasonable and just.

Enjoy (via Copious Dissent):

4 Comments »

(Cross posted at What if?)

Did Rudy lose because the purportedly “ruthless” candidate was too nice?

Most critical in the closing days of the contest, when he desperately needed to reinsert himself into the narrative, was Giuliani’s inexplicable refusal to draw contrasts with his rivals, especially the surging McCain, whose votes were coming directly out of the former mayor’s hide.

“Within the campaign, there was broad strategic consensus to engage the opposition,” shared a frustrated adviser. “But whether it was subtle or aggressive or stuff in between, the reality was that it was his decision, and his opinion was that that was not the way he wanted to run campaign.”

“He just didn’t want to do [contrast ads],” said another source close to the campaign. “He rejected a lot offers.”

“You see what that gets you — maybe McCain will send him a thank you note.”

And

“I’m proud that we chose to stay positive,” Giuliani said after the Florida results were known. Even beyond his unwillingness to launch negative ads, in fact, Giuliani declined to raise direct contrasts with his rivals on the campaign trail.

Of course, I do not know if this evaluation is accurate or not. If it is, however – those of us who bemoan the nastiness and brutality of some campaigns should realize: we get what we pay for. If we do not reward candidates who attempt to run above board, based-on-the-issues campaigns, then we will not see more of them in the future.

No Comments »

Has Barack Obama run out of ideas before he’s even had one? This might be an indication that Barack’s shallow and vague message of “change” is dying for a definition: “Radio stations in New England are broadcasting a ski-area ad in which a mock political candidate with a voice like Obama’s declares Killington to be ‘the ski resort of change.’” More>>>

No Comments »

Echoing a wonderful discussion we had in the fall of 2006 on the nature of Fascism (see here, here and here) Jonah Goldberg writes a book which bristles at the use of the term by the contemporary left. I would really be interested in picking that discussion back up. So anybody interested, please read the previous discussions and tell me what you think. In the meantime, here is the description from Amazon:

Book Description
“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler’s Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.

(more…)

14 Comments »

(listening notes; Dinosaur Jr., The Volcano Suns, The Minutemen, The Dixie Chicks, Hank Williams Sr., The Rolling Stones)

Late in the eighties I was taking a course in American history after 1945. One of my fellow students was a bright, interesting Palestinian. We had become acquaintances and spent a fair amount of time after class discussing various topics. He was not in my mind anyone much different than other students. He was a good guy. While he was a Muslim, and a believer he wasn’t what I would call devout and certainly not radical. Needless to say eventually the topic of the class turned to the Arab Israeli conflict and the professor gave an entire class period over to this young man to give a presentation. It was quite good, if one sided, at showing the conditions in the refugee camps, various atrocities committed by the Israeli’s and Israel’s refusal to negotiate in good faith. He was quite effective at arousing the sympathies of the class, including mine. The discussion after that turned into a chance for the more left leaning members of the class to give monologues about their deep sympathy for the Palestinian people and the brutality of the Israeli’s.

(more…)

3 Comments »