A Second Hand Conjecture

Yesterday I posted about my long term concerns with China at our site, and in the comments at QandO I pointed out concerns with risk premiums and leverage: (more…)

1 Comment »

I am just going to steal the whole post, because both bits of hypocrisy amuse me.

George Soros, self-appointed arch nemesis of George W. Bush and all the things the President loves, has purchased a major stake in Halliburton, of all companies. How long until MoveOn.org starts to receive money gained by Halliburton’s illicit billions?

Technorati Tags: Bush, George Soros, MoveOn.org, Halliburton, European Union, WTO,

4 Comments »

Matt at Malcontent got a letter from the Human Rights Campaign (a GLBT advocacy group):

We have been a bipartisan organization for all 24 years of our existence, and have never sought to hide that. We talk about being bipartisan, and our support for Republicans is in all of our relevant literature, because we believe that makes us a stronger lobbying operation.

It is true that we have supported Republican and Democratic candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, and have given them funds from our political action committee. BUT, it is also true that we do NOT give to the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee nor the National Republican Senatorial Committee, nor the National Republican Congressional Committee, nor any state Republican Party or Democratic Party entity and support none of these committees financially or otherwise.

Matt finds that a bit hard to take. In fact, he feels the entire letter is dishonest. Go read his response, but in addition to outright falsehoods he points out this:

The same Globe story said that HRC is “playing down its support for gay marriage” in order to support Democratic political candidates. Meanwhile, in 2006, you supported Democrats even at the expense of defeating moderate Republicans. You even tried to beat Arlen Specter, one of the most liberal, pro-gay Republicans there has ever been.

While the state where I live, Virginia, and Colorado passed gay-marriage bans by some of the slimmest margins yet, HRC walked off the playing field when it was needed most, instead trumpeting “successes” such as electing a Democratic majority in New Hampshire. Are you people serious?

When your executive director was appointed, he began his tenure by writing off only the most liberal of supporters: “This struggle that we’re in in this country right now is not just for GLBT Americans but for all progressives.” I suppose it helps explain why he has gone out of his way to cultivate every variety of far-left interest group, even those that aren’t remotely connected with gay rights.

Lisette, “progressive” is a word that can describe only about 20 to 30 percent of the electorate, at best. It’s not exactly the stuff of coalition-building, to say nothing of “bipartisanship.”

It is sad that the gay rights movement has hitched itself to “progressive” ideals almost exclusively rather than building relationships across the political spectrum. It is sad that they have done so much to make gay rights synonymous with the left. That means we now have people on the left and right insisting it is so. That kind of thing has effects, it makes it harder to influence people whose support they need, but the HRC isn’t about gay rights, it is about the “struggle…for all progressives.” Gay rights are just part of the menu now.

Hat tip: Joshua at The Conjecturer.

Technorati Tags: Human Rights Campaign, GLBT, prgressive politics, Democrats, Republicans

powered by performancing firefox

2 Comments »

I am of the opinion that many Democrats don’t believe their own rhetoric about the war in Iraq. Not that the invasion was a bad idea necessarily, but that withdrawing or sitting passively by while Iran and Syria are treated with kid gloves. Well, Carl Levin’s rhetoric has been changing as the option of actually carrying out such a withdrawal looms. It was fine to posture when it wasn’t really an option, but it seems some minds are clearing a bit when they realize that if they do withdraw they will have to own the result. Suddenly we get things like this:

Things have changed in Iraq. We don’t believe that it’s going to be possible to remove all of our troops from Iraq because there’s going to be a limited purpose that they’re going to need to serve, including a training, continued training of the Iraqi army, support for logistics in the Iraqi army, a counterterrorism purpose or a mission because there’s about 5,000 al-Qaida in Iraq. So we want to—we want to transform, or we want to modify that earlier resolution to more limited purpose. That is our goal. We hope to pick up some Republicans; we don’t know if we will. But the final drafting is going on this weekend.

which upsets the netroots:

There are two problems here. First of all, he ratifies the right-wing talking point that we’re in Iraq because of Al Qaeda. More significantly, by saying that Bush needs to keep troops in Iraq, he’s giving Bush carte blanche. There is no pony plan here. Bush is leading our forces, and he will until 2009.

and now Levin really steps it up:

SEN CARL LEVIN (D-MI): “Now, in terms of the weapons coming in from Syria, those weapons that you’ve described as coming in from Syria and perhaps other Sunni neighbors are killing our troops. Do we have a plan to address the Syrian weapon source — of killings of our troops?”

JOHN MCCONNELL, Director of National Intelligence: “Sir, I know the military is working that border area to close it down from not only weapons but also jihadists coming in –”

LEVIN: “It’s more than just — we’re trying to close down the Iranian border area too. The problem is that these weapons are coming from a state which is — doesn’t recognize Israel either, just like Iran doesn’t. We’ve got to try to stop weapons coming into Iraq from any source that are killing our troops. I agree with the comments about trying to stop them coming in from Iran, I think we have to try stop them that are going to the Sunni insurgents as well as to the Shia. I was just wondering, does the military have a plan to, if necessary, to go into Syria to go to the source of any weapons coming from Syria? That are going to Sunni insurgents? That are killing our troops? … I think we ought to take action on all fronts including Syria and any other source of weapons coming in, obviously Iran is the focus – but it shouldn’t be the sole focus.” (Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 02/27/07)

I think the plan to defund the war is falling apart. It is the difference between sniping and posturing and actually making policy where you have to live with the results. I’ll give Levin credit, regardless of whether going into Syria or Iran makes any sense, his partial defection is tough on him. It allows other Democrats and anti-war politicians to breathe easy by blaming he and Lieberman for making impassable something they would like to vote to do, but don’t want to actually happen anytime soon.

More comments military and political reality dawns:

REP. JIM COOPER (D-TN): On Murtha’s “Clumsy” Strategy: “Congress Has No Business Micromanaging A War, Cutting Off Funding Or Even Conditioning Those Funds.” (Shailagh Murray & Jonathan Weisman, “Democrats Seek To Repeal 2002 War Authorization,” The Washington Post, 02/23/07)

REP. CHET EDWARDS (D-TX): “If You Strictly Limit A Commander’s Ability To Rotate Troops In And Out Of Iraq, That Kind If Inflexibility Could Put Some Missions And Some Troops At Risk.” (Shalaigh Murray & Jonathan Weisman, “Democrats Seek to Repeal 2002 War Authorization,” Washington Post, 02/ 23/07)

REP. CHET EDWARDS (D-TX): “I Think Congress Begins To Skate On Thin Ice When We Start To Micromanage Troop Deployments And Rotations.” (Shalaigh Murray & Jonathan Weisman, “Democrats Seek to Repeal 2002 War Authorization,” Washington Post, 02/23/2007)

and of course this:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn’t support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.

The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress’ spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.

Pelosi said she supports holding the administration to training and readiness targets, but added: “I don’t see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops.”

Quite a climb down from her previous support of Mr. Murtha’s maneuverings.

Now there is video!:

(more…)

No Comments »

As McQ discusses at length this is an Orwellian moniker for an Orwellian bill:

It would allow unions to organize workplaces without workers voting for unionization in elections with secret ballots. Instead, unions could use the “card check” system: Once a majority of a company’s employees signs a card expressing consent, the union is automatically certified as the bargaining agent for all the workers.

Hmm…..

Unions say the card-check system is needed to protect workers from anti-union pressure by employers before secret-ballot elections. Such supposed pressure is one of organized labor’s alibis for declining membership.

McQ did the real heavy lifting here, so I’ll keep my observation brief. I find it hard to understand how this can possibly protect workers from pressure by employers. With the ballot not being secret wouldn’t it allow more pressure? One would think so. In fact with a secret ballot how are employers able to pressure workers any more than unions?

So, my only conclusion is this is to allow more pressure, and the only reason unions want to allow more pressure is that they are confident that in an environment where there is an opportunity to easily pressure, threaten or otherwise use the knowledge of the vote against someone they will be the ones doing so. Or, at minimum, that they will be able to apply pressure more effectively.

So while I expect the politicians to cater to the unions, where are the liberals intellectuals objecting to this? Uh, they aren’t.

Why? Because under the current system employers can pressure people to not vote the unions way. I haven’t found any other argument really. No other options are discussed. “Companies plead their case and sometimes abuse that to fire or harass those they believe are behind the effort, so the cure is to make it easy for union goons to do the same, and with much more specificity. Unions however are wonderful and corporations are bad, so allowing workers to be squeezed by unions is good in the long run, and we won’t acknowledge that unions often abuse and intimidate workers anyway.” That seems to be the argument as best I can determine. Generally there is no argument. It is just asserted that the bill’s opposition is a bunch of vicious right wingers who want to destroy unions.

That is me, oppressor of the working class, there cannot be any other explanation.

Technorati Tags: unions, Democrats, liberals, Employee Free Choice Act

powered by performancing firefox

5 Comments »

Well, now that the Sunnis have their own oil to claim, it looks like the Iraqi parliament is willing to share the wealth.

The Iraqi cabinet approved a draft of a law today that would set guidelines for countrywide distribution of oil revenues and foreign investment in the immense oil industry.

The endorsement marked a major agreement among the country’s ethnic and sectarian political blocs on one of Iraq’s most divisive issues.

The draft law approved by the cabinet allows the central government to distribute oil revenues to the provinces or regions by population, which could lessen the economic concerns of the rebellious Sunni Arabs, who fear being cut out of Iraq’s vast potential oil wealth by the dominant Shiites and Kurds.

The law also grants regional oil companies the power to sign contracts with foreign companies for exploration and development of fields, opening the door for investment by foreign oil companies in a country whose oil reserves rank among the world’s top three in size.

Well, that’s a step in the right direction. And heaven forbid, is this a sign of reconciliation. Members of Shiite and Sunni working together towards national goals???

(H/T to Instapundit.)

Update:
Heh! at least now Lance can get off me for always giving others my best material…

No Comments »

Just not Al Gore, I have already done that, so let us make fun of him instead. For the title to work however I need to praise somebody, but who? Who would be the most appropriate person in the universe to praise as a counterpoint to Gore? Who in the world would Al Gore most hate being compared to in a negative, and incontrovertibly justified manner? Why that would be George Bush!
(more…)

6 Comments »

Even better, Mona appears in the comments. High entertainment. I suggest seeing what she will say next.

powered by performancing firefox

No Comments »

The International Court of Justice has ruled that the Serbian state is not responsible for genocide:

But the International Court of Justice did rule that Belgrade had violated international law by failing to prevent the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica.
Bosnia brought the case and would have sought billions of dollars from Serbia in compensation if successful.

The case is the first of a state being charged with genocide. Individuals have been convicted of genocide in Bosnia.

The Bosnian Muslim leader expressed disappointment at the ruling, which was welcomed both in Serbia and the Bosnian Serb Republic.

At least 100,000 people died in the 1992-1995 war, triggered by the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. Bosnia’s Muslims and Croats wanted to cut ties with Belgrade, a move opposed by Bosnian Serbs.

For a discussion of the fine points of the case see Julian Ku. (via Instapundit.)
Eric Posner wrote an interesting post on the possible negative implications of the attempt to hold Serbia responsible back in March. A must read.

Update: Publius Pundit has an excellent post on the decision.

powered by performancing firefox

No Comments »

Even though he kept my beloved Mavericks from taking home the hardware last year. I loved him at LSU (and imagine if Chris Jackson had stuck around and Stanley Roberts had decided to stay in school for Shaq’s sophomore year) and that trumps any Mavericks loyalty. In addition, from Eric Umansky we get this:

Shaq!

Technorati Tags: Shaquille O’Neal, Bush, Humor

powered by performancing firefox

No Comments »

Over at Michael J. Totten’s place is a lot of discussion of Iraq, to which he is returning, that is worth reading. I missed this from 60 minutes and I thank Michael for pointing it out:

If I could distill everything I heard, saw, and learned in the Kurdistan region of Iraq into a 12-minute video, it would look a lot like this. (Fourth video on the right.)

Click that link. Watch. This is marvelous work from 60 Minutes, some of the best mainstream media journalism I have seen out of the Middle East, the absolute antithesis of Diane Sawyer’s useless interview with Syria’s Bashar Assad last week.

I only caught one factual error. The Iraqi flag is not banned in Kurdistan. It still flies in the city of Suleimania, but it’s the old version of the flag before Saddam Hussein wrote Allahu Akbar on it.

60 Minutes has done truly excellent work capturing the essence of this lovely place and these wonderful people and editing it all down into such a brief and comprehensive introduction.

I also agree with him here:

I cannot recommend a film I haven’t seen. But the high-definition trailer for Iraq in Fragments knocked me out of my chair.

Watch this on the biggest computer screen you have at the highest resolution. Use headphones so you can turn the volume up loud. Be amazed. I have watched this over and over again in quiet astonishment and awe of the gorgeous cinematography and artistry on display.

I’ll watch this one for the camera work alone, but also to learn more about these stories of Iraq’s people regardless of whatever political slant the director may (or may not) bring into the film:

“A stunningly photographed, poetically rendered documentary of Iraq today, seen through the eyes of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. James Longley’s 3-part opus is a series of intimate, passionately felt
portraits: a fatherless 11-year-old is apprenticed to a cruel owner of a Baghdad garage; Sadr followers in two Shiite cities rally for regional elections while enforcing Islamic law at the point of a gun; a family of Kurdish farmers welcomes the US presence, which has allowed them a measure of freedom previously denied.”

powered by performancing firefox

2 Comments »

Ezekiel Emmanuel and Victor Fuchs put forward a plan for healthcare vouchers. Excited? Don’t be, the Economist discusses why this really will not work.

Technorati Tags: healthcare, vouchers

powered by performancing firefox

1 Comment »

If I am not a radical skeptic of the science underlying the current hysteria over Global Warming, I am a radical skeptic of those pushing for certain policies based on it. Why? Well for one, they generally have no idea what they are talking about, including that they all are not shaking their heads over the apocalyptic “An Inconvenient Truth.” I don’t expect our politicians and pundits to have an especially deep understanding of the underlying science, but I do expect they should know enough not to spout balderdash. As if we needed any more evidence that Nancy Pelosi many scaremongers, including the House speaker of Maryland Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) knows little about anything as it relates to the policies she they advocate, from Iraq to the minimum wage (or just doesn’t care about the truth, her partisans can tell me which is most flattering) he said this the other day:

It’s a big day,” House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) said, estimating that the Clean Cars Act would take the equivalent of 190,000 vehicles a year off the road. “People for years wrote off climate change. Now they’re seeing things like Hurricane Katrina, tsunamis, and they know the causes of melting ice caps have credibility.

Tsunamis? The idea that Katrina can be traced to Global Warming is false, that the ice caps are melting due to CO2 emissions is worth questioning, but both at least have a plausible line of reasoning behind them. Tsunamis? How in the world can Global Warming be responsible for Tsunamis? They are caused by movements of the earth’s crust known as earthquakes, volcanoes or other disruptions. Tsunamis? Sheesh.

Hat tip (Club for Growth)

Update: Yeah, I noticed I screwed up. Busch is the culprit, not Pelosi. Posting quickly while eating Pizza led to carelessness. Nancy gets my apologies.
Technorati Tags: Tsunami’s, global warming, climate change, Nancy Pelosi

powered by performancing firefox

2 Comments »

Well, it looks like Senator Lieberman is reading my blog, or at least, that I wasn’t totally off-base in my post from last week.

I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, “Enough.” And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war’s conduct.

But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake—assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.

In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences.

(H/T McQ @ QandO)

No Comments »

I have long felt that the current China vs. US trade relationship is more of a boon to the US than China, and to a large extent it is because I think China is treading in some dangerous waters by hitching itself to a mercantilist exchange rate policy. In the meantime we get cheap imports and cheap capital. If that situation has to change at some point (and I believe eventually it does) it will be a difficult transition for the US (but we will have benefited a lot in the meantime) but it could be disastrous for China. Unlike Japan, China is at a stage of economic growth where a long period of economic turmoil could be geopolitically frightening. The poverty, expectations and repressed ambitions of the Chinese people are too great for such an outcome to not skirt the edges of social upheaval.

Larry Summers weighs in with why that fear is warranted:

A RISING Asian power is an export juggernaut and enjoys prodigious growth fueled by high savings and investment rates. Its rapidly modernizing industries threaten an ever greater swath of industry in Europe and the United States. Its formidable central bank reserves and burgeoning account surplus lead to claims that its exchange rate is being unfairly manipulated. Its financial system is bank-centric, heavily regulated in favor of domestic institutions and closely tied to government and industry. Rapid productivity growth holds down prices, but its asset values rise sharply.

Key congressional leaders in Washington demand radical action to contain the economic threat. Diplomats warn that public bashing is unproductive but make clear that economic issues are a crucial part of the bilateral relationship. Delegations of senior U.S. officials engage in “dialogue”
with their counterparts about the many aspects of their economic policies that promote imbalances, warning of the congressional demons who stand ready to act if “results” are not achieved quickly.

All of this describes what is happening in China, and with our\relationship with Beijing, today. It also describes the Japanese economy in the late 1980s and early 1990s, before its lost decade of
deflation and considerable deterioration in global prestige. Although there are obvious differences, notably China’s much lower level of development, the similarities are striking enough to invite an effort to draw some lessons from the Japanese experience.

Read the whole the thing. Hat tip, Greg Mankiw.

Technorati Tags: China, Japan, trade, exchange rates, Larry Summers

powered by performancing firefox

1 Comment »

The best argument against getting too worked up about the Iranian Regime is they are so pathetic. Of course watching old film reels of Hitler makes him look like a clown as well, so what does that prove? Still, this is just priceless. Then they top it off by using photo shopped pictures of American missiles instead of their own. Scroll around at Gateway Pundit while you are there for more Persian follies.

While you are there ponder this. For all the gnashing of teeth about casualties and our troops, a concern I share for intensely personal reasons related to my family, it is exaggerated:

US losses in Iraq and Afghanistan today (3525) are approaching the half way mark (3750) of the military losses during the Clinton years.During the Clinton years, the US military lost an average of 939 soldiers each year and a total of 7500 military personnel. During the War in Iraq the US has lost an average of 800 soldiers each year- down each of the last two years and a total of 3525 military personnel in the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Update: Shinobi has pointed out that some might take away from this graph a misconception about what I think it shows. I recommend people read the discussion between she and I to make sure they understand.

powered by performancing firefox

14 Comments »

Although I haven’t yet had the opportunity to study this site in detail, I was quite interested in its basic premise : Islam and Libertarianism are not only quite compatible, but actually darn near separated at birth. That’s actually quite close to my thinking on these philosophies and I am thrilled that someone has taken the idea far enough to get an interview with Reason magazine (the gospel of doctrinaire Libertarians). Have a look, as I hope to expand on this idea in the near future.

Update : Minaret’s website is down right now, but the Reason interview is available. Please check it out. It’s worth the time for some fresh voices on all things libertarian.

Update 2: Minaret is back up again. Please take a look at their site and their blog.

5 Comments »

(H/T- Tom Maguire)

I’ll admit, I always found Landis not passing the drug test after his remarkable stage 17 win inexplicable. It never made any sense, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t true. So we now see he may have reason for complaint:

Tour de France champion Floyd Landis claims
more mistakes were made in his doping case, this time involving
technicians who handled his two positive urine samples.

Landis’
attorneys say the cyclist’s positive doping tests could be invalidated
because the same technicians were allowed to work on both samples. Lab
rules prohibit technicians from participating in both tests to prevent
them from validating their own findings.

I hope he isn’t guilty, because if he is he is one of the stupidest cheaters in living memory.

Technorati Tags: Floyd Landis, Tour de France, cycling, doping

powered by performancing firefox

No Comments »

I was a huge Celtics fan growing up, and really stayed one until I moved to Fort Worth where I became as addicted to the Mavericks as I once was to the Celtics. The great, and under appreciated, Dennis Johnson has now passed on. I still remember him from his first two years in the league, leading the Seattle Supersonics to the NBA title. A terror as a defensive player, a tremendous shot blocker as a 6′4″ guard with a vertical leap that was more astonishing than any player in that era except David Thompson. That however was only the start. Bill Simmons has a superb tribute that gets to the heart of what made him so great. Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tags: basketball, Celtics, Supersonics, Bill Simmons, Suns, Dennis Johnson

No Comments »

If you didn’t pick this up from Instapundit, I suggest watching it. Chris Dodd, one of the men responsible for disappointing Jim Webb so dearly in 1975, is ready to do what it takes to end this war, and Hillary Clinton is not only ready to force a redeployment, she is advocating cutting funding for the Iraqi troops as well.

Jim Webb,

It is time to read your essay again and think long and hard about who you are now associating with.

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, Democratic Party, Iraq, Chris Dodd

No Comments »

Thanks once again to Marginal Revolution and Alex Tabarrok:

In March, the Bank of England will issue a new 20 pound note featuring Adam Smith and the pin factory.

Technorati Tags: currency, Adam Smith, Bank of England

powered by performancing firefox

4 Comments »

Dale Franks proposed an interesting hypothical as a thought experiment involving the fictional countries of Klapokistan, Cyclonia and the fictional U.S. President, John Doe. I won’t reproduce the hypo, you can read it at QandO, but I will attempt an answer here. (more…)

3 Comments »

Politicians!!! When they’re not trying to fix a problem, they’re probably creating one.

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2007_02_18_chronArchive.asp#6158087624517541567

Democrats have effectively seized on this outrage as more than 30 million Americans will be forced into the AMT by 2010. Yet, late last week I got my hands on data by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) from April 2006 which ran eight different scenarios for cutting the AMT. Disaggregating the data demonstrates the AMT “problem” is a result of the 1993 Clinton tax increase, which all the politicians complaining about the AMT today actually voted for and essentially created this problem.

We really do need to go to a simplified tax code. Say one that is fair or flat. Or both…

No Comments »

And we wonder why taxes are to high…

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2007_02_18_chronArchive.asp#1206737332326810715

A typical full-time state or local government worker made $78,853 in wages and benefits in the third quarter of 2006, $25,771 more than a typical private-sector worker, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. The difference was $7,604 in 2000. The compensation advantage holds true for all types of public workers, from teachers to laborers and managers.

2 Comments »

OK, I haven’t read this anywhere yet, and I’ve got better things to do than go look, but I would place an even bet that someone, somewhere has already suggested it…

Ann Nichole-Smith was murdered by Karl Rove to take attention away from the Scooter Libby trial, and/or Iraq…

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the whole is just a bit ghoulish and circus like. And why it rises to the level of must-see live coverage on all the major networks is beyond me.

Meanwhile, politicians continue to find new ways of

1 Comment »

Austin Bay sees some encouraging signs in the latest offensive, while the (mostly) Democrats try to pull the rug out from under the effort.

The relentless, focused targeting of Shia and Sunni extremist organizations is a far more important feature of what Iraqis are calling “the new security plan” than more U.S. troops. The coalition’s effort to better integrate the economic and political development “lines of operation” with security operations could have greater long-term effects.

Attacks on Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army have been the most public examples of “focused targeting.” Though Sadr’s allies deny it, Iraqi and U.S. government spokesmen still claim that Sadr has left Iraq for Iran. Sadr bolted because the new offensive is indeed striking his militia. (more…)

No Comments »

Uh, yes we will. Every election the corruption and brass knuckle partisanship of the majority party is decried, and the minority party is portrayed as so much more honorable and principled. Until the new guys take control and things go on as usual.

So far the Democrats have fought and resisted every attempt at reform, trying to water down the attempts to reform the appropriations process, especially as it pertains to earmarks.

What about taking a step back from the tactics of Tom delay and the “K-Street project?” Luckily “The Daily Kos” has Devilstower on the case:

(more…)

No Comments »

It is a common trope for people to deride the campaign in Iraq as another Vietnam. This seems a bit ridiculous to me, but in some senses it does fit.

One way it does comes from the constant complaints about the “right wing” blaming the media and war protesters and opponents for our difficulty in Iraq. I don’t buy that they are the reason for the campaign’s struggles, but they play a major part. We can complain that it is unfair to blame those who protest, a media that emphasizes the negative, or worse. We have freedom of speech don’t we?

(more…)

6 Comments »

I wonder what “pas d’ennemi a gauche” sounds like with a Texas drawal? Here’s what it looks like in congressional speak:

A U.S. congresswoman called on the Bush administration Wednesday to reconsider its ban on selling parts for U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to Venezuela, urging improved ties between the two nations.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, told reporters that she was making the first U.S. congressional visit to Venezuela since President Hugo Chavez’s December re-election with the message: “I want an immediate repairing of the relations between the United States and Venezuela.”

Yes, that’s right. The esteemed congresswoman wants to send arms to our good buddy Hugo Chavez. You know the one. He’s uttered such touching oaths of friendship as this:

“The devil came here [to the UN] yesterday,” Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed the world body during its annual meeting Tuesday. “And it smells of sulfur still today.”

and

“As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: ‘The Devil’s Recipe.’ ”

Chavez held up a book by Noam Chomsky on imperialism and said it encapsulated his arguments: “The American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its hegemonistic system of domination, and we cannot allow him to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.”

There’s no doubt, Madam Congresswoman. Hugo LOOOVVVEEEEES him some America!

More from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee:

Jackson Lee described Venezuela as a friendly nation that the U.S. should cooperate with and said that the F-16 jets, which are built in Texas, was an issue of concern to her constituents in Houston.

Well what’s good for the tax-paying citizens of Texas’ 18th Congressional District (at least the ones who fund her campaign), must be good for the rest of the country.

His name is Hugo Chavez. He is the president of oil-rich Venezuela. Mr. Chavez has decided that America is his enemy, so he is building up his army. He has forged an alliance with Fidel Castro, and many think he is going to make trouble for the United States.

Chavez believes he is in a fight with the devil. But the devil that Chavez fights does not reside in Hell. Chavez believes that the devil resides in Washington.

But he’s really, really friendly, y’all!

Is there no gutter in which you will not crawl for votes, Madam Representative?

Disgusting. Truly disgusting.

(HT: Bryan at Hot Air)

Technorati Tags: Sheila Jackson Lee, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela, F-16 parts ban

No Comments »

This is good news:

Huge petroleum deposits have long been known in Iraq’s Kurdish north and Shiite south. But now, Iraq has substantially increased its estimates of the amount of oil and natural gas in deposits on Sunni lands after quietly paying foreign oil companies tens of millions of dollars over the past two years to re-examine old seismic data across the country and retrain Iraqi petroleum engineers.The development is likely to have significant political effects: the lack of natural resources in the central and western regions where Sunnis hold sway has fed their disenchantment with the nation they once ruled. And it has driven their insistence on a strong central government, one that would collect oil revenues and spread them equitably among the country’s factions, rather than any division of the country along sectarian regional boundaries.

[...]

In the past, some Western oil experts have speculated that as much as 100 billion barrels of additional crude oil could be found in deep formations in Anbar, but investigating those structures would probably require new seismic testing with equipment on the ground, a difficult task given the dangers of working in Iraq at the moment.

Akkas is expected to be among a small number of fields to be given priority in Iraq’s development plan once the oil law is passed.

Although Mr. Bayati was initially reluctant to discuss the political implications of oil and gas reserves in Sunni territory, he eventually conceded that the impact was likely to spread beyond the arcane world of oil engineering. “Eventually one has to deal with reality on the ground,” he said.

[...]

the novelty of oil resources on Sunni territory has certainly caught the fancy of those the finds could affect the most. Farhan T. Farhan, the mayor of Qaim, which is the nearest populated area to Akkas, said in an interview that he already had his eye on the possible economic benefits of developing the field.

“If we use this petroleum,” he said, “it will be enough for all the west of Iraq.”

Technorati Tags: oil, Sunni, Anbar, Iraq

powered by performancing firefox

1 Comment »

This statement has really gotten Glenn “the Puppet Master” Greenwald’s goat:

HUME: That sound bite from John Murtha suggests that it’s time a few things be said about him. Even the “Washington Post” noted he didn’t seem particularly well informed about what’s going on over there, to say the least. Look, this man has tremendous cache’ among House Democrats, but he is not — this guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world.

And that sound bite is naivete writ large, and the man is an absolute fountain of such talk, and the fact that he has ascended to the position he has in the eyes of the Democrats in the House and perhaps Democrats around the country tells you a lot about how much they know or care about what’s really going on over there.

(more…)

27 Comments »

Well, some historians obviously did. Michael J Totten interviews Michael Oren, author of the book “Power, Faith, and Fantasy”, “a sweeping history of America’s involvement in the Middle East from 1776 to the present.”

So, read the whole interview, it’s very interesting to see the connections between America and the Middle East, and how, what we are dealing with now, is not without historical precedent.

Read Orens views on the Iraq War below the fold…

(more…)

4 Comments »

As the “Scooter” Libby trial draws to a close, speculation abounds as to the final outcome. According to Chicago Boyz (HT: Insty), the Intrade betting market sets the chances of Libby being convicted at around 70% for.

Despite wishful thinking by some conservative pundits, the odds that Libby will be convicted, as reflected by the Intrade betting market, have been creeping up and are now around 70%. The bigger question at this point is whether President Bush will have the balls to pardon him.

Because I’ve been following the trial fairly closely (although, not as obsessively as some), those odds struck me as ridiculously high. Particularly when you have a jury case, in which you really can’t ever tell what will happen until the verdict if finally read. The odds on a specific verdict in a jury trial shouldn’t ever leave the bounds of 60/40 for or against. In this case, they should be hovering around 50/50.

Why? Well, as I said, I have been following the case the entire time, and I’ve read a great deal about the prosecution’s case, the defense’s story, and the confusing menagerie of witness statements. (If you are not up to speed, I suggest Tom Maguire’s analysis to get you there.) Based on what I’ve read and seen, I am at a loss as to how the jury could find Libby guilty, when so many of the witnesses against him made similar (if not more egregious) mistakes in recounting what they knew, when they knew it, how they knew it, and whom they told. But that’s just me. What if I wasn’t so well-read on the topic? What would be my assessment of Libby’s guilt or innocence? I think Christopher Fotos (of Post Watch Blog), put it best:

I wonder to what extent the traders get their information about the trial from Dreaded Mainstream Media. I mean heck, the jury could convict, I have no idea. But when you compare mainstream reporting with what’s come out on some Plamaniac sites like Tom Maguire’s Just One Minute, you get a radically different view of what’s come into evidence, the performance of various witnesses, etc. Do most traders know that a previously unknown FBI interview with Tim Russert credits him with saying,in contradiction to his testimony, that he couldn’t rule out that Valerie Plame came up in his conversation with Libby?–a conversation that is a keystone to Fitzgerald’s case? I could provide several more significant examples like that. My point isn’t to argue the case here–I just wonder about the source of their impressions.

Is there a case of asymmetrical information going on here? Could it be that incomplete and possibly incorrect information is dominating the futures market on the Libby verdict? If so, then there should be a chance to make a killing on this deal for those who have better information.

Of course, maybe the odds are dead-on, as they usually are for predicting elections. But I don’t think so. For one thing, in elections, those making the bids are likely also voters, or at least enough of them are to be capable of bringing real information to the market. For the Libby trial market, there are only twelve people who get to vote, and even if every one of them placed a bid (without anyone else finding out) they likely wouldn’t bring enough info to move the market one way or the other. Another reason I think that the futures market is wrong, is because there is a lot of gut-feel speculation going on with respect to the outcome, as opposed to informed price-setting. People may be betting on what a guilty verdict is worth to them, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are informing the market of the actual outcome. In other words, I think what we are seeing here is irrational exuberance inflating a Libby trial bubble that is about to burst, dousing the hopes and dreams of a number of anti-Administration investors.

That’s just my opinion, you make the call.

Technorati Tags: Scooter Libby, Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, futures market, Intrade, efficient markets hypothesis, EMH, market making

1 Comment »

According to Hillary Clinton’s campaign website and email newsletter, she has introduced legislation intended to cripple President Bush’s ability to the prosecute the surge, and to revoke his authorization to prosecute the War in Iraq altogether:

Right now, there isn’t one of us who isn’t thinking about Iraq. That’s why I went there recently: to meet with the commanders on the ground, to talk with Iraqi leaders, and to speak to the men and women who are fighting this war so heroically.

I came back even more determined to stop the president’s escalation of troops into Iraq and to start the redeployment of troops out of Iraq. So I outlined a plan, and on Friday, I introduced it to Congress as the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act.

My plan accomplishes a number of goals. It stops the president’s escalation. It protects our troops by making sure they aren’t sent to Iraq without all of the equipment and training they need. It puts an end to the blank check for the Iraqi government. It calls for an international conference to bring other countries together to help forge a stable future for Iraq. Finally, my plan would begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. I’ve been pushing for this for almost two years.

A video posted at her website declares that the “phased redepoyment” would have to begin in ninety days or that Congress will revoke Bush’s authority as granted under the AUMF. (More here.) Whether or not Congress can make good on Clinton’s promise is questionable at best.

Big Tent Democrat, writing at TalkLeft took a stab at the constitutional question, reasoning that since only Congress can declare war, then Congress can end a war without threat of a Presidential veto. Citing first James Madison,

[I]t is necessary to adhere to the “fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.”

and then Alexander Hamilton from Federalist 69,

It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

BTD concludes that the President is without the power to veto a revocation of a war resolution:

To provide the President the power to veto a Congressional decision to END a war would run contrary to what Madison and Hamilton were preaching – that a President can not maintain a state of war. This is an occasion, in my opinion, where the plain meaning clearly runs contrary to the original understanding of the [Art. I, Sect. 7 of the] Constitution.

Notwithstanding BTD’s creative argument, I think that we need look no further than the attempts by Congress to revoke the authorization for the Vietnam War to find the answer as to whether or not the President has anything to say about it. An anti-war congressional candidate from the 70’s, Walter Shapiro, opined on just this topic recently, and arrived at the opposite conclusion of BTD (emphasis added):

The denizens of Capitol Hill have been down this road before. In 1971, in a typical legislative shell game, Congress voted overwhelmingly to rescind the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Despite pious antiwar speeches, nothing changed. The reason was, as Ely explains, “Congress had … by a number of appropriations measures, quite pointedly reiterated its authorization of the war.” John Lehman, who was then working for Henry Kissinger in the Nixon White House, gleefully points out in his 1992 book, “Making War,” that the repeal was orchestrated by Republicans. Their reason? According to Lehman, they wanted to demonstrate that Nixon’s legal authority for the war was based “on the president’s power as commander in chief and the annual authorizations and appropriations Congress passed for the war.”

Another obstacle Congress faces is the ultimate constitutional weapon — the presidential veto. The most ambitious congressional initiative to end the Vietnam War was the McGovern-Hatfield amendment, rejected by the Senate in 1970 and 1971, which would have set a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Indochina. But had it passed Congress (and that is a big if, since the amendment never received more than 42 votes in the Senate), it would have been subject to Nixon’s veto.

I really don’t know the answer, but judging from the plain language of the Constitution, and the recent history of Congressional attempts to stop a war, I’m guessing that any such effort would have to be veto-proof in order to be effective.

Of course, the other provisions promised by Clinton will do their own damage to the war effort, such as requiring troops to be certified as being “combat ready” before they can be deployed — something I’ve been led to believe [link] is not actually possible since the equipment needed to get certified as such is in theater. Combined with Murtha’s “slow bleed” plan (which also incudes a “combat ready” provision), the new Democratic Congress is poised to do its part to help America lose the war. All except for that Presidential veto, which is what they are banking on, I’m guessing.

As Shapiro noted, there is a certain political calculation to such posturing on the war. Candidates who will be seeking higher office, and those who are up for re-election, are hedging their bets by tilting at windmills in order to pacify the anti-war crowd, while refraining from doing the one thing they know they can do to the end the war — i.e. drawing the purse strings closed. Voting to cut off funding for the war also faces a veto, to be sure, but it could be done so that it cuts off funding for everything else as well. It’s a game of political chicken that Bill Clinton won in the 90’s when he was still quite popular, but that Bush would face with Nixonian approval levels. Surely Congress could pull the money plug if wanted it to and win this game, couldn’t it?

Hillary and the rest of the posturers know why that isn’t true. While the President may be unpopular, and the prosecution of the war finds little support among the electorate, by and large the American people don’t like to fail, especially when victory is seen as possible. As seen in this recent poll (HT: postpolitical) a majority of us not only think that it’s important that we win in Iraq, but are also hopeful that we will win. (See also here.) A candidate who turns his or her back on that majority by voting to defund the war will win the votes of the anti-war crowd, and only the anti-war crowd, while making the President look good. Obviously, that’s a lose-lose situation for a Democratic candidate.

So, while the headlines are lauding Hillary’s bold new move to the masses, keep in mind just how realistic it is, and just what the calculated outcome will be. And don’t forget that, if there were any real bravery on Capitol Hill, we would have won the war by now.

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, Iraq War, AUMF, revoke authority for war, Iraq resolution, election 2008

No Comments »

I have been away from the blog for a few days, with most of it due to Mardi Gras. We have a house in funky historic Spanish Town in Baton Rouge. Famous for beautiful old homes, an eclectic and, uh, creative populace and one of Louisiana’s most unique Mardi Gras experiences. Thus our house is in high demand this time of year as a staging point for the revelry. A special treat was that my brother and a couple of his buddies used the long weekend to drive straight through from North Carolina so that he could let the young men experience Mardi Gras before they redeploy to Iraq. I can safely say that the two young men had an unforgettable experience here and in New Orleans.

Spanish Town’s parade is not much like the old wealthy parades of New Orleans. It is composed of the neighborhood and its friends. What they lack in funds they make up for in an irreverent sense of humor and fearless political satire. Bush takes his lumps, but the primary targets this year were Governor Blanco, our local political class, “Dollar Bill” Jefferson and the now despised Nick Saban.

I’ll have more later after all the pictures have been downloaded. I’ll do my best to keep it as close to G-rated as possible which the “Wasted Krewe” makes difficult.

To that end, Childers acts as watchdog, barking away attempts by campaigning politicians and businessmen to use Spanish Town Mardi Gras for their own promotional purposes. Occasionally, companies do ask about sponsorship possibilities. Better than giving them a flat “no,” Childers mails a videotape of parade highlights, and never receives a second inquiry.

And that’s the ultimate irony of Spanish Town Mardi Gras. A completely grassroots event now attracts 125,000 spectators, artists, chefs and musicians each year, and corporate machines are not making a single cent off of any of it. So no matter how big the crowds grow, or who sits on the SPLL board, or who does the offending or who gets offended, the parade belongs to the people, and it’s theirs to do with what they choose. And that’s something even the guy who got a permit for a “small street party” can appreciate.

Technorati Tags: Spanish Town, Mardi Gras, New Orleans, wasted krewe, Nick Saban, Baton Rouge

powered by performancing firefox

No Comments »

They are beautiful! Go here to read the whole story.

Technorati Tags: guns, Switzerland, karabiner 31, k-31, militia

powered by performancing firefox

2 Comments »

Despite the fact that many of the sources I’ve read, political, military, and iraqi civilian, all think Iraq would turn into a major bloodbath should we leave without finishing the job, it turns out we’re all just wrong… Things would be better off if we just left Iraq.

The author states we shouldn’t have bought into the war based on “best-case” assumptions, and we shouldn’t buy into an escalation based on “worst-case” assumptions. Yet, he presents his best-case assumptions for what would happen should we leave, as justification of why we should leave.

Read the whole thing, but I thought the following was rich:

What most Iraqis do seem to want, according to numerous polls, is for American forces to leave. Even within the current, skewed Iraqi political system, a majority of Iraq’s parliament supports a U.S. withdrawal. If we add to the mix the powerful Sunni-led resistance, including former Baathists, Sunni nationalists, and tribes, an overwhelming majority wants to end the occupation.

Brilliant analysis, all our enemies over there want us to leave.

Reality has a way of screwing with assumptions. Of course, if we were to wait until we could confirm or eliminate assumptions,we wouldn’t accomplish much of anything. Our best guess is often a WAG, but, guess we do, because the risk of inaction is often greater then the risk of a particular course of action. The best we can do is to try and make better guesses. Of course, one of my mottos is, “Hope for the Best, Plan for the Worst.” Which is something we didn’t do nearly well enough with this war.

In the end, the reality will likely be somewhere in the middle. If we were to leave, violence would likely escalate, though hopefully not to the levels of the worst-case assumptions. Similarly, if we stay, things will likely improve, though unfortunately, not as quickly as our best-case assumptions would tell us.

I think it all comes down to a matter of faith and hope. If you already look at Iraq as a failure in progress, then nothing we can do will make it better, so we might as well leave. If you look at Iraq as a success in progress, then there is room for improvement, and we should do whatever it takes to bring about success. And while it looks like some in Congress have lost hope, some in Baghdad retain it.

1 Comment »

Many people in the US have become aware, some more recently than others, of the antics of alleged separation of church and state group, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. They have formally existed since 1947 and claim to be non-partisan, non-sectarian advocates of the absolute separation of religion from politics. They also claim independence from any larger group or political body. See their director, Rev. Barry Lynn’s letter here explaining these points.

I question AU’s dedication to these points, however, as well as their claim to be unaffiliated with other groups. Rev. Lynn is a pastor from the liberal wing of the United Church of Christ, considered left-leaning in its approaches to theological and political issues. They have had numerous dust-ups with conservative groups and the Simon Wiesenthal Center whom the UCC accused of being involved in conspiracies. Lynn is also no simple man of the cloth, but rather a Georgetown trained attorney with a resume that includes working as legislative counsel for the UCC’s Washington, D.C. office, assistance to the UCC’s legal office in providing aid to draft dodgers, and a seven year stint as legislative counsel for the ACLU’s Washington, D.C. office. Clearly, this is a slick, sophisticated, “inside-the-beltway” player. Given the background of its director, it makes the claim that AU has no ties to the ACLU or the UCC seem questionable.

All of this to say that the AU is a great deal similar to Lynn’s former employer, the ACLU. It prides itself on being non-partisan and fighting only for separation of church and state, but, like the ACLU, is highly selective in its choice of battles. Students wanting prayer at graduations must be opposed tooth and claw (see Lynn’s statements here, here, here, and here ), but US church leaders demanding an end to the Iraq War, pressuring the United States government to adopt specific strategies in conducting said war, and throwing their support against a war which the United States Congress authorized is apparently kosher as far as Lynn and the AU are concerned.

Searches of the AU’s website produced no objections (or any reference at all for that matter) to any of the following official statements or position papers : US Council of Catholic Bishops, the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, and the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA (a multi-denominational group), among others. Where is the AU’s vehement objection? Where is Barry Lynn’s fire and righteousness in condeming an outright push by organized religion to directly influence politics in the US? …crickets chirping…

Seems that maybe ole Rev Barry is a might bit selective in his choice of issues, eh? In fact, I find that many of the anti-religion leftist hit groups follow pretty much the same strategy as the non-partisan AU. When religious leaders and groups support issues that the left opposes such as pro-life activism, abstinence education, and opposition to euthanasia, the left howls and moans about the American theocracy and how the religious right is conquering America. On the other hand, when religious leaders voice their support for left-friendly issues such as ending the war in Iraq, banning the death penalty, and increasing funding for “social justice issues,” the usual hit groups are nowhere to be found.

This calls into question the integrity of the AU. Americans United for Separation of Church and State claim to be non-partisan. They claim to take no marching orders from, say the DNC or the ACLU, yet they seem overjoyed to attack issues that support conservative beliefs. At the same time, issues that clearly fall under the umbrella of separation of church and state that happen to be in support of leftist positions are totally untouched by the AU. I think it’s time that the good Reverend Lynn take an honest look at himself and his organization. It’s never too late to repent, right Reverend?

9 Comments »

OK, leaving levity aside (couldn’t resit with the name of the operation,) I think General Caldwell is doing a good job of describing the general thrust of operations, and what has changed in the past year that gives this plan some chances for success. I also think he’s doing a good job of answering some commentators questions about what a troop surge could do, and what those troops are going to be tasked with.

I think the important piece of the plan is the political buy-in and backing of the Iraqis themselves. I, and others, have said all along that the only way we were going to lose this struggle was if we lost the political will to win. Unfortunately, many in our country are loosing the will to win. It is disheartening to me to see people lose faith in our troops ability to accomplish their mission.

What does it say when our allies have more stomach for what needs to be done, than our own “leaders” in the Congress?

Update:

Victor Davis Hanson makes the point I’m trying to get at:

Above all, there should be a sense of humility that we over here are not in harm’s way, are not responsible for the frequent choices between the bad and only worse, and usually do more damage by ankle-biting than by offering encouragement for the difficult tasks that faces our military.

The tragic loss of over 3,000 Americans, compared to the horrendous casualties of WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, is evidence of the skill and efficacy of our military in trying to guard our forces as best it can. Our goals remain noble, unlike those questionable ones in the past when we allowed Kurds and Shiites to be slaughtered, or played Iraq off against Iran.

I say all this because I am surprised not that most, by 2007, have come to challenge that assessment, but that so many earlier supporters have turned not just critics of the war, but vehement critics—with a self-righteousness that is, to be candid, appalling.

(more…)

7 Comments »

An email this morning brought home a good point. The Democrats sure did make a lot of noise saying they were against a “Stay the Course,” policy in Iraq.

Now that the President is changing course, the Democrats sure are dragging their heels and doing their best to force the President to, at minimum, stay on the current course. No additional troops, no additional support, no new strategy (other than retreating.) The only course the Democrats do support is a disengaging from the enemies surge in attacks on American and Iraqis. Is it any wonder why many people do not trust the Democrats when it comes to National Security.
(more…)

No Comments »

We’ve recently sparked some interesting discussions on climate change and global warming here at ASHC. I’d like to add a little fuel (biodegradable, earth-friendly fuel, of course) to the fire by recommending this article on Dr. David Orrell’s new book, Apollo’s Arrow. Although I have not yet had the opportunity to read Dr. Orrell’s new work, I find his ideas to be very interesting. While not exactly covering new ground here, Dr. Orrell does certainly add to the theory that environmentalism has become a religion, complete with its own prophets, matyrs, and holy scriptures. As pointed out, Dr. Orrell is not a climate change skeptic in the Bjorn Lomborg or Michael Crichton models; rather, he is a man fully convinced that climate change is occurring, but that our ability to predict or model it is virtually non-existent. He takes issue with Kyoto, the IPCC report, and with the newfound prophets of environmentalism David Suzuki and Al Gore. Apollo’s Arrow is sure to make for interesting reading and is definitely something that dedicated environmentalists and climate change die-hards should take to heart.

6 Comments »

In a previous post I pondered if Congress bothers reading the progress reports and benchmarks that the Defense Department already produces. Since I have long distrusted the mainstream media, and politicians in general, the internet has consistently been the conduit for information regarding the war and conditions in Iraq. Now, some say we should distrust any reports coming from the government, in which case, I say, great, then there’s absolutely nothing to worry about global warming, is there…

So, here I am surfing through my usual sources and I find this neat little graphic showing the progress of security in the provinces in Iraq. Follow the link and you can see the progress over time.

(more…)

5 Comments »

Listening to many members of the House and Senate, especially on the Democratic side, the “American People” overwhelmingly want this travesty of political gamesmanship and avoiding of responsibility in the form of a resolution against the surge passed. My own reasons against that have been stated, and I give them to you again, and it is non-partisan. If you are opposed to the war you should oppose the resolution, if you are in favor of continuing our efforts in Iraq you should oppose these resolutions.

An Open Letter To Our Senators: The difference between opposing and undermining

The Politics of Destructive Ineffectualism

More on Destructive Ineffectualism

What Are We Arguing Over? The Warner-Levin Amendment

It seems in looking at this the American people may have all kinds of negative opinions about the war (though they are not as simple, or as beneficial to their careers as many critics might like to think) the prospects for a positive outcome or even the surge itself. Those views however, for a variety of reasons, have not convinced a significant majority, or even a plurality of Americans, that this resolution is a good idea.

According to the latest CBS poll (pdf.) the view of the President and his plan is far more complex than it is often portrayed. For example:

SHOULD U.S. SEND 20,000 MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ?
——————–| Now |—-| 1/2007 |———–
Favor ———–| 33% |—-| 29% |————-
Oppose ———| 63% |—-| 66%|————–

This is the number that proponents of this measure focus on. However compare that to this number:

NON-BINDING RESOLUTION AGAINST SENDING MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ
——————————————-| All |—| Dems |—| Reps |—| Inds |——
Congress should pass ——-|44%|—| 57% |—| 26% |—| 47% |——
Congress should not pass -|45%|—| 29% |—| 65% |—| 43% |——

Of course the reasons for opposing the resolution do not have to imply support for it or the President, and the numbers in the poll show that. However, imagining it implies that they want the congress to do even more to end this war runs up against this:

HOW LONG SHOULD THE TROOP INCREASE BE GIVEN TO SUCCEED?

Less than three months ——| 13%
Three to six months ———–| 29%
Six months or more ———–| 53%

So most think the president’s plan should be given at least six months to see if it is successful. This and the number above hardly imply overwhelming conviction on the part of the public to pass this resolution. I suspect the reason is that many are opposed to the surge for what might be called hawkish reasons as well as many who feel it is unwise but not strongly so and believe it should be given a chance despite their misgivings.

I also suggest looking at this, which goes to show that opposing the war is hardly a slam dunk winner politically:

IN 2008, WILL YOU ONLY CONSIDER A PRES. CANDIDATE WHO…
(Among Primary voters)
———————————-| All |—| Rep. Primary |—| Dem. Primary |—
Supports the war ——| 9% |————| 20% |————| 2% |——-
Opposes the war ——–| 15% |————| 5% |————| 25% |—–
It depends —————–| 75% |————| 73% |————| 73% |—–

IN YOUR 2008 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE, IRAQ ISSUE WILL BE:
(Among registered voters)
————————————————-| All |—| Reps |—| Dems |—| Indeps |—
Most important issue ————| 14% |—| 12% |—| 16% |—| 13% |—
Important, along
with other issues ——————| 73% |—| 71% |—| 74% |—| 73% |—
Won’t influence vote ————| 13% |—| 17% |—| 10% |—| 12% |—

The main conclusion is that there is not a huge groundswell of support for this measure. So listen to the American public guys, punt or do something which takes real courage one way or the other.

Update: McQ analyzes the political wrangling in the House. It is pretty much mine and fits with what I have been arguing about the politics behind this, and this poll backs it up. Billy Hollis also points out what this poll shows and I argue in The Politics of Destructive Ineffectualism linked above. However Iraq turns out, it doesn’t mean that it bodes well for the anti-war camp down the road. In fact, I think it works out worse if it doesn’t go well.

More: McQ is on a roll, he compares the CBS and USA Today’s polls.
Technorati Tags: Surge, Iraq, Congress, Senate, War, resolution

powered by performancing firefox

1 Comment »

Well, Amanda has left the Edwards campaign. As one would expect she is a clueless whiner about it: (more…)

6 Comments »

According to the Associated Press, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ) is worried that Iraq may experience the equivalent of a “Tet offensive” such as happened in Vietnam in 1968. Sen. McCain is quoted as saying:

“By the way, a lot of us are also very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, ‘Tet Offensive.’ You know, some large-scale tact that could then switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did,” the Arizona senator said.

McCain made his comment in explaining why he did not believe the Bush administration should set a date by which it should deem Bush’s troop increase a success or a failure.

“I think that it should be publicly open-ended because I think that if you set a date, that there’s every possibility that the insurgents would just lay back and wait until we leave,” McCain said.

However, the AP describes the Tet offensive as a military maneuver by the Viet Cong “that sent U.S. casualties soaring in Vietnam nearly 40 years ago.” (more…)

7 Comments »

Al Gore and Richard Branson have finally touched it. What is the third rail? Ways to actually extract CO2 from the atmosphere, or CO2 capture. Why is capturing and extracting CO2 the third rail? Once again I turn to the younger Pielke from way back in 2005. First the climate skeptics:

For most of those people opposed to greenhouse gas regulation advocating air capture would require first admitting that greenhouse gases ought to be reduced in the first place, an admission that most on this side of the debate have avoided. When so-called climate skeptics start advocating air capture (which I have to believe can’t be too far off), then you will have a sign that the climate debate is really changing.

I’ll admit, I am not sure how fair that is, because I have heard from a number of skeptics that since the science is uncertain, it made more sense to concentrate on growing our wealth and technology so that we could either solve the problem or adapt to it more effectively should CO2 be the primary issue after all. That being said, it has not received nearly the attention as arguments that CO2 is not the problem. I think some of what Roger is saying plays into that. (more…)

No Comments »

Part of my argument about the problems associated with understanding climate change is that much of the rhetoric surrounding the science is irresponsibly misleading. This really has little to do with the science. While I think there are plausible arguments against the focus on anthropogenic (human) causes for the warming trend, there are three areas which concern me a great deal in the media and activists’ discussion of the Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC, even if one accepts that human behavior is the main factor: (more…)

2 Comments »

This is an interesting look at the dark side of Scientology. For years, we’ve been bombarded with the idea that Scientology is merely a new religion facing massive prejudice by an unenlightened population led by old-guard church leaders who refuse to allow any encroachment on their turf. Well, turns out Scientology is just a bit more hard-edged than that. In addition to legal wranglings attempting to block access to some of their older, “secret scripture,” Scientology’s attack dog organization, OSA (Office of Special Affairs), has been actively using hate-group style tactics to smear and destroy any who dare oppose Scientology.

An interesting point in this whole matter is Europe’s response to Scientology : declare it a hate group. France, in particular, is championing the fight against Scientology (and other cults), although Germany is not far behind, citing its unique experience of victimization at the hands of cult-like leaders (the Nazis). This is a fairly extensive breakdown of the Germany/France v. America debate over Scientology that occurred when America was loved by the entire world . Notice the Clinton Administration’s handling of this matter and the fact that things weren’t quite as lovey-dovey between the US and Europe as certain MSM types would like us to believe.

This entire fight raises interesting questions about the United States’ absolute Constitutional rights, if such a term can be used. Notice another issue that the US has Europeans up in arms about : hate-groups on the Internet. Europe has extremely broad and, some would say, draconian laws against hate groups, hate crimes, hate sites, etc. In the US, on the other hand, such things are generally protected by the First Amendment (although there is a trend toward the European position on this type of thing). Germany, in particular, is extremely zealous in its attempts to stifle hate group activities and has long complained that the US is the last country in the world that hate groups can seek refuge. This complaint is ongoing and has been a source of ill will since at least the mid-1990’s (again, Europe-USA relationship during the Clinton years, not quite as perfect as we are led to believe). For an interesting look at the differences between the US and Germany (as seen through the eyes of a German graduate student studying here in the US), see this nicely done article.

All of this to say that we need to re-examine what we do and do not allow here in the US and at least listen to the arguments that the French and Germans have regarding hate groups and Scientology. No, I’m not advocating overthrowing the First Amendment. On the contrary, I’ve often been a bit of a First Amendment absolutist. At the same time, we must take care that our commitment to freedom isn’t simply abused by those who have a very real stake in drastically altering our system of government and our society. Cults, such as Scientology, are rapidly gaining in strength, both financial and political, and are a very real threat to our way of life. The Europeans have realized this threat and are taking active steps to deal with it. Why aren’t we?

2 Comments »

I first was tipped off to this by Alex Tabarrok and went to Edward Castranova’s who sent me to the Synthetic Worlds Initiative. It is there that I read the story about Sony Online Entertainments new study on virtual trade. Daniel Terdiman gives us a summary and Raph Kustra gives us an analysis: (more…)

8 Comments »

A documentary has been produced about the effort to rescue pets following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans:

The film documents men and women crawling through barred windows, grimacing from the smell and the grime, triumphantly saving a scrawny cat. It shows them freeing snarling pit bulls, left alone in yards, kept in place by huge log chains padlocked around their collars. The rescuers were diverse, united by the single goal of saving as many animals as possible.

Much of the film focuses on a group of “gonzo” rescuers who worked outside the confines of authority developed by the organized rescue agencies. This group commandeered a Winn-Dixie as their headquarters. One scene shows them rummaging through the store at night, looking for booze after they’ve used up all the “good drugs” that had been in the pharmacy.

What struck me however was this assertion:

Rescuers estimate that at least 65 percent of the dogs that were left behind were pit bulls, and many of them were fighting dogs.

I don’t know what to make of that, but if true it should tell us something, I am just not sure what. (Hat tip: My wife.)

Technorati Tags: pets, dogs, pit bulls, Hurricane Katrina, documentary, Dark Water Rising

powered by performancing firefox

No Comments »