[xx]
The LA Times, unlikely as ever to show good discretion, invited an editorial from Khaled Meshaal, the head of the political bureau of Hamas, the brutal terrorist organization which has murdered countless thousands of innocents and which claimed victory in the Palestinan elections last week. While repugnant in its tone and completely false in its claims, the article does provide a useful look into the rationale of an unquestionably evil political party. It is very much like hearing from Hitler, or more precisely Goebbels, in a 21st Century context. And so the words from Hamas deserve attention, if only to warn of a murderer’s intentions.
Meshaal begins by stating that the Palestinians knew what they were getting:
“When they went to the polls Jan. 25, they were well aware of what was being offered, and those who voted for Hamas knew what it stood for. They chose Hamas because of its pledge never to give up the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and its promise to embark on a program of reform.
There were voices, locally and internationally, warning them not to vote for an organization branded by the U.S. and the European Union as terrorist because such a democratically exercised right would cost them the financial aid provided by foreign donors.”
So far, it must be admitted that Meshaal is correct. Hamas was freely elected, and there is no reason to think they did not know what they were getting. To my mind, this speaks to the problem of the Palestinian mind, that they believe their best hopes for the future lie in the decisions of what amounts to an international Jihadist version of the Crips, or a chilling renewal of the sort of desperation that led to Germany thinking the Nazis might have the right idea, but they were elected. And yes, the world at large saw this for the poor and reckless decision it is, essentially forfeiting the near future in an insane belief that pathological murderers can be relied upon to provide responsive government and judicious policies.
Meshaal, in keeping with so many other Hamas communiqués, cannot help but taunt the West: ”Rather than recognize the legitimacy of Hamas as a freely elected representative of the Palestinian people, seize the opportunity created by the result to support the development of good governance in Palestine and search for a means of ending the bloodshed, the U.S. and the EU threatened the Palestinian people with collective punishment.”
That is simply a lie, a perversion of Hamas’ stated intent and America’s clear warning not to cross that line. Hamas has a bloody history and a policy of pure hate towards Israel and America. If Hamas withdraws its old threats well and good, but they cannot expect to pursue their violent goals without a deadly response.
”We are being punished simply for resisting oppression and striving for justice.”
No, you are simply being warned that your history of kidnapping and murdering innocent people must stop. Hamas knows justice like Mike Moore knows bulimia.
” the Zionist occupiers of our land.”
Get used to hearing that phrase, folks. It’s the modern reference to the “Final Solution”. It also demonstrates the arrogance of Hamas. Israel belongs to the people who live there and no one else, not another nation and certainly not Hamas, which has paid nothing but claims what they never owned.
”Our people who gave thousands of martyrs, the millions of refugees who have waited for nearly 60 years to return home and our 9,000 prisoners in Israeli jails have not made those sacrifices in order to settle for close to nothing. Hamas has been elected mainly because of its immovable faith in the inevitability of victory”
History shows that Arab groups made deals with the Nazis during World War 2, in hopes of seizing the territory after the war. They also apparently learned the same propaganda tactics: People who murder innocent women and children are called “martyrs”, millions who never set foot in Israel are called “refugees”, and as for the ‘inevitability of victory’, Hitler and Saddam said a lot of the same things, didn’t they? Got bunker, Meshaal? Or just a hole in the ground?
”Hamas is immune to bribery, intimidation and blackmail.”
The chutzpah of such a statement from a group so steeped in the bloody use of just such methods for so long is stunning.
The message is interesting, when we see how Meshall addresses the rest of the Arab and Muslim world:
”Our message to the Muslim and Arab nations is this: You have a responsibility to stand by your Palestinian brothers and sisters whose sacrifices are made on behalf of all of you.”
In other words, Meshaal is publicly admitting Hamas does not speak for the Muslim world in these matters, nor for the Arabs. Apparently, the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, and many other nations in the Middle East are no more keen to have leaders on the order of Charles Manson in charge, than is the West. Therein lies hope.
”we demand you lift all restrictions on civil society institutions that wish to fundraise for our cause.”
Insh’Allah, of course. Seriously, what an opening. ‘Hi, we just got elected, so fork over the cash and maybe nobody gets hurt. At least not right now.’ Classy, huh?
”Having won the parliamentary elections, our medium-term objective is to reform the Palestine Liberation Organization in order to revive it as a true representative of all the Palestinian people, without exception or discrimination.”
In which case no member of Hamas could represent the PLO.
”Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture…Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us”
‘Just ignore the thousands we have killed with bombs and shootings all these years. Those kids we blew to pieces in 2003, they had it coming, trust us. That 7-year old little girl we shot with a rifle during an agreed cease-fire, don’t you know she represented a threat to us?’
”Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.”
Hamas knows nothing of justice nor peace, and deserves only its destruction and consignment to hell forthwith. Make no mistake. These are evil men who lead Hamas, and in the end we shall have to deal with them as we did Hitler and other madmen and bloody tyrants.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
[ kos rnp ]
“You better believe the Dem establishment knows we exist.”
In rather the same way that a cancer patient is aware of a malignant tumor, yes.
“While this may feel like a huge loss (and it is), understand that it's not the end of the road. Republicans are still fighting to turn back the country to the 18th century, and we're all that stands in the way. And we are doomed to keep losing until we boost our numbers in both the House and the Senate. That's the ONLY way we will prevail.”
Seeing as Dubya is bringing parts of the world into the 21st Century, that claim is a bit ironic. Seeing as how the MSM and Kos try to play down New Media and return to the scripted control by the MSM, it’s insidious.
But Kos is right about one thing – he is doomed, because informed Americans will never allow his ilk to grab power again, and it is our job in the blogs to keep truth front and center, whether it is convenient or not, ugly or pretty, good news or bad. Face the facts, lance the boils, and kick tyrants of any stripe to the curb.
You are doomed by your own methodology, Kos. America will see to that .
“You better believe the Dem establishment knows we exist.”
In rather the same way that a cancer patient is aware of a malignant tumor, yes.
“While this may feel like a huge loss (and it is), understand that it's not the end of the road. Republicans are still fighting to turn back the country to the 18th century, and we're all that stands in the way. And we are doomed to keep losing until we boost our numbers in both the House and the Senate. That's the ONLY way we will prevail.”
Seeing as Dubya is bringing parts of the world into the 21st Century, that claim is a bit ironic. Seeing as how the MSM and Kos try to play down New Media and return to the scripted control by the MSM, it’s insidious.
But Kos is right about one thing – he is doomed, because informed Americans will never allow his ilk to grab power again, and it is our job in the blogs to keep truth front and center, whether it is convenient or not, ugly or pretty, good news or bad. Face the facts, lance the boils, and kick tyrants of any stripe to the curb.
You are doomed by your own methodology, Kos. America will see to that .
Monday, January 30, 2006
Puppies Defy Physics
[ hmm ]
Observations:
Two puppies
Six days
Puppy total weight, 1.8 pounds
Total weight poop produced by said puppies in six days, 5.5 pounds.
305.5% body weight pooped in six days, or 50.9% body weight in poop per day.
Conclusion:
Puppies are immune to the normal laws of mass and physics
Observations:
Two puppies
Six days
Puppy total weight, 1.8 pounds
Total weight poop produced by said puppies in six days, 5.5 pounds.
305.5% body weight pooped in six days, or 50.9% body weight in poop per day.
Conclusion:
Puppies are immune to the normal laws of mass and physics
Poll Perspectives
[ . . ]
Readers may be aware that I was fairly focused on national polling during the 2004 Federal Election campaigns, but have since dropped my scrutiny for the most part. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least being the very different methodologies applied by polling agencies during the ‘off-season’, so to speak. For instance, polling agencies query “likely voters” during the election campaign, and pay attention to respondents who claim to have voted in the last election. Now however, the polling agencies query only ‘registered voters’, or simply ‘adults’. This skews the results, and to my mind impairs the credibility of the conclusions reached. Even so, sometimes valid conclusions can be reached by a careful study of the poll results, if sufficient details are present.
I took a look at two recent polls, once each by the LA Times and Bloomberg, and by CBS News and the New York Times. What I found tells a much different story than the media would have you believe. The headlines in the LA and NY Times do their utmost to sell the lie that Bush is failing, when the facts in their own polling speak to the contrary. I chose to detail these two polls, because no one can reasonably claim that the LA and NY Times or Bloomberg or CBS News has any interest whatsoever in advancing support for President Bush or the Republican Party. Therefore, any statement in their polling which does so must be at least as strong as stated; their pretense in print scurrying to the Left as always.
First, I would like to address the methodology of both polls. The LA Times/Bloomberg poll fails to fully disclose the nature of their respondent poll, stating only that “1,555 adults nationwide” were contacted “by telephone January 22 through 25”. While the LA Times claims that the respondent poll was “weighted slightly to conform with” Census numbers by “sex, race, age, education, and region”, they also admit that “certain subgroups” may have results which skew the error margin “somewhat higher.” Just how badly the poll misses the target, one can only guess. It should be noted from the LA Times’ statements however, that they did not weight their polling to match known party identification, they did not make any effort to ensure that rural adults were properly contacted, or that the unemployed and low-level employed would not be over-represented. Yet the nature of their methodology (all-telephone polling, with three of the four days during the work week) strongly implies a bias against professionals and traditional family structures, and hints at heavy dependency on the urban, the under-employed, the coasts, and the young (this can be done while pretending to follow Census guidelines by allowing for broader age classifications – legitimate polls limit age groups to static ranges, but newspaper-based polling often accepts a variable range, allowing them to manipulate polling by oversampling, say, 20-25 year olds and using them in place of 35-39 year olds, but lumping them all in the same class to pretend objectivity).
As for the CBS News/NY Times poll, I have mentioned before that while I find their conclusions unreasonable many times, I still respect the poll for relatively transparent reporting of its respondent pool. The CBS/NYT poll also contacted its respondents by telephone, but for over five days instead of four, including the weekend. The CBS/NYT poll did not reveal specifics on the demographics of its respondents, but weights its poll according to the 2000 Census. A key indicator, which CBS/NYT has always supplied, is the hard numbers of party identification. The unweighted tally for the poll showed 1.229 adults, with 469 identifying themselves as “Independent” (yes, that seems a bit high to me), 388 calling themselves “Democrats”, and 372 calling themselves Republicans. After weighting, the poll decreased the Independents’ weight to 456 effective respondents out of 1,228, and decreased the Republican weight to 360, while increasing the Democrat weight to 412. Obviously I find such weighting absurd in the face of known results from the 2004 and 2002 elections, but at least with the CBS/NYT poll, they are up-front about telling you how they played with the numbers. The reader can understand the lean the poll has from the beginning.
With this in mind, we can now examine the meat of the polls. I skipped the summary presented by the papers because the screed and lying was predictable. I say ‘lying’, because the facts in the poll results themselves tell a story worth hearing. In the LA Times/Bloomberg poll, for instance, despite the clear bias of the poll’s sponsors, the actual results bear up rather well for Bush and the GOP. On page 13, for example, Bush rolls in at 46% overall for “honest and trustworthy”, but that’s better than the Republicans’ 38%, which is better than the 36% claimed by Democrats. Note that Independents gave the GOP in Congress a 38 favorable to 34 unfavorable nod, while tagging the Democrats with a 31 favorable/41 unfavorable slap. That alone proves that the LAT heavily weighted the polling to avoid a steep lean against the Democrats. Or to put it this way, let’s see the numbers as the LAT printed them:
Group.....ALL.....DEM.....IND.....REP
Dem Fav.....36......54......31......18
Dem Unfav...45......27......41......70
Rep Fav.....38......16......38......71
Rep Unfav...44......67......34......19
If we simply balance the three groups evenly, here’s the new result:
Group.....ALL.....DEM.....IND.....REP
Dem Fav.....34......54......31......18
Dem Unfav...46......27......41......70
Rep Fav.....42......16......38......71
Rep Unfav...40......67......34......19
That is, a balance response moves a 2-point advantage for the GOP up to an 8-point advantage. Well, well.
Even though the poll is clearly biased against Bush and the GOP, on page 14 we see that overall response to the question of whether George W. Bush’s polices “have made the country more secure” is Yes by a 52 to 21 point response. Even Democrats (34% to 33%) have grudgingly agreed to this. If this were weighted to correct the bias, the support would be even more pronounced.
On page 15, we see that even this slanted poll admits that President Bush is better trusted than the Democrats in Congress to protect the nation against terrorism, by a 45 to 32 margin overall. 55% of the people overall think the “economy these days is doing very well or fairly well”, and 61% think of their “personal finances as very secure or fairly secure”. On page 16, we find that overall, 58% of the respondents are more secure financially, or about as secure, as when Bush became President. Bye-bye, mandate for class warfare!
Well, there’s always the PATRIOT Act. Surely people hate that, right? Overall, 59% “agree with those who want to reauthorize provisions” of the Act. Hmm, well that’s interesting.
Well, what about that NSA domestic spying thing? While the issue is controversial, 52% of the total respondents said that even if “a congressional investigation finds that George W. Bush broke the law”, they would say his action was “not an impeachable offense”.
As to Iraq, we find on page 21 that everyone agrees that the U.S. is doing more to win than the insurgents are. Even Liberals agree on that point. On page 22, we find that overall, even in this biased poll the consensus is that the war in Iraq is “part of the war against terrorism”, 51% to 46%. Again, a balanced weighting would show an even stronger support for this fact. But the clear message from this poll, is that the President and Republicans are so strong, that even after skewing the weights to over-count the Left, the “summary” writers had to ignore the facts in their own poll in order to pretend that Republicans or the President are doing poorly. The evidence says otherwise, and strongly.
As for the Voice of Dan Rather, one other thing I like about the CBS/NYT is their internal consistency. As a result, a reader can track progress in the public mood by noticing movement within the poll. Even though the poll skews Left, it does so consistently enough that the reader can compensate. And that makes it interesting to note, that on page 1 of the poll, CBS/NYT admits that Bush’s Job Approval numbers are higher than their January 9th, December 7th, or October polls. On the opinion about whether Bush has “strong qualities of leadership”, his present numbers in the new CBS/NYT poll are higher than in December or September of last year. Support for his actions regarding Katrina are the highest CBS/NYT tracked on the question. And CBS/NYT was forced to admit that 61% of respondents think his NSA authorizations were intended primarily to fight terrorism. His approval numbers on that question have climbed 4 points in 3 weeks.
CBS/NYT was forced to admit that the American public “support the idea of monitoring the communications of those the government is suspicious of”, by a 68% to 28% count.
CBS/NYT wanted to sell that people are not especially expecting the economy to get better, but that’s in some part due to the fact that 57% of the people already think it’s in good shape. And 61% think it’s staying the same or getting better.
Of course, both polls played the “push poll” game, by asking questions with emotional weight while hiding important information from the respondents. For instance, they asked whether people felt there were more terrorist incidents now, without citing the statistics showing the actual conditions. They asked about how people felt the economy was doing, without pointing to low unemployment and inflation, and strong GDP growth over Bush’s time in office. But it is still interesting, for all of that, to notice how these enemies of George W. Bush, however inadvertently, are documenting the measure of his success and the stability of his support.
Readers may be aware that I was fairly focused on national polling during the 2004 Federal Election campaigns, but have since dropped my scrutiny for the most part. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least being the very different methodologies applied by polling agencies during the ‘off-season’, so to speak. For instance, polling agencies query “likely voters” during the election campaign, and pay attention to respondents who claim to have voted in the last election. Now however, the polling agencies query only ‘registered voters’, or simply ‘adults’. This skews the results, and to my mind impairs the credibility of the conclusions reached. Even so, sometimes valid conclusions can be reached by a careful study of the poll results, if sufficient details are present.
I took a look at two recent polls, once each by the LA Times and Bloomberg, and by CBS News and the New York Times. What I found tells a much different story than the media would have you believe. The headlines in the LA and NY Times do their utmost to sell the lie that Bush is failing, when the facts in their own polling speak to the contrary. I chose to detail these two polls, because no one can reasonably claim that the LA and NY Times or Bloomberg or CBS News has any interest whatsoever in advancing support for President Bush or the Republican Party. Therefore, any statement in their polling which does so must be at least as strong as stated; their pretense in print scurrying to the Left as always.
First, I would like to address the methodology of both polls. The LA Times/Bloomberg poll fails to fully disclose the nature of their respondent poll, stating only that “1,555 adults nationwide” were contacted “by telephone January 22 through 25”. While the LA Times claims that the respondent poll was “weighted slightly to conform with” Census numbers by “sex, race, age, education, and region”, they also admit that “certain subgroups” may have results which skew the error margin “somewhat higher.” Just how badly the poll misses the target, one can only guess. It should be noted from the LA Times’ statements however, that they did not weight their polling to match known party identification, they did not make any effort to ensure that rural adults were properly contacted, or that the unemployed and low-level employed would not be over-represented. Yet the nature of their methodology (all-telephone polling, with three of the four days during the work week) strongly implies a bias against professionals and traditional family structures, and hints at heavy dependency on the urban, the under-employed, the coasts, and the young (this can be done while pretending to follow Census guidelines by allowing for broader age classifications – legitimate polls limit age groups to static ranges, but newspaper-based polling often accepts a variable range, allowing them to manipulate polling by oversampling, say, 20-25 year olds and using them in place of 35-39 year olds, but lumping them all in the same class to pretend objectivity).
As for the CBS News/NY Times poll, I have mentioned before that while I find their conclusions unreasonable many times, I still respect the poll for relatively transparent reporting of its respondent pool. The CBS/NYT poll also contacted its respondents by telephone, but for over five days instead of four, including the weekend. The CBS/NYT poll did not reveal specifics on the demographics of its respondents, but weights its poll according to the 2000 Census. A key indicator, which CBS/NYT has always supplied, is the hard numbers of party identification. The unweighted tally for the poll showed 1.229 adults, with 469 identifying themselves as “Independent” (yes, that seems a bit high to me), 388 calling themselves “Democrats”, and 372 calling themselves Republicans. After weighting, the poll decreased the Independents’ weight to 456 effective respondents out of 1,228, and decreased the Republican weight to 360, while increasing the Democrat weight to 412. Obviously I find such weighting absurd in the face of known results from the 2004 and 2002 elections, but at least with the CBS/NYT poll, they are up-front about telling you how they played with the numbers. The reader can understand the lean the poll has from the beginning.
With this in mind, we can now examine the meat of the polls. I skipped the summary presented by the papers because the screed and lying was predictable. I say ‘lying’, because the facts in the poll results themselves tell a story worth hearing. In the LA Times/Bloomberg poll, for instance, despite the clear bias of the poll’s sponsors, the actual results bear up rather well for Bush and the GOP. On page 13, for example, Bush rolls in at 46% overall for “honest and trustworthy”, but that’s better than the Republicans’ 38%, which is better than the 36% claimed by Democrats. Note that Independents gave the GOP in Congress a 38 favorable to 34 unfavorable nod, while tagging the Democrats with a 31 favorable/41 unfavorable slap. That alone proves that the LAT heavily weighted the polling to avoid a steep lean against the Democrats. Or to put it this way, let’s see the numbers as the LAT printed them:
Group.....ALL.....DEM.....IND.....REP
Dem Fav.....36......54......31......18
Dem Unfav...45......27......41......70
Rep Fav.....38......16......38......71
Rep Unfav...44......67......34......19
If we simply balance the three groups evenly, here’s the new result:
Group.....ALL.....DEM.....IND.....REP
Dem Fav.....34......54......31......18
Dem Unfav...46......27......41......70
Rep Fav.....42......16......38......71
Rep Unfav...40......67......34......19
That is, a balance response moves a 2-point advantage for the GOP up to an 8-point advantage. Well, well.
Even though the poll is clearly biased against Bush and the GOP, on page 14 we see that overall response to the question of whether George W. Bush’s polices “have made the country more secure” is Yes by a 52 to 21 point response. Even Democrats (34% to 33%) have grudgingly agreed to this. If this were weighted to correct the bias, the support would be even more pronounced.
On page 15, we see that even this slanted poll admits that President Bush is better trusted than the Democrats in Congress to protect the nation against terrorism, by a 45 to 32 margin overall. 55% of the people overall think the “economy these days is doing very well or fairly well”, and 61% think of their “personal finances as very secure or fairly secure”. On page 16, we find that overall, 58% of the respondents are more secure financially, or about as secure, as when Bush became President. Bye-bye, mandate for class warfare!
Well, there’s always the PATRIOT Act. Surely people hate that, right? Overall, 59% “agree with those who want to reauthorize provisions” of the Act. Hmm, well that’s interesting.
Well, what about that NSA domestic spying thing? While the issue is controversial, 52% of the total respondents said that even if “a congressional investigation finds that George W. Bush broke the law”, they would say his action was “not an impeachable offense”.
As to Iraq, we find on page 21 that everyone agrees that the U.S. is doing more to win than the insurgents are. Even Liberals agree on that point. On page 22, we find that overall, even in this biased poll the consensus is that the war in Iraq is “part of the war against terrorism”, 51% to 46%. Again, a balanced weighting would show an even stronger support for this fact. But the clear message from this poll, is that the President and Republicans are so strong, that even after skewing the weights to over-count the Left, the “summary” writers had to ignore the facts in their own poll in order to pretend that Republicans or the President are doing poorly. The evidence says otherwise, and strongly.
As for the Voice of Dan Rather, one other thing I like about the CBS/NYT is their internal consistency. As a result, a reader can track progress in the public mood by noticing movement within the poll. Even though the poll skews Left, it does so consistently enough that the reader can compensate. And that makes it interesting to note, that on page 1 of the poll, CBS/NYT admits that Bush’s Job Approval numbers are higher than their January 9th, December 7th, or October polls. On the opinion about whether Bush has “strong qualities of leadership”, his present numbers in the new CBS/NYT poll are higher than in December or September of last year. Support for his actions regarding Katrina are the highest CBS/NYT tracked on the question. And CBS/NYT was forced to admit that 61% of respondents think his NSA authorizations were intended primarily to fight terrorism. His approval numbers on that question have climbed 4 points in 3 weeks.
CBS/NYT was forced to admit that the American public “support the idea of monitoring the communications of those the government is suspicious of”, by a 68% to 28% count.
CBS/NYT wanted to sell that people are not especially expecting the economy to get better, but that’s in some part due to the fact that 57% of the people already think it’s in good shape. And 61% think it’s staying the same or getting better.
Of course, both polls played the “push poll” game, by asking questions with emotional weight while hiding important information from the respondents. For instance, they asked whether people felt there were more terrorist incidents now, without citing the statistics showing the actual conditions. They asked about how people felt the economy was doing, without pointing to low unemployment and inflation, and strong GDP growth over Bush’s time in office. But it is still interesting, for all of that, to notice how these enemies of George W. Bush, however inadvertently, are documenting the measure of his success and the stability of his support.
The Rights And Duties Of Power: Part Two
[..]
Political Supremacy and Party Evolution
The Democratic Party of the United States must be avoiding mirrors, for the most part. Not only have Republicans won five of the last seven Presidential elections, the majority control of Congress is growing and continues to threaten higher numbers. Worse, there is no single face or name which seems to accurately represent the ideals and philosophy of the Democratic Party. No one seems to represent the next FDR or JFK, not even a new Bill Clinton. Yes, Hillary is a major face, but even top Democrats concede she lacks the charismatic touch that Bill had. Yes, Barack Obama is a gifted speaker, but his ideas are pedestrian, already stale and passe.
This is not a coincidence. The Democratic Party once held near-total control of government in the United States, but no more. The Republican Party spent most of the Twentieth Century fighting to catch up in power, and so they had to compete with the ideals of Reform and Accountability. This is what propelled Reagan into the White House, and made the Contract With America the vehicle for Congressional control. And what’s worse, Republicans have in some portion continued to support that initiative. Not nearly all, but enough to make a difference. The real nightmare of the second Bush Administration for Democrats, is that Dubya has instilled some of his character and ideals into people working for him, so that the next generation will reflect him in many places and duties. When Reagan did that, his legacy was not only assured, it led directly to the spirit which drove Dubya’s election to the White House. Democrats understand that many things which Reagan could not do in his two terms, he made possible for Bush. And so they fear, correctly, that Bush is laying the groundwork for still more permanent success by the GOP. That’s gotta hurt.
The 2000 Census revealed bad news as well for Democrats. First off, the South continues to gain population, meaning more Republican Electoral Votes. But also, companies are more often setting up headquarters and major plants in the South, because of tax conditions, meaning the South is growing richer, as well. Demographics are hurting Democrats as well, with Republicans picking up greater support than before from women, the young, and blacks. Pew showed the Republicans as a party are even with the Democrats in identification, and self-identified Conservatives continue to enjoy much broader support than self-identified Liberals. This means that in the coming years, there will be more of a natural identification for Republican candidates than for Democrats, even in states traditionally strong for Democrats. It is no exaggeration to say that the Republican strategic position, nationally, is sounder than the Democrat position.
The Democrats have done themselves no favors, by embracing policies and positions which run contrary to the national mind. They oppose reforming the derilect Social Security program, they oppose serious efforts to intercept terrorists and discover their intentions, and they attack Republicans at every chance, regardless of how absurd the charge or how petty they appear by following such a regimen. Especially when the facts show Democrats to be as guilty or more of charges they throw at Republicans.
A good example of what is really going on in Democrat minds, can be deduced from comments made during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Five major Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made statements claiming that Alito was unsuitable, because in their opinion he would grant too much power and discretion to the President. Think about that. If the Democrats were able to expect control of Congress, they would be able to act against the President as they have in the past. And if the Democrats were comfortable with their chances to take the White House in 2008, since Bush cannot run again and Cheney has shown no desire to do so, and no clear and charismatic front-runner has yet appeared on the Right, they should be happy, not worried, that a SCOTUS judge would accomodate a President. This suggests that for all the talk in public, Democrats are not seriously expecting to come into power. A hard look at the evidence suggests optimism would be unrealistic for the Left.
So, what to do with a clear control of the government? One thing that has to be done, is to consolidate power. In the past, when a party has appeared to be in power but was fragmented in its focus, it failed to accomplish its promised results, and fell from power. This requires the GOP to grow, to increase its pace to follow through on the Contract With America, especially the spirit of reform. This is because there is good news and bad for the Republican situation.
The first piece is good news. The Republicans not only control the American government, but have been increasing their control over time. And as I said, the landscape appears favorable to continued growth. Part of this is due to the New Media, especially the Blogosphere, which counters spin and MSM bias.
The second piece is bad news, or at least a warning. If the GOP becomes a ‘go along’ party as the Democrats did, they will surely suffer the same loss of confidence. And the blogs are far more independent and loyal to an ideal, than to the Party. If a Republican screws up, the blogs will not hesitate to pursue justice, because their readers will accept no less. If the Party starts to forget what brought it into control, the blogs will tear away at the hypocrites and fakers, to save the core of the Party. For the most part, the only currency of blogs is Credibility, and that comes from authentic identity, and no imitation. The other media sources are either waiting for a chance to tear down Republicans, or else will follow the lead of the blogs, because that is the direction of New Media.
The third piece is good news. The Democratic Party is in denial, but at some point they will have to face the fact that their party cannot continue as it is now. The present course inevitably means losing more and more seats in Congress, and becoming less and less relevant to the issues the people care about. Between now and the time the Democrats understand this point, they will be penalizing themselves in every national election. Imagine the party of Andrew Jackson; the modern version is nothing like it. Imagine the party of Grover Cleveland; again the modern Democrat is a mockery of the reform-minded Cleveland. Imagine the party of FDR, which understood the Nazi threat and met it head-on, and compare that to the shrill liars who cannot even come to accept victory against a despotic thug in Iraq.
The fourth piece is a warning, however - sooner or later there will be an effective counterweight to the Republican Party. Whether that pary is a renewed Democratic Party or some new national perspective (say, a Libertarian-Constitutionalist mix) , the Republicans can only maintain the upper hand by staying true to their stated ideals, to constantly renewing their commitment to reform and accountability in government, and to cleaning house regularly.
To Come - Part 3, Military Supremacy and Social Evolution
Political Supremacy and Party Evolution
The Democratic Party of the United States must be avoiding mirrors, for the most part. Not only have Republicans won five of the last seven Presidential elections, the majority control of Congress is growing and continues to threaten higher numbers. Worse, there is no single face or name which seems to accurately represent the ideals and philosophy of the Democratic Party. No one seems to represent the next FDR or JFK, not even a new Bill Clinton. Yes, Hillary is a major face, but even top Democrats concede she lacks the charismatic touch that Bill had. Yes, Barack Obama is a gifted speaker, but his ideas are pedestrian, already stale and passe.
This is not a coincidence. The Democratic Party once held near-total control of government in the United States, but no more. The Republican Party spent most of the Twentieth Century fighting to catch up in power, and so they had to compete with the ideals of Reform and Accountability. This is what propelled Reagan into the White House, and made the Contract With America the vehicle for Congressional control. And what’s worse, Republicans have in some portion continued to support that initiative. Not nearly all, but enough to make a difference. The real nightmare of the second Bush Administration for Democrats, is that Dubya has instilled some of his character and ideals into people working for him, so that the next generation will reflect him in many places and duties. When Reagan did that, his legacy was not only assured, it led directly to the spirit which drove Dubya’s election to the White House. Democrats understand that many things which Reagan could not do in his two terms, he made possible for Bush. And so they fear, correctly, that Bush is laying the groundwork for still more permanent success by the GOP. That’s gotta hurt.
The 2000 Census revealed bad news as well for Democrats. First off, the South continues to gain population, meaning more Republican Electoral Votes. But also, companies are more often setting up headquarters and major plants in the South, because of tax conditions, meaning the South is growing richer, as well. Demographics are hurting Democrats as well, with Republicans picking up greater support than before from women, the young, and blacks. Pew showed the Republicans as a party are even with the Democrats in identification, and self-identified Conservatives continue to enjoy much broader support than self-identified Liberals. This means that in the coming years, there will be more of a natural identification for Republican candidates than for Democrats, even in states traditionally strong for Democrats. It is no exaggeration to say that the Republican strategic position, nationally, is sounder than the Democrat position.
The Democrats have done themselves no favors, by embracing policies and positions which run contrary to the national mind. They oppose reforming the derilect Social Security program, they oppose serious efforts to intercept terrorists and discover their intentions, and they attack Republicans at every chance, regardless of how absurd the charge or how petty they appear by following such a regimen. Especially when the facts show Democrats to be as guilty or more of charges they throw at Republicans.
A good example of what is really going on in Democrat minds, can be deduced from comments made during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Five major Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made statements claiming that Alito was unsuitable, because in their opinion he would grant too much power and discretion to the President. Think about that. If the Democrats were able to expect control of Congress, they would be able to act against the President as they have in the past. And if the Democrats were comfortable with their chances to take the White House in 2008, since Bush cannot run again and Cheney has shown no desire to do so, and no clear and charismatic front-runner has yet appeared on the Right, they should be happy, not worried, that a SCOTUS judge would accomodate a President. This suggests that for all the talk in public, Democrats are not seriously expecting to come into power. A hard look at the evidence suggests optimism would be unrealistic for the Left.
So, what to do with a clear control of the government? One thing that has to be done, is to consolidate power. In the past, when a party has appeared to be in power but was fragmented in its focus, it failed to accomplish its promised results, and fell from power. This requires the GOP to grow, to increase its pace to follow through on the Contract With America, especially the spirit of reform. This is because there is good news and bad for the Republican situation.
The first piece is good news. The Republicans not only control the American government, but have been increasing their control over time. And as I said, the landscape appears favorable to continued growth. Part of this is due to the New Media, especially the Blogosphere, which counters spin and MSM bias.
The second piece is bad news, or at least a warning. If the GOP becomes a ‘go along’ party as the Democrats did, they will surely suffer the same loss of confidence. And the blogs are far more independent and loyal to an ideal, than to the Party. If a Republican screws up, the blogs will not hesitate to pursue justice, because their readers will accept no less. If the Party starts to forget what brought it into control, the blogs will tear away at the hypocrites and fakers, to save the core of the Party. For the most part, the only currency of blogs is Credibility, and that comes from authentic identity, and no imitation. The other media sources are either waiting for a chance to tear down Republicans, or else will follow the lead of the blogs, because that is the direction of New Media.
The third piece is good news. The Democratic Party is in denial, but at some point they will have to face the fact that their party cannot continue as it is now. The present course inevitably means losing more and more seats in Congress, and becoming less and less relevant to the issues the people care about. Between now and the time the Democrats understand this point, they will be penalizing themselves in every national election. Imagine the party of Andrew Jackson; the modern version is nothing like it. Imagine the party of Grover Cleveland; again the modern Democrat is a mockery of the reform-minded Cleveland. Imagine the party of FDR, which understood the Nazi threat and met it head-on, and compare that to the shrill liars who cannot even come to accept victory against a despotic thug in Iraq.
The fourth piece is a warning, however - sooner or later there will be an effective counterweight to the Republican Party. Whether that pary is a renewed Democratic Party or some new national perspective (say, a Libertarian-Constitutionalist mix) , the Republicans can only maintain the upper hand by staying true to their stated ideals, to constantly renewing their commitment to reform and accountability in government, and to cleaning house regularly.
To Come - Part 3, Military Supremacy and Social Evolution
Prayers for Woodruff and Vogt
[[]]
While we in the New Media often find fault with the Old, let’s all send prayers and wishes for a full and speedy recovery for ABC’s Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt, and comfort for both their families in this time.
While we in the New Media often find fault with the Old, let’s all send prayers and wishes for a full and speedy recovery for ABC’s Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt, and comfort for both their families in this time.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
The Rights And Duties Of Power: Part One
I_I_I
It is an undeniable fact that the Republican Party is not only the majority party of United States government, but also the clear preference of the nation. That said, we should acknowledge that the Democrats, even now, remain in just such denial. But for this article, the question must be addressed - what is to be done with command of the country, indeed of the Free World?
That’s the problem so many on the Left have with George W. Bush, you know. Despite losing a series of elections which were basically referendums between whether Americans wanted Democrats or Republicans in charge, Liberals continued to hope that George W. Bush would play the “Gerald Ford” style of leadership - bumbling, never in command, and always sensitive to the opinion of the Left. When it became clear that Dubya not only intended to complete his duties by taking the Conservative road, but worse - meant to put the nation above all, Liberals discovered a danger to their game plan which they had never seen coming. After all, politicians are a piece of lint a dozen, but the man who truly serves the nation is rare, especially in a President. Some might take the JFK or Nixon route, and do some good while never quite letting go of personal pride, but a man in the mold of Lincoln, Jackson, or - shudder - Reagan is quite out of the Liberal’s league. That was part of the Reagan charisma, the common man’s realization that Ronnie was a Republican, but only after he was an American. Men before Reagan fought the Cold War, but Ronnie won it. And Liberals now perceived that Dubya meant to take that same commitment and dedication to modern fronts. Against such a force they had no counter.
It was bad enough for the Liberals, when Bush handled the 2001 collision in International waters between a PLA fighter jet and a U.S. Navy reconnaissance plane with tact and sensitivity, avoiding an almost-bloody escalation. It was bad enough when Dubya ignored the MSM’s polls and pushed for tax cuts. But when Jihadist terrorists killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, Liberals were horrified to discover that Bush had no intention of stopping his response at a few speeches. For all the bluster from France, the Democrats, and other enemies of Democracy, the last few years have demonstrated a resolve and thorough accomplishment in the U.S. Military and Government long believed to be dead. The balance of power in the modern world is distinctly managed by the Bush Administration.
So, the Republicans own a condition seldom imagined by a single political party, much less anticipated. The Liberals will denounce it as Imperialism, of course, but that comes from a predictable defeatism and fear of strong ideals. And yes, that’s a fair description of the policies in West-Central Europe, as well. President Bush has seized on an important military lesson, and applied it to international affairs as well; whomever has the initiative forces his opponents to act in response to his actions. Al Qaeda understood this during the last decade, and used that principle to act with relative impunity during the Clinton years. China did the same thing by brazenly making deals with international pariahs like Saddam Hussein, because they knew their opponents lacked the courage to escalate the matter. In the same vein, Russian President Putin took harsh measures to put down an uprising in Chechnya, on the same concept. Obviously, there is a risk to such gambles - if an opponent decides the escalation of a response is worth the cost, you can lose everything if you turn out to be bluffing. It is important, therefore, to remember that Poker is primarily an American game, and in his younger years, Dubya did quite well by it. Some have suggested that he bluffs well, while others have claimed that he is so lucky, he never has to bluff. In either case, George W. Bush came to the White House singularly equipped not only to respond to such challenges from opponents, but to seize the initiative himself. As a result, Americans’ IRS taxes are lower, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate have grown, and there are two more free nations in the Middle East than when he took office. Just to be clear, these are all good things.
Obviously, an election or two could change things greatly. In 2008, a Democrat or a weak Republican could take Dubya’s place, or even in 2006, a change in either house of Congress could emperil the progress made so far. As a result, the first order of business is to protect the gains made, by increasing the Republican majority, by increasing the Conservative share of GOP seats, and by never forgetting that the initial revolution in 1994 was just that - a promise for fundamental reform in government, and not just to change the logo of the team in charge. To accomplish this, Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular must make efective use of all the tools provided, especially the blog and new media resources at their disposal. That means, in practical terms, that Republican Congressmen and Senators must recognize the paradigm shift in the forces of information dispersal, and must be available and open to the media which is friendliest to them, as well as the most trusted and credible.
Many on the Left are counting on a force known as “party fatigue”, the theory that voters eventually grow tired of one party in control, and increasingly want to give the other side the reins. The problem with that theory, is that when applied to the longer term it does not work out that way. Democrats, for instance, held control of Congress pretty much from when FDR came to office in 1933, through the first couple years of the Clinton Administration. Also, between 1860 and 1912, it was pretty darn hard for a Democrat to get elected President. The truth is, when a party gets away from the trust which brought it into control of a government, support wanes and people start looking for a better alternative. This is important to the present condition, because while a number of Republicans have done a poor job indeed of addressing the needs of the citizens and nation, the Democrats have been absolutely empty in the ideas department. Hiding from terrorists, increased taxes, and oppressive government regulations are not going to win over the majority of Americans. So, the Republicans can hold onto control, if they will just remember their promises and keep them.
On the international level, the field is just as open. Europe, with the notable exceptions of England and Italy, is largely squishy in their resolve to fight terrorism. Africa is as it always was, a continent with unfulfilled potential and endless ethnic violence. East Europe seems to be following the same sad course. Asia as well is showing stress fractures, especially along the Southwest frontier. South America is improving from the squalid conditions it suffered a century ago, but remains factional, almost feudal, in actual practice. And the Middle East, save for where America has left its influence, appears to have trouble deciding whether to indulge suicidal or homocidal predilections. In short, a nation which chooses to act with decision and resolve finds much ground for gain, which means that the United States must act with even greater resolve to insure its objectives, even for the sake of the world.
To Come - Part 2, Political Supremacy and Party Evolution
It is an undeniable fact that the Republican Party is not only the majority party of United States government, but also the clear preference of the nation. That said, we should acknowledge that the Democrats, even now, remain in just such denial. But for this article, the question must be addressed - what is to be done with command of the country, indeed of the Free World?
That’s the problem so many on the Left have with George W. Bush, you know. Despite losing a series of elections which were basically referendums between whether Americans wanted Democrats or Republicans in charge, Liberals continued to hope that George W. Bush would play the “Gerald Ford” style of leadership - bumbling, never in command, and always sensitive to the opinion of the Left. When it became clear that Dubya not only intended to complete his duties by taking the Conservative road, but worse - meant to put the nation above all, Liberals discovered a danger to their game plan which they had never seen coming. After all, politicians are a piece of lint a dozen, but the man who truly serves the nation is rare, especially in a President. Some might take the JFK or Nixon route, and do some good while never quite letting go of personal pride, but a man in the mold of Lincoln, Jackson, or - shudder - Reagan is quite out of the Liberal’s league. That was part of the Reagan charisma, the common man’s realization that Ronnie was a Republican, but only after he was an American. Men before Reagan fought the Cold War, but Ronnie won it. And Liberals now perceived that Dubya meant to take that same commitment and dedication to modern fronts. Against such a force they had no counter.
It was bad enough for the Liberals, when Bush handled the 2001 collision in International waters between a PLA fighter jet and a U.S. Navy reconnaissance plane with tact and sensitivity, avoiding an almost-bloody escalation. It was bad enough when Dubya ignored the MSM’s polls and pushed for tax cuts. But when Jihadist terrorists killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, Liberals were horrified to discover that Bush had no intention of stopping his response at a few speeches. For all the bluster from France, the Democrats, and other enemies of Democracy, the last few years have demonstrated a resolve and thorough accomplishment in the U.S. Military and Government long believed to be dead. The balance of power in the modern world is distinctly managed by the Bush Administration.
So, the Republicans own a condition seldom imagined by a single political party, much less anticipated. The Liberals will denounce it as Imperialism, of course, but that comes from a predictable defeatism and fear of strong ideals. And yes, that’s a fair description of the policies in West-Central Europe, as well. President Bush has seized on an important military lesson, and applied it to international affairs as well; whomever has the initiative forces his opponents to act in response to his actions. Al Qaeda understood this during the last decade, and used that principle to act with relative impunity during the Clinton years. China did the same thing by brazenly making deals with international pariahs like Saddam Hussein, because they knew their opponents lacked the courage to escalate the matter. In the same vein, Russian President Putin took harsh measures to put down an uprising in Chechnya, on the same concept. Obviously, there is a risk to such gambles - if an opponent decides the escalation of a response is worth the cost, you can lose everything if you turn out to be bluffing. It is important, therefore, to remember that Poker is primarily an American game, and in his younger years, Dubya did quite well by it. Some have suggested that he bluffs well, while others have claimed that he is so lucky, he never has to bluff. In either case, George W. Bush came to the White House singularly equipped not only to respond to such challenges from opponents, but to seize the initiative himself. As a result, Americans’ IRS taxes are lower, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate have grown, and there are two more free nations in the Middle East than when he took office. Just to be clear, these are all good things.
Obviously, an election or two could change things greatly. In 2008, a Democrat or a weak Republican could take Dubya’s place, or even in 2006, a change in either house of Congress could emperil the progress made so far. As a result, the first order of business is to protect the gains made, by increasing the Republican majority, by increasing the Conservative share of GOP seats, and by never forgetting that the initial revolution in 1994 was just that - a promise for fundamental reform in government, and not just to change the logo of the team in charge. To accomplish this, Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular must make efective use of all the tools provided, especially the blog and new media resources at their disposal. That means, in practical terms, that Republican Congressmen and Senators must recognize the paradigm shift in the forces of information dispersal, and must be available and open to the media which is friendliest to them, as well as the most trusted and credible.
Many on the Left are counting on a force known as “party fatigue”, the theory that voters eventually grow tired of one party in control, and increasingly want to give the other side the reins. The problem with that theory, is that when applied to the longer term it does not work out that way. Democrats, for instance, held control of Congress pretty much from when FDR came to office in 1933, through the first couple years of the Clinton Administration. Also, between 1860 and 1912, it was pretty darn hard for a Democrat to get elected President. The truth is, when a party gets away from the trust which brought it into control of a government, support wanes and people start looking for a better alternative. This is important to the present condition, because while a number of Republicans have done a poor job indeed of addressing the needs of the citizens and nation, the Democrats have been absolutely empty in the ideas department. Hiding from terrorists, increased taxes, and oppressive government regulations are not going to win over the majority of Americans. So, the Republicans can hold onto control, if they will just remember their promises and keep them.
On the international level, the field is just as open. Europe, with the notable exceptions of England and Italy, is largely squishy in their resolve to fight terrorism. Africa is as it always was, a continent with unfulfilled potential and endless ethnic violence. East Europe seems to be following the same sad course. Asia as well is showing stress fractures, especially along the Southwest frontier. South America is improving from the squalid conditions it suffered a century ago, but remains factional, almost feudal, in actual practice. And the Middle East, save for where America has left its influence, appears to have trouble deciding whether to indulge suicidal or homocidal predilections. In short, a nation which chooses to act with decision and resolve finds much ground for gain, which means that the United States must act with even greater resolve to insure its objectives, even for the sake of the world.
To Come - Part 2, Political Supremacy and Party Evolution
Saturday, January 28, 2006
2006: A Warning
[ ? ]
National Journal magazine has a Liberals’ wish-list of an article up, titled “What If?” In that article, authors David Baumann, Kirk Victor, and Richard E. Cohen practically drool over the prospect of a takeover in Congress by the Democrats. Unfortunately, sane people should heed that warning, though not for the reasons these three authors propose.
First off, let’s not forget that elections do not always turn out the way they are expected to go. Bill Clinton was hardly qualified to serve as President, yet he was elected to two terms. He admitted to committing felonies, yet even the Republicans in the Senate could not agree to all vote to convict. John Kerry was such a complete fool as a party nominee, that even Saturday Night Live, hardly a friend to Conservatives, could not resist mocking him, yet he claimed more than 48% of the Popular Vote. Al Gore has revealed himself to be an absolutely insane demagogue, yet in 2000 he actually claimed a plurality of the Popular Vote. Liberals can win, even when they are unqualified, even when they are criminal, even when they are insane. We have to defend against that possibility.
Fortunately, the 2006 Elections will not be as easy for the Liberals as they believe. The authors of the National Journal article, whom I will simply dub the ‘3 idiots’ for easy reference, submit that “the once smugly ensconced Republicans have been struggling to overcome abysmal approval ratings and major fissures in their ranks. They’ve been reeling from criticism over their party’s handling of the Iraq War, Hurrican Katrina, gas prices, Social Security reform, and other domestic issues - not to mention the indictments and criminal investigations facing several GOP officials in Congress and the Bush Administration.”
Classic Liberal Mythology, that. I shall address each contention in the order the ‘3 idiots’ presented them:
1. Approval ratings - this is a laugher. The idiots never mention that the polls showing poor approval for Republicans has even lower numbers for Democrats. And the President’s numbers are not only better than either party’s Congress approval, but Dubya’s polls have been climbing. And the idiots have been trying to forget the critical fact that in the last mid-term election, the support from the President made all the difference in several key races. So this is actually a GOP asset, not a Liberal advantage.
2. “Major fissures" - I think they mean guys like me, who felt that certain Conservatives damaged the process by ambushing Harriet Miers and denying her a fair hearing before Congress. Also, there are Republicans who remember the promises made to the American people in 1994, and who fear that we are drifting a bit too much towards the ‘go along’ style of the Democrats. But that is family business - for all the noise, we also remember Reagan’s 11th Commandment, and when the election time comes, we will come together and pull the lever for the RIGHT candidate. The Liberals are lying to themselves to think we will repeat the old mistakes of staying home or splitting our vote. We know the Liberal tricks and history, and while we will argue about ideas and decisions among ourselves, there are few indeed who are foolish enough to think that a Democrat majority in either house is good for the nation.
3. The Iraq War - A classic case of Liberal self-delusion. Between MSM lies and rising casualties with no clear proof of victory during that year, 2004 was the low mark of public support for the war. The evidence of multiple free elections in multiple countries, significant captures and kills of high-ranking terrorists, improved capabilities of Iraqi police and army, and similar successes, has improved public confidence that the war was right and necessary, and that the best course for the future is to finish the job and support the war. The Democrats are not only still on the wrong side of this decision, they continue to notice the tide of support for the troops, the cause, and the determination to finish what we started.
4. Hurricane Katrina - Only a Liberal would still try to blame the Republicans for a natural disaster. This episode is one which the Liberals would actually do well to avoid mentioning, since any serious investigation into who failed to do theri job would unerringly point to the Democrat Mayor Nagin, and the Democrat Governor Blanco. While former FEMA director Brown did not anticipate the confusion which the Governor and Mayor’s ineptitude would create, and State DHS head Landreneau failed to implement the plan developed for just such a crisis, it is impossible to review the events and actions, and somehow blame the Federal response or the Republicans.
5. Gas Prices - If the Liberals want to bring up gas prices, it could be an easy trump for the Republicans, to simply point to all the Democrat obstruction to simply drilling in U.S. territory for the oil we need. Especially with worries about Iran’s intentions, the most logical thing in the world for oil, is for us to drill in ANWR right now - yet that is precisely what the Liberals have tried to prevent. Bringing that up in 2006 would improve the Republican stock, not the Democrats.
6. Social Security reform - This is a laugh. Every debate in the past decade has made it clear that Republicans want to reform Social Security, while Democrats oppose it. Now would be a very good time to remind the American people, who wants to address problems and who wants to hide them.
7. Indictments and Criminal Investigations - that’s Liberal code for 'we figure the charges won’t stick, so let’s get the most mileage we can’. The fact is, by the summer of 2006 the DeLay trial will be over, and from the look of the evidence, it won’t be a problem for The Hammer. As for ‘Scooter’ Libby, the most telling point in that case, is that the charges against Libby have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason Fitzgerald was given his job - Libby neither did nor said anything which endangered or exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent - never mind that she was never a covert operative in the first place during the time concerned. Notice also, that there has been no sense of outrage among the American people - they know a political dirty trick when they see one, and they aren’t buying.
After all that, you might think that there’s nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, we cannot be casual about the threat. One thing the idiots do that should be considered, is warn us about who would be in control, should the Democrats actually succeed intaking over Congress. The idiots send a clear warning we should heed. Consider this roster:
John Conyers as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House
Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader
These are people whose hatred for the troops and the President, whose antipathy for tax reform and contempt for the public will is so well-known, that we can promise their ascension to power would lead to tax increases on an order not seen since Carter, with concurrent legislation to compel Americans to accept the most radical Liberal social agenda imaginable. Remember how Hillary tried to nationalize Healthcare? With a Democrat-held Congress, it could happen. Remember when Reid said we needed to pay more taxes, not less? With a Democrat-held Congress, it could happen. Remember when Murtha seriously wanted us to pull all our troops out from Iraq with no notice? With a Democrat-held Congress, it could happen.
During the primaries, we must support the most Conservative candidates possible, but when the fall rolls around, make no mistake, the Republican majority must be protected.
National Journal magazine has a Liberals’ wish-list of an article up, titled “What If?” In that article, authors David Baumann, Kirk Victor, and Richard E. Cohen practically drool over the prospect of a takeover in Congress by the Democrats. Unfortunately, sane people should heed that warning, though not for the reasons these three authors propose.
First off, let’s not forget that elections do not always turn out the way they are expected to go. Bill Clinton was hardly qualified to serve as President, yet he was elected to two terms. He admitted to committing felonies, yet even the Republicans in the Senate could not agree to all vote to convict. John Kerry was such a complete fool as a party nominee, that even Saturday Night Live, hardly a friend to Conservatives, could not resist mocking him, yet he claimed more than 48% of the Popular Vote. Al Gore has revealed himself to be an absolutely insane demagogue, yet in 2000 he actually claimed a plurality of the Popular Vote. Liberals can win, even when they are unqualified, even when they are criminal, even when they are insane. We have to defend against that possibility.
Fortunately, the 2006 Elections will not be as easy for the Liberals as they believe. The authors of the National Journal article, whom I will simply dub the ‘3 idiots’ for easy reference, submit that “the once smugly ensconced Republicans have been struggling to overcome abysmal approval ratings and major fissures in their ranks. They’ve been reeling from criticism over their party’s handling of the Iraq War, Hurrican Katrina, gas prices, Social Security reform, and other domestic issues - not to mention the indictments and criminal investigations facing several GOP officials in Congress and the Bush Administration.”
Classic Liberal Mythology, that. I shall address each contention in the order the ‘3 idiots’ presented them:
1. Approval ratings - this is a laugher. The idiots never mention that the polls showing poor approval for Republicans has even lower numbers for Democrats. And the President’s numbers are not only better than either party’s Congress approval, but Dubya’s polls have been climbing. And the idiots have been trying to forget the critical fact that in the last mid-term election, the support from the President made all the difference in several key races. So this is actually a GOP asset, not a Liberal advantage.
2. “Major fissures" - I think they mean guys like me, who felt that certain Conservatives damaged the process by ambushing Harriet Miers and denying her a fair hearing before Congress. Also, there are Republicans who remember the promises made to the American people in 1994, and who fear that we are drifting a bit too much towards the ‘go along’ style of the Democrats. But that is family business - for all the noise, we also remember Reagan’s 11th Commandment, and when the election time comes, we will come together and pull the lever for the RIGHT candidate. The Liberals are lying to themselves to think we will repeat the old mistakes of staying home or splitting our vote. We know the Liberal tricks and history, and while we will argue about ideas and decisions among ourselves, there are few indeed who are foolish enough to think that a Democrat majority in either house is good for the nation.
3. The Iraq War - A classic case of Liberal self-delusion. Between MSM lies and rising casualties with no clear proof of victory during that year, 2004 was the low mark of public support for the war. The evidence of multiple free elections in multiple countries, significant captures and kills of high-ranking terrorists, improved capabilities of Iraqi police and army, and similar successes, has improved public confidence that the war was right and necessary, and that the best course for the future is to finish the job and support the war. The Democrats are not only still on the wrong side of this decision, they continue to notice the tide of support for the troops, the cause, and the determination to finish what we started.
4. Hurricane Katrina - Only a Liberal would still try to blame the Republicans for a natural disaster. This episode is one which the Liberals would actually do well to avoid mentioning, since any serious investigation into who failed to do theri job would unerringly point to the Democrat Mayor Nagin, and the Democrat Governor Blanco. While former FEMA director Brown did not anticipate the confusion which the Governor and Mayor’s ineptitude would create, and State DHS head Landreneau failed to implement the plan developed for just such a crisis, it is impossible to review the events and actions, and somehow blame the Federal response or the Republicans.
5. Gas Prices - If the Liberals want to bring up gas prices, it could be an easy trump for the Republicans, to simply point to all the Democrat obstruction to simply drilling in U.S. territory for the oil we need. Especially with worries about Iran’s intentions, the most logical thing in the world for oil, is for us to drill in ANWR right now - yet that is precisely what the Liberals have tried to prevent. Bringing that up in 2006 would improve the Republican stock, not the Democrats.
6. Social Security reform - This is a laugh. Every debate in the past decade has made it clear that Republicans want to reform Social Security, while Democrats oppose it. Now would be a very good time to remind the American people, who wants to address problems and who wants to hide them.
7. Indictments and Criminal Investigations - that’s Liberal code for 'we figure the charges won’t stick, so let’s get the most mileage we can’. The fact is, by the summer of 2006 the DeLay trial will be over, and from the look of the evidence, it won’t be a problem for The Hammer. As for ‘Scooter’ Libby, the most telling point in that case, is that the charges against Libby have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason Fitzgerald was given his job - Libby neither did nor said anything which endangered or exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent - never mind that she was never a covert operative in the first place during the time concerned. Notice also, that there has been no sense of outrage among the American people - they know a political dirty trick when they see one, and they aren’t buying.
After all that, you might think that there’s nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, we cannot be casual about the threat. One thing the idiots do that should be considered, is warn us about who would be in control, should the Democrats actually succeed intaking over Congress. The idiots send a clear warning we should heed. Consider this roster:
John Conyers as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House
Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader
These are people whose hatred for the troops and the President, whose antipathy for tax reform and contempt for the public will is so well-known, that we can promise their ascension to power would lead to tax increases on an order not seen since Carter, with concurrent legislation to compel Americans to accept the most radical Liberal social agenda imaginable. Remember how Hillary tried to nationalize Healthcare? With a Democrat-held Congress, it could happen. Remember when Reid said we needed to pay more taxes, not less? With a Democrat-held Congress, it could happen. Remember when Murtha seriously wanted us to pull all our troops out from Iraq with no notice? With a Democrat-held Congress, it could happen.
During the primaries, we must support the most Conservative candidates possible, but when the fall rolls around, make no mistake, the Republican majority must be protected.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Jack Bauer, Lunch, and Other Things
[ !**! ]
Once the polls closed on the 2006 “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere” decision, I sat down to lunch to think about who should win the title.
From the final voting came this result:
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler – 81.0%
Ace (from Polipundit’s Comments) – 12.1%
Michael Yon – 06.9%
There were just three problems, though. Bauer does a lot of things that are not real popular with the CTU guys or the suits, so popularity cannot be everything. Second, one of Rottie’s own minions referenced his service as a Danish. I can’t see a flaky breakfast pastry in the role of a no-compromise counter-terrorist agent. And third, as anyone who has watched ‘24’ knows, you can’t just come out and say something straightaway. The truth has to come out in some unexpected, violent, testosterone-affirming way.
Paula and Randy came by to thank me for remembering them in the comments of the voting section, and to suggest that Simon Cowell is actually a Chechyan spy who needs to be roughly interrogated. Paula seemed a bit enthusiastic about that idea, and supplied a pair of handcuffs and a gag for that purpose. Randy also tried to throw in a late vote for the Rottweiler, saying ‘I gotta support my peeps, Dawg.’
At this mention, the Rottie himself showed up, grabbed the waiter and knocked the entrée from his hands, dropping a pistol and a letter from the Al Kerry terrorist organization demanding that I name Jacques “Souffle” Chirac as Europe’s “Jack Bauer”. Rottie twisted the waiter’s head off neatly, tossing the noggin towards a table of ‘Earth Or Else' vegans, who scattered like rats.
“I need you to trust me”, said Rottie, “You have to name the Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere in the next five minutes, or a lot of innocent people are going to be hurt.”
“OK, so we’ll make this quick,” I replied. “Why should you be ‘Jack Bauer’?”
“Because there’s no time,” answered Rottie, “and don’t forget DJ – I don’t work for you. I’m doing this my way.”
“What about Ace and Yon?” I asked.
“Good men, but they’re needed somewhere else,” replied Rottie. “I can’t tell you more right now. Hang on-“
Rottie tossed a pair of grenades at an approaching black van in the street, and we ran for the back exit.
Out in the alley, Rottie munched on a cannoli he grabbed from the kitchen, while checking his pockets for remaining weapons. He then sprinted down the sidewalk, stopping as he stared at a kiosk.
“There’s no time!” shouted Rottie.
“Hey, you already said that!” I retorted.
“No, I mean there’s no TIME” said Rottie, pointing to an empty bin at the news stand. “Rove was going to send me secret instructions in the ‘McHitler’ section of the next TIME edition, but there’s no – wait a sec”
Rottie grabbed a TIME magazine from a passing pedestrian, who turned out to be wanted serial bomber Abu BuuBuu. Rottie tied the man’s hands behind him with a coil of wire he was carrying.
“OK DJ, I need you to do three things for me” demanded Rottie as he got up and checked the magazine in his semi-auto cell phone, counting rounds as he spoke.
“One – I gotta be Jack. No one else can do the job.
“Two – I was never here.
“Three – the security of the free world depends on everyone tuning in to Fox for every episode of ‘24’, and regular visits to TAR for briefings.
“And it wouldn’t hurt for them to visit Polipundit a few times every week as well. And don’t forget, kids, killing terrorists is not only fun, it’s good for the environment and leads to cleaner elections.
“Thanks for lunch!”
And with that, the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, the new “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere” dashed off, stopping only to throw BuuBuu face-first into passing traffic and to reload his cell phone.
Once the polls closed on the 2006 “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere” decision, I sat down to lunch to think about who should win the title.
From the final voting came this result:
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler – 81.0%
Ace (from Polipundit’s Comments) – 12.1%
Michael Yon – 06.9%
There were just three problems, though. Bauer does a lot of things that are not real popular with the CTU guys or the suits, so popularity cannot be everything. Second, one of Rottie’s own minions referenced his service as a Danish. I can’t see a flaky breakfast pastry in the role of a no-compromise counter-terrorist agent. And third, as anyone who has watched ‘24’ knows, you can’t just come out and say something straightaway. The truth has to come out in some unexpected, violent, testosterone-affirming way.
Paula and Randy came by to thank me for remembering them in the comments of the voting section, and to suggest that Simon Cowell is actually a Chechyan spy who needs to be roughly interrogated. Paula seemed a bit enthusiastic about that idea, and supplied a pair of handcuffs and a gag for that purpose. Randy also tried to throw in a late vote for the Rottweiler, saying ‘I gotta support my peeps, Dawg.’
At this mention, the Rottie himself showed up, grabbed the waiter and knocked the entrée from his hands, dropping a pistol and a letter from the Al Kerry terrorist organization demanding that I name Jacques “Souffle” Chirac as Europe’s “Jack Bauer”. Rottie twisted the waiter’s head off neatly, tossing the noggin towards a table of ‘Earth Or Else' vegans, who scattered like rats.
“I need you to trust me”, said Rottie, “You have to name the Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere in the next five minutes, or a lot of innocent people are going to be hurt.”
“OK, so we’ll make this quick,” I replied. “Why should you be ‘Jack Bauer’?”
“Because there’s no time,” answered Rottie, “and don’t forget DJ – I don’t work for you. I’m doing this my way.”
“What about Ace and Yon?” I asked.
“Good men, but they’re needed somewhere else,” replied Rottie. “I can’t tell you more right now. Hang on-“
Rottie tossed a pair of grenades at an approaching black van in the street, and we ran for the back exit.
Out in the alley, Rottie munched on a cannoli he grabbed from the kitchen, while checking his pockets for remaining weapons. He then sprinted down the sidewalk, stopping as he stared at a kiosk.
“There’s no time!” shouted Rottie.
“Hey, you already said that!” I retorted.
“No, I mean there’s no TIME” said Rottie, pointing to an empty bin at the news stand. “Rove was going to send me secret instructions in the ‘McHitler’ section of the next TIME edition, but there’s no – wait a sec”
Rottie grabbed a TIME magazine from a passing pedestrian, who turned out to be wanted serial bomber Abu BuuBuu. Rottie tied the man’s hands behind him with a coil of wire he was carrying.
“OK DJ, I need you to do three things for me” demanded Rottie as he got up and checked the magazine in his semi-auto cell phone, counting rounds as he spoke.
“One – I gotta be Jack. No one else can do the job.
“Two – I was never here.
“Three – the security of the free world depends on everyone tuning in to Fox for every episode of ‘24’, and regular visits to TAR for briefings.
“And it wouldn’t hurt for them to visit Polipundit a few times every week as well. And don’t forget, kids, killing terrorists is not only fun, it’s good for the environment and leads to cleaner elections.
“Thanks for lunch!”
And with that, the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, the new “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere” dashed off, stopping only to throw BuuBuu face-first into passing traffic and to reload his cell phone.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Jack Bauer Revealed?
[ <> ]
Back on January 19th, I asked readers to name who is the “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere”. I set the following conditions:
1. He’s male. Sorry ladies, but this gun-toting, do-what-a-patriot’s-gotta-do guy is focused testosterone. This ain’t Siegfried and Roy, this ain’t Dr. Phil, and any woman pulling the kind of stuff we see Bauer doing in “24″ would look more like “Xena” than a counter-terrorism agent.
2. He’s decisive. No one who can be connected to a focus group or committee need apply.
3. He’s not PC. Bauer does what is required, and is not subtle about it.
4. Despite being violent a lot, Bauer is not crazy or bloodthirsty. He does what is necessary, but holds his fire, and is willing to let even terrorists live if they surrender. That rules out DU or Daily Kos, even if they could accept being on the same side as Bauer.
5. Bauer is in such deep cover, most people think he’s dead. Talk about controlling your ego. That rules out Rush, most talk show hosts and columnists, and anyone who has voluntarily appeared on Leno or Letterman.
6. Bauer knows guns. And uses them often. This rules out anyone from the State Department or the United Nations, or their advocates.
7. Bauer is indestructible. In a previous season, Bauer freaking died, someone got his heart started again and by the end of the episode Bauer was kicking bad guys in the groin as hard as ever.
8. Bauer always knows what’s about to happen. As a result, he has a few seconds to plan his actions, which only appear to be impossible.
9. Bauer trusts the right people. He instinctively knows the traitors and low-lifes, but depends on the ones he knows are stand-up.
10. Bauer gets results. Compromise is useless.
I ruled out Hugh Hewitt from the start for being a lawyer, and I have to re-rule him out again, because he claimed to have Jack Bauer on his radio show. This proves Hugh is not Jack, for 2 additional reasons:
1. Jack Bauer does not have time for interviews, nor would a man with his cover want the publicity.
2. If by some quirk in the universe Hewitt really was interviewing Bauer, then by the fact that Hewitt was interviewing Bauer, Hewitt could not be Bauer. And don’t say Hewitt was pretending to be himself and Bauer; Jack Bauer does not talk to himself.
When the qualified candidates were tallied, twenty-two valid names were submitted. In alphabetical order, they are (special BTDT props to those who have ‘been there, done that’):
Ace, regular commenter on this site
Allahpundit, 'Link Mecca'
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, ‘The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler’
Bill Roggio, ‘The Fourth Rail’, BTDT
Bill Whittle, ‘Eject!Eject!Eject!’ , BTDT
Blackfive, ‘Blackfive’ BTDT
Charles Johnson, ‘Little Green Footballs’
Chris Muir, author of ‘Day by Day’
Dafydd AbHugh, ‘Big Lizards’
Ernie@EHOWA, ‘The Daily Grind’
Frank J, ‘IMAO’
Froggy, ‘Froggy Ruminations’, BTDT
Jack Risko, ‘Dinocrat’
Kim du Toit, ‘RadioActive Chief’
Lumpy, ‘Lump On A Blog’
Mark Steyn, columnist and author
Michael Yon, “Michael Yon: Online Magazine”
Polipundit, ‘Polipundit'
R.D. Currie, ‘Centurion’, BTDT
Reverse Vampyr, ‘Reverse Vampyr’
Rick Moran, ‘Rightwing Nuthouse’
Victor David Hanson, ‘vdh Private Papers’
I figure everyone nominated gets their CTU ID and a nice Glock for the honor. The 'BTDT' vets get full-auto rifles. But in the end, only three people got more than two nominations, so our finalists are
Ace,
The Rottweiler, and
Michael Yon.
The floor is open to debate among those final three. And since all three are distinguished, please mention who the two who do not get your nod for ‘Jack Bauer’ would be. I, for example, consider myself the “Felix Leiter of the Blogosphere”.
And for my votes, I vote
Michael Yon as “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere”
Rottweiler as “Darth Vader of the Blogosphere”
Ace as “Detective John McClane of the Blogosphere”
You’re up.
Back on January 19th, I asked readers to name who is the “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere”. I set the following conditions:
1. He’s male. Sorry ladies, but this gun-toting, do-what-a-patriot’s-gotta-do guy is focused testosterone. This ain’t Siegfried and Roy, this ain’t Dr. Phil, and any woman pulling the kind of stuff we see Bauer doing in “24″ would look more like “Xena” than a counter-terrorism agent.
2. He’s decisive. No one who can be connected to a focus group or committee need apply.
3. He’s not PC. Bauer does what is required, and is not subtle about it.
4. Despite being violent a lot, Bauer is not crazy or bloodthirsty. He does what is necessary, but holds his fire, and is willing to let even terrorists live if they surrender. That rules out DU or Daily Kos, even if they could accept being on the same side as Bauer.
5. Bauer is in such deep cover, most people think he’s dead. Talk about controlling your ego. That rules out Rush, most talk show hosts and columnists, and anyone who has voluntarily appeared on Leno or Letterman.
6. Bauer knows guns. And uses them often. This rules out anyone from the State Department or the United Nations, or their advocates.
7. Bauer is indestructible. In a previous season, Bauer freaking died, someone got his heart started again and by the end of the episode Bauer was kicking bad guys in the groin as hard as ever.
8. Bauer always knows what’s about to happen. As a result, he has a few seconds to plan his actions, which only appear to be impossible.
9. Bauer trusts the right people. He instinctively knows the traitors and low-lifes, but depends on the ones he knows are stand-up.
10. Bauer gets results. Compromise is useless.
I ruled out Hugh Hewitt from the start for being a lawyer, and I have to re-rule him out again, because he claimed to have Jack Bauer on his radio show. This proves Hugh is not Jack, for 2 additional reasons:
1. Jack Bauer does not have time for interviews, nor would a man with his cover want the publicity.
2. If by some quirk in the universe Hewitt really was interviewing Bauer, then by the fact that Hewitt was interviewing Bauer, Hewitt could not be Bauer. And don’t say Hewitt was pretending to be himself and Bauer; Jack Bauer does not talk to himself.
When the qualified candidates were tallied, twenty-two valid names were submitted. In alphabetical order, they are (special BTDT props to those who have ‘been there, done that’):
Ace, regular commenter on this site
Allahpundit, 'Link Mecca'
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, ‘The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler’
Bill Roggio, ‘The Fourth Rail’, BTDT
Bill Whittle, ‘Eject!Eject!Eject!’ , BTDT
Blackfive, ‘Blackfive’ BTDT
Charles Johnson, ‘Little Green Footballs’
Chris Muir, author of ‘Day by Day’
Dafydd AbHugh, ‘Big Lizards’
Ernie@EHOWA, ‘The Daily Grind’
Frank J, ‘IMAO’
Froggy, ‘Froggy Ruminations’, BTDT
Jack Risko, ‘Dinocrat’
Kim du Toit, ‘RadioActive Chief’
Lumpy, ‘Lump On A Blog’
Mark Steyn, columnist and author
Michael Yon, “Michael Yon: Online Magazine”
Polipundit, ‘Polipundit'
R.D. Currie, ‘Centurion’, BTDT
Reverse Vampyr, ‘Reverse Vampyr’
Rick Moran, ‘Rightwing Nuthouse’
Victor David Hanson, ‘vdh Private Papers’
I figure everyone nominated gets their CTU ID and a nice Glock for the honor. The 'BTDT' vets get full-auto rifles. But in the end, only three people got more than two nominations, so our finalists are
Ace,
The Rottweiler, and
Michael Yon.
The floor is open to debate among those final three. And since all three are distinguished, please mention who the two who do not get your nod for ‘Jack Bauer’ would be. I, for example, consider myself the “Felix Leiter of the Blogosphere”.
And for my votes, I vote
Michael Yon as “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere”
Rottweiler as “Darth Vader of the Blogosphere”
Ace as “Detective John McClane of the Blogosphere”
You’re up.
Slap The Liar – Another Much-Needed Fisking
[!#!]
Jacob Weisberg has an article up in 'Slate'. Yeah, if you have read Slate you know it tilts just a bit to Port, and the writers there are not all that big on scholarship, so a column regarding Constitutional Law is likely to miss the bullseye. This one, however, missed the whole target, the bale of hay it was sitting on, the barn behind the bale, and pretty much anything the author could be said to be aiming as the goal. Yet because the likely audience won’t catch the mistake, Weisberg will likely be thought of as on-target, simply because the audience will see what they want to see.
The article is titled “The Power-Madness of King George”, which is in no way accurate about the President, but at least correctly warns us about the large and false assumptions Mister Weisberg carries into the matter, a la BDS. So, I am taking it upon myself to note some of the more egregious errors in Weisberg’s article, and to respond as needed.
Weisberg can’t get past the second sentence of his article before his first lie. Says Weisberg; “President Bush believes he has the legal authority to order electronic snooping without asking anyone's permission.”. This is a lie on two levels. First off, it falsely conveys the notion that the President has a jones for “snooping” into people’s private lives just because he wants to. A fitting response would be from President Bush’s address at Kansas State University last week: “When the 9/11 terrorists were planning their attack, they made calls to and from Al Qaeda and their operatives inside the United States. So if a phone number connected to a member or supporter of Al Qaeda calls someone inside the United States, we want to know who they are calling, and why.” Second, Weisberg has such a low opinion of Executive authority, that he actually thinks the President of the United States needs so ask “permission” to do his job. A police office does not ask for the authority to pull over someone who is driving suspiciously; a parent does not ask for authority to see what his kids have in their backpack from school. And a President in wartime does not ask for permission to exercise his authority under Article II of the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Defending the country includes the use of intelligence, and the President directs certain specific conditions and actions, including the interception of communications to and from foreign agents. Mister Weisberg seems to be unaware that such practices were authorized by Presidents Clinton, and all the way back to the first President, George Washington, who paid for information regarding British conversations with Tories, and later the conversations between the Whiskey Rebels. Weisberg is on the wrong side of History, Security, and Common Sense.
Weisberg hopes that the “Senate hearings on NSA domestic espionage set to begin next month will confront fundamental questions about the balance of power within our system.” In English, that translates to mean that Weisberg hopes that the Senate will attempt to dilute or outright deny the President’s Constitutional power to wage the war as he is placed to do. Solely authorized, in fact. Weisberg thinks that committees are the answer, which suggests that Weisberg has never had to submit a work of importance to a committee. The circus of the Alito hearings, even when the outcome was known from the beginning, demonstrates that Senate hearings to judge actions which is neither the Senate’s jurisdiction, nor which will help win the war against Terrorism in any way, is foolhardy at best.
Weisberg leaves that lie be, and proceeds on to his next, claiming “Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited.”
Uh-huh.
Care to explain where that is actually claimed, anywhere? The audience will understand that Mister Weisberg knows he is lying here. After all, if the White House did not feel the obligation to limit their actions and authority, they would not have filed literally thousands of FISA requests, nor made dozens of briefings to Congress regarding this program and other intelligence-gathering methods, nor discussed some of his actions in public speeches. In addition, the Article II actions undertaken by President Bush have been demonstrably restrained in number and scale, and always within the clear limits of National Security as defined by the objective of preventing another 9/11-style attack, just as Congress, the Public, and the 9/11 critics have been demanding. Weisberg, having seen these public documents, statements, and news reports, obviously knows this, which means that his implication that Bush is trying to assert unprecedented powers or to expand the boundaries of his office, is a deliberate mis-statement of the facts.
It truly says something about how truly Leftist Mister Weisberg is, that he submits a 42-page legal brief by the Justice Department, who know a thing or two about the Constitution and the Law, to a critique by “Andrew Cohen, a CBS legal analyst”. You know, CBS, the network which got caught trying to manipulate a federal election with forged documents a couple years ago? So it seems a bit ironic to me that Mister Weisberg described the White House, and not CBS, as “an elective dictatorship, governed not by three counterpoised branches of government but by a secretive, possibly benign, awesomely powerful king.” But then, by now it should be clear that Weisberg has an agenda, and he is quite ready to lie for its advance.
Weisberg, like the blind pig of the fable, actually makes a true statement next: “the president's powers as commander in chief make him the "sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs." This status, which derives from Article II of the Constitution, brings with it the authority to conduct warrant-less surveillance for the purpose of disrupting possible terrorist attacks on the United States.” Of course, this is not Weisberg’s opinion, but the Attorney General, whom Weisberg can only address as the “putative author” of the legal brief. This should have been obvious, however, by the fact that Weisberg knows so little about the Constitution that he has managed to oppose Constitutional provisions in his argument.
Rather than consider that the President in his own right represents an entire branch of government, equal in authority to the entire Congress or Federal judiciary, Weisberg dismisses Article II of the U.S. Constitution, declaring that it has a ewhat daffy monarchical undertone”.
Weisberg continues his fiction, to such a degree that he seems to believe that the only authority the President has in regards to intelligence collection resides in the provisions of FISA. That is, in Weisberg’s world the President can do nothing without the express consent of Congress, allowing the President of the United States less discretion in his job than the Senate cafeteria. There, at least, the cooks are allowed to choose what they will prepare and how. Weisberg does not want the President to decide how we will collect intelligence information, or from whom; he confuses the actions of the Justice Department in the prosecution of criminals, with the authority specifically granted to the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military. Weisberg throws out the old liberal canard that not agreeing to grant captured foreign terrorists the civil rights of U.S. citizens somehow equates to a desire to “excuse torture”. Weisberg, in true liberal hysteria, then speculates that the power to do his job might somehow allow President Bush to suggest “press censorship or arresting political opponents”. ‘Dishonest’ is hardly a strong enough word to describe the malice in Weisberg’s slander.
Weisberg, perhaps realizing he has crossed a line too far for even most liberals, then scuttles back at the end with a grudging claim that he does not “suggest that Bush intends anything of the kind—or that even a Congress as supine as the current one would remain passive if he went so far.”. But Weisberg’s hate against the President still reeks throughout his screed, continued proof of the anger from the Left that a Conservative President, once again, should prove effective in defeating America’s enemies.
It might be comforting to consider the possibility that Mister Weisberg was not fully himself when he wrote these lies and malicious slurs. Perhaps a bitter former employee broke in and wrote this slop under Weisberg’s byline, or perhaps a deranged monkey, such as appear to be writing Op-Eds for the New York and LA Times’, broke in and posted this rhetorical defecation. Alas for Mister Weisberg, a note at the end confirms not only that he wrote this hateful pack of lies. ‘Slate’ notes at the end of the article, that Weisberg misspelled the name of the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, which means that a co-editor corrected the spelling. Unfortunately, that note confirms that the article was presented as Mister Weisberg intended, and indeed as ‘Slate’ desired to present it. A deliberate mis-statement of Constitutional authority, a false and hateful portrayal of the White House and the President in particular, and a pathological denial of the need for vigilant security procedures in the era of global terrorism, are the hallmarks of ‘Slate’ magazine and the angry, truth-hating Mister Weisberg.
Jacob Weisberg has an article up in 'Slate'. Yeah, if you have read Slate you know it tilts just a bit to Port, and the writers there are not all that big on scholarship, so a column regarding Constitutional Law is likely to miss the bullseye. This one, however, missed the whole target, the bale of hay it was sitting on, the barn behind the bale, and pretty much anything the author could be said to be aiming as the goal. Yet because the likely audience won’t catch the mistake, Weisberg will likely be thought of as on-target, simply because the audience will see what they want to see.
The article is titled “The Power-Madness of King George”, which is in no way accurate about the President, but at least correctly warns us about the large and false assumptions Mister Weisberg carries into the matter, a la BDS. So, I am taking it upon myself to note some of the more egregious errors in Weisberg’s article, and to respond as needed.
Weisberg can’t get past the second sentence of his article before his first lie. Says Weisberg; “President Bush believes he has the legal authority to order electronic snooping without asking anyone's permission.”. This is a lie on two levels. First off, it falsely conveys the notion that the President has a jones for “snooping” into people’s private lives just because he wants to. A fitting response would be from President Bush’s address at Kansas State University last week: “When the 9/11 terrorists were planning their attack, they made calls to and from Al Qaeda and their operatives inside the United States. So if a phone number connected to a member or supporter of Al Qaeda calls someone inside the United States, we want to know who they are calling, and why.” Second, Weisberg has such a low opinion of Executive authority, that he actually thinks the President of the United States needs so ask “permission” to do his job. A police office does not ask for the authority to pull over someone who is driving suspiciously; a parent does not ask for authority to see what his kids have in their backpack from school. And a President in wartime does not ask for permission to exercise his authority under Article II of the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Defending the country includes the use of intelligence, and the President directs certain specific conditions and actions, including the interception of communications to and from foreign agents. Mister Weisberg seems to be unaware that such practices were authorized by Presidents Clinton, and all the way back to the first President, George Washington, who paid for information regarding British conversations with Tories, and later the conversations between the Whiskey Rebels. Weisberg is on the wrong side of History, Security, and Common Sense.
Weisberg hopes that the “Senate hearings on NSA domestic espionage set to begin next month will confront fundamental questions about the balance of power within our system.” In English, that translates to mean that Weisberg hopes that the Senate will attempt to dilute or outright deny the President’s Constitutional power to wage the war as he is placed to do. Solely authorized, in fact. Weisberg thinks that committees are the answer, which suggests that Weisberg has never had to submit a work of importance to a committee. The circus of the Alito hearings, even when the outcome was known from the beginning, demonstrates that Senate hearings to judge actions which is neither the Senate’s jurisdiction, nor which will help win the war against Terrorism in any way, is foolhardy at best.
Weisberg leaves that lie be, and proceeds on to his next, claiming “Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited.”
Uh-huh.
Care to explain where that is actually claimed, anywhere? The audience will understand that Mister Weisberg knows he is lying here. After all, if the White House did not feel the obligation to limit their actions and authority, they would not have filed literally thousands of FISA requests, nor made dozens of briefings to Congress regarding this program and other intelligence-gathering methods, nor discussed some of his actions in public speeches. In addition, the Article II actions undertaken by President Bush have been demonstrably restrained in number and scale, and always within the clear limits of National Security as defined by the objective of preventing another 9/11-style attack, just as Congress, the Public, and the 9/11 critics have been demanding. Weisberg, having seen these public documents, statements, and news reports, obviously knows this, which means that his implication that Bush is trying to assert unprecedented powers or to expand the boundaries of his office, is a deliberate mis-statement of the facts.
It truly says something about how truly Leftist Mister Weisberg is, that he submits a 42-page legal brief by the Justice Department, who know a thing or two about the Constitution and the Law, to a critique by “Andrew Cohen, a CBS legal analyst”. You know, CBS, the network which got caught trying to manipulate a federal election with forged documents a couple years ago? So it seems a bit ironic to me that Mister Weisberg described the White House, and not CBS, as “an elective dictatorship, governed not by three counterpoised branches of government but by a secretive, possibly benign, awesomely powerful king.” But then, by now it should be clear that Weisberg has an agenda, and he is quite ready to lie for its advance.
Weisberg, like the blind pig of the fable, actually makes a true statement next: “the president's powers as commander in chief make him the "sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs." This status, which derives from Article II of the Constitution, brings with it the authority to conduct warrant-less surveillance for the purpose of disrupting possible terrorist attacks on the United States.” Of course, this is not Weisberg’s opinion, but the Attorney General, whom Weisberg can only address as the “putative author” of the legal brief. This should have been obvious, however, by the fact that Weisberg knows so little about the Constitution that he has managed to oppose Constitutional provisions in his argument.
Rather than consider that the President in his own right represents an entire branch of government, equal in authority to the entire Congress or Federal judiciary, Weisberg dismisses Article II of the U.S. Constitution, declaring that it has a ewhat daffy monarchical undertone”.
Weisberg continues his fiction, to such a degree that he seems to believe that the only authority the President has in regards to intelligence collection resides in the provisions of FISA. That is, in Weisberg’s world the President can do nothing without the express consent of Congress, allowing the President of the United States less discretion in his job than the Senate cafeteria. There, at least, the cooks are allowed to choose what they will prepare and how. Weisberg does not want the President to decide how we will collect intelligence information, or from whom; he confuses the actions of the Justice Department in the prosecution of criminals, with the authority specifically granted to the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military. Weisberg throws out the old liberal canard that not agreeing to grant captured foreign terrorists the civil rights of U.S. citizens somehow equates to a desire to “excuse torture”. Weisberg, in true liberal hysteria, then speculates that the power to do his job might somehow allow President Bush to suggest “press censorship or arresting political opponents”. ‘Dishonest’ is hardly a strong enough word to describe the malice in Weisberg’s slander.
Weisberg, perhaps realizing he has crossed a line too far for even most liberals, then scuttles back at the end with a grudging claim that he does not “suggest that Bush intends anything of the kind—or that even a Congress as supine as the current one would remain passive if he went so far.”. But Weisberg’s hate against the President still reeks throughout his screed, continued proof of the anger from the Left that a Conservative President, once again, should prove effective in defeating America’s enemies.
It might be comforting to consider the possibility that Mister Weisberg was not fully himself when he wrote these lies and malicious slurs. Perhaps a bitter former employee broke in and wrote this slop under Weisberg’s byline, or perhaps a deranged monkey, such as appear to be writing Op-Eds for the New York and LA Times’, broke in and posted this rhetorical defecation. Alas for Mister Weisberg, a note at the end confirms not only that he wrote this hateful pack of lies. ‘Slate’ notes at the end of the article, that Weisberg misspelled the name of the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, which means that a co-editor corrected the spelling. Unfortunately, that note confirms that the article was presented as Mister Weisberg intended, and indeed as ‘Slate’ desired to present it. A deliberate mis-statement of Constitutional authority, a false and hateful portrayal of the White House and the President in particular, and a pathological denial of the need for vigilant security procedures in the era of global terrorism, are the hallmarks of ‘Slate’ magazine and the angry, truth-hating Mister Weisberg.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
FORD – For Obvious Reasons, Dead
O-[][]-O
If I were to describe a major corporation’s products as being best-known for rolling over and spontaneously catching fire, you might believe I was referring to some caricature of a corporation, some Michael Moore-inspired nightmare that has no basis in fact. But I am talking about Ford, the company which seems, to paraphrase Robert Downey Junior, to like the taste of a gun barrel in the mouth.
Ford’s problems started the same way they did for other U.S. carmarkers. Ford was caught by surprise by the quality and popularity of Japanese imports during the 1970s, and suffered the disasters of the Pinto and the 1974-78 Mustang II. Ironically, then as now a combination of poor engineering and worse marketing.
Ford learned from its blunders, or so it seemed, to the point where it’s stock climbed all the way up to $29.85 a share in 2005. But problems were already moving towards disaster long before that high-water mark, and doom was unavoidable by the time anyone in Dearborn looked up to see it. One very key blunder early on was the removal of Jacques Nasser as CEO, replacing him with William Clay Ford Jr. in 2001. This occurred as part of a series of operational changes in an effort to “return Ford to profitability”. Many management professionals were given the boot, and the company failed miserably to consider the most likely causes of lost revenue and market share. And to elect a CEO largely on the basis of family control of the stock – Ford himself admitted that “his name and his family's control of the company's voting stock was a factor in his selection” – is a serious mistake for a major corporation to make. While the company enjoyed some success in rising stock prices until 2005 and a measure of profitability, no one at Ford appears to have ever seriously examined the causes for Ford’s problems, assuming that they would simply go away. And so history repeated itself, this time with possibly fatal consequences.
I mentioned the Pinto and the Mustang II, because they represented fundamental errors made by the Ford Directors. The Pinto was rushed into production, in about half the time normally taken to develop a new model, and so safety risks were not recognized until people died. If you do such a poor job of engineering that you make even Ralph Nader appear reasonable, you have really and truly screwed up. And then there is the Mustang II, an underpowered model no one wanted or was really ever liked. Taking the most famous model of muscle car Ford made, and replacing it with a weak sister with a penchant for transmission problems and oil leaks (as three of my friends constantly complained to me about the car), is an incredibly poor decision, impossible to justify with any knowledge of History of Economics. And judging from the finances of Ford during those years, it was an expensive lesson.
That was then, this is now though, right? Surely after those twin fiascos, you might expect someone at Ford would have put a report together, with some clever variant of a title on the line of “Hey, Let’s Not Do Something This Stupid Again, OK?” But apparently not.
First, there was the Ford Explorer. The SUV is largely a good idea. People love the idea of a big powerful truck, safe from likely accidents with plenty of power for driving and comfort. People don’t mind the big price tag, or even the lousy gas mileage, as long as they feel like they have a strong, capable, safe ride for their family. Emphasis on “safe”.
This is why the Explorer was bungled. Something in the design of the Explorer made it prone to exploding tires and rollover accidents. Extremely prone. Literally hundreds of Explorer drivers died in rollover accidents, and while tiremaker Firestone took a lot of the blame, NHTSA tests showed that Explorers were far more likely to roll over than any other model or brand. Even after extensive refitting and redesign, the Explorer in 2004 was still regarded as the most likely vehicle to suffer a rollover accident.
Ford recalled the Explorer in 2001 and again in 2003, although the company denied any risk of serious accident from the design errors. It doesn’t take a business genius to recognize that if your leading model of SUV has a propensity to kill people in rollover accidents, you have a serious problem. Unfortunately, Ford’s decision to deny there is a problem has not restored great confidence in the model, nor brought Ford to where it was in market share.
What could be worse? How about your most profitable line of vehicles catching fire by themselves? That’s not just a nightmare, that’s exactly what happened. In 2005, Ford was forced to recall 3.8 million F150 trucks, Expeditions, Broncos, and Lincoln Navigators, because the damn things self-ignited while parked. They burned down homes, they destroyed nearby cars and property, they killed people, and for some reason that just wasn’t a popular effect of the vehicles. And just as before, this came after years of denial by Ford that there was any kind of problem, and with no apologies for the lives lost and damage caused by the fatal flaw.
So, how did this all happen? Maybe it’s the fact that Ford never brought in experts to analyze past mistakes. Maybe it’s because CEO William Ford thought it was more important to kiss up to the union than to listen to his best people, to such a point that he canned the folks who could have warned him about what was coming, and how to avoid it. Maybe it’s because Ford has insulated itself in an echo chamber, hiding from real-world opinion and conditions for so long that the company really believes that they will survive every blunder they make.
Certainly that’s the only way I can explain the Ford Fusion. Granted, my degree is not in Marketing, but can someone please explain to me the reasoning in investing a major showcase effort in a product which is not the least expensive in its class, the most reliable, the fastest, the most luxurious, the highest rated by expert comparison, the safest, or by any standard the best in its class? There is no reason, from any rational perspective, to buy a Ford Fusion, yet this is what Ford is banking on to be its star for the future.
At no more than 221 HP, the Fusion is weak in comparison with any of the major muscle cars. At no better than 32 mpg highway (I mean for crying out loud, my 1998 Honda CRV gets better than that!), the Fusion is not an economy car. This car, to be blunt, is no threat to the Accord or the Camry. It might be good for a laugh when matched against the big guys from Japan, but it is by no means a contender. What manner of con man convinced Ford to mass-produce the Fusion, I can only speculate. No matter what manner of idiot in a boardroom thinks this will revive Ford’s futures, the present course is aimed directly at extinction.
What to say about Ford, then? Well, once upon a time there was a great carmaker, called Packard. Nice cars, comfortable, reasonably priced. But Packard couldn’t keep up when they had to, and the company died out. Just like the Hudson, Studebaker, and many other formerly famous names. It appears to be time to say good-bye to Ford.
Have you driven a Ford, lately? There’s a very good reason why not.
If I were to describe a major corporation’s products as being best-known for rolling over and spontaneously catching fire, you might believe I was referring to some caricature of a corporation, some Michael Moore-inspired nightmare that has no basis in fact. But I am talking about Ford, the company which seems, to paraphrase Robert Downey Junior, to like the taste of a gun barrel in the mouth.
Ford’s problems started the same way they did for other U.S. carmarkers. Ford was caught by surprise by the quality and popularity of Japanese imports during the 1970s, and suffered the disasters of the Pinto and the 1974-78 Mustang II. Ironically, then as now a combination of poor engineering and worse marketing.
Ford learned from its blunders, or so it seemed, to the point where it’s stock climbed all the way up to $29.85 a share in 2005. But problems were already moving towards disaster long before that high-water mark, and doom was unavoidable by the time anyone in Dearborn looked up to see it. One very key blunder early on was the removal of Jacques Nasser as CEO, replacing him with William Clay Ford Jr. in 2001. This occurred as part of a series of operational changes in an effort to “return Ford to profitability”. Many management professionals were given the boot, and the company failed miserably to consider the most likely causes of lost revenue and market share. And to elect a CEO largely on the basis of family control of the stock – Ford himself admitted that “his name and his family's control of the company's voting stock was a factor in his selection” – is a serious mistake for a major corporation to make. While the company enjoyed some success in rising stock prices until 2005 and a measure of profitability, no one at Ford appears to have ever seriously examined the causes for Ford’s problems, assuming that they would simply go away. And so history repeated itself, this time with possibly fatal consequences.
I mentioned the Pinto and the Mustang II, because they represented fundamental errors made by the Ford Directors. The Pinto was rushed into production, in about half the time normally taken to develop a new model, and so safety risks were not recognized until people died. If you do such a poor job of engineering that you make even Ralph Nader appear reasonable, you have really and truly screwed up. And then there is the Mustang II, an underpowered model no one wanted or was really ever liked. Taking the most famous model of muscle car Ford made, and replacing it with a weak sister with a penchant for transmission problems and oil leaks (as three of my friends constantly complained to me about the car), is an incredibly poor decision, impossible to justify with any knowledge of History of Economics. And judging from the finances of Ford during those years, it was an expensive lesson.
That was then, this is now though, right? Surely after those twin fiascos, you might expect someone at Ford would have put a report together, with some clever variant of a title on the line of “Hey, Let’s Not Do Something This Stupid Again, OK?” But apparently not.
First, there was the Ford Explorer. The SUV is largely a good idea. People love the idea of a big powerful truck, safe from likely accidents with plenty of power for driving and comfort. People don’t mind the big price tag, or even the lousy gas mileage, as long as they feel like they have a strong, capable, safe ride for their family. Emphasis on “safe”.
This is why the Explorer was bungled. Something in the design of the Explorer made it prone to exploding tires and rollover accidents. Extremely prone. Literally hundreds of Explorer drivers died in rollover accidents, and while tiremaker Firestone took a lot of the blame, NHTSA tests showed that Explorers were far more likely to roll over than any other model or brand. Even after extensive refitting and redesign, the Explorer in 2004 was still regarded as the most likely vehicle to suffer a rollover accident.
Ford recalled the Explorer in 2001 and again in 2003, although the company denied any risk of serious accident from the design errors. It doesn’t take a business genius to recognize that if your leading model of SUV has a propensity to kill people in rollover accidents, you have a serious problem. Unfortunately, Ford’s decision to deny there is a problem has not restored great confidence in the model, nor brought Ford to where it was in market share.
What could be worse? How about your most profitable line of vehicles catching fire by themselves? That’s not just a nightmare, that’s exactly what happened. In 2005, Ford was forced to recall 3.8 million F150 trucks, Expeditions, Broncos, and Lincoln Navigators, because the damn things self-ignited while parked. They burned down homes, they destroyed nearby cars and property, they killed people, and for some reason that just wasn’t a popular effect of the vehicles. And just as before, this came after years of denial by Ford that there was any kind of problem, and with no apologies for the lives lost and damage caused by the fatal flaw.
So, how did this all happen? Maybe it’s the fact that Ford never brought in experts to analyze past mistakes. Maybe it’s because CEO William Ford thought it was more important to kiss up to the union than to listen to his best people, to such a point that he canned the folks who could have warned him about what was coming, and how to avoid it. Maybe it’s because Ford has insulated itself in an echo chamber, hiding from real-world opinion and conditions for so long that the company really believes that they will survive every blunder they make.
Certainly that’s the only way I can explain the Ford Fusion. Granted, my degree is not in Marketing, but can someone please explain to me the reasoning in investing a major showcase effort in a product which is not the least expensive in its class, the most reliable, the fastest, the most luxurious, the highest rated by expert comparison, the safest, or by any standard the best in its class? There is no reason, from any rational perspective, to buy a Ford Fusion, yet this is what Ford is banking on to be its star for the future.
At no more than 221 HP, the Fusion is weak in comparison with any of the major muscle cars. At no better than 32 mpg highway (I mean for crying out loud, my 1998 Honda CRV gets better than that!), the Fusion is not an economy car. This car, to be blunt, is no threat to the Accord or the Camry. It might be good for a laugh when matched against the big guys from Japan, but it is by no means a contender. What manner of con man convinced Ford to mass-produce the Fusion, I can only speculate. No matter what manner of idiot in a boardroom thinks this will revive Ford’s futures, the present course is aimed directly at extinction.
What to say about Ford, then? Well, once upon a time there was a great carmaker, called Packard. Nice cars, comfortable, reasonably priced. But Packard couldn’t keep up when they had to, and the company died out. Just like the Hudson, Studebaker, and many other formerly famous names. It appears to be time to say good-bye to Ford.
Have you driven a Ford, lately? There’s a very good reason why not.
Ding Dong, “West Wing” Is Dead
. [] .
NBC’s alternate universe show “West Wing” is dead. Finally realizing this fact, the producers at NBC will air the final episode sometime later this spring, followed by fumigation to remove the odor and some of the worst rodents and vermin attracted by the corpse.
From its beginning, “West Wing” was a lie. The show’s site boasts that WW “offer viewers a realistic, behind-the-scenes peek into the Oval Office and the campaign trail that leads there.” Nothing of the sort, actually. The pilot was run September 22, 1999, when Bubba “Perjury” Clinton was in office. From the beginning, the President was depicted as noble and unerring in judgment, while conservatives were dismissed as trivial and petty. The personal pettiness of Bill Clinton was never depicted in Josiah Bartlett. Indeed, as the years passed it became increasingly obvious that no Democrat seemed suited to the image of Bartlett, who never cheated on his wife, was well-liked by Congress in general and the public in large numbers. By the time the pilot of “West Wing” ran, President Clinton had already been investigated and impeached by the Congress, and tried by the U.S. Senate. While Clinton escaped conviction, the 67-vote threshold to remove him never seriously a threat (the vote was a predictable 50-50 ‘no condemn-no condone' agreement by ‘The Club’), the emerging details of his sordid conduct, especially in attempts to smear his enemies and escape responsibility so immoral that Richard Nixon’s image benefited from the comparison. “West Wing” was clearly a Mainstream Media attempt to rebuild the image of President Clinton, even if it meant contriving a man Bill Clinton could never hope to emulate. Like Clinton, Sheen tried to put the JFK patina on his portrayal of Josiah Bartlett, while deftly ducking the scandals and personal peccadilloes of the Camelot President. “West Wing” was a grand lie to protect a vulgar liar.
I found “West Wing” interesting at times, as a peek into the mind of the Left Coast. But as the years passed, it became more and more obvious that “West Wing” had no contact with Reality. When terrorists attacked America on 9/11, “West Wing” failed to notice it. In fact, to this day the only ‘unreasonable extremists’ depicted on “West Wing” are conservatives and Christians. We face serious real-world questions about National Security and Weapons of Mass Destruction proliferation, but “West Wing” focuses on greenhouse gas as a factor in presumed Global Warming, and on the ‘need’ to restore Welfare. Demographics in the real world show parity between Republicans and Democrats, and a general preference for Conservativism over Liberalism, but in the world of “West Wing” the people are overwhelmingly liberal.
But perhaps the most laughable series of episodes are the ones surrounding the ‘election’ between Democrat Matthew Santos (how convenient – a Latino candidate with no accent, Caucasian skin tone, tailored suits copying CEOs of Fortune 50 companies, even an Anglo first name) and Republican Arnold Vinick, two men who together lack the depth I could find in a single sheet of notebook paper. Ironic that in both cases, “West Wing” presumes that the candidate cannot rely on his party platform, which is irredeemably tied to special interests and cronyism, so that we are supposed to cheer for men who defy their party and refuse to make promises to the nation, except in vague assurances that they love America – shades of John Kerry! By the Christmas break, I was convinced that the producers and writers of “West Wing” had no confidence at all in grassroots party volunteers, to say nothing of the electorate at large. No, we need to be told by our leaders what is good for us. They will tell us what we must do, the whole ‘consent of the governed' thing is vastly over-rated, and anyway it was created by a bunch of dead rich white men, right? The arrogance of the writers of “West Wing”, even as rigor mortis sets in, is breath-taking.
I would have found it interesting, had “West Wing” examined some of the new social paradigms from the past election – Dean’s internet fund-raising, the Blogosphere’s investigation and commanding authority in the “Rathergate” scandal, or the evolution of magazines and newspapers towards web-focused articles and blogger columnists, for instance. But “West Wing” was too much like a certain liner captain, who saw the iceberg but couldn’t understand why it didn’t get out of his way when he sounded the horn. “West Wing” began with contempt for Conservatives, and from there simply added to its list of enemies, until there was virtually no one left to watch the show.
I did find one accidental bit of honesty in the show. If you check the website, you can see the cast of the show proudly portrayed as if a vanguard against the foes of Liberalism. You may note that with one exception, the skin tone of everyone lined up is exactly the same; even Jimmy Smits is shown with the same skin tone as Martin Sheen and Alan Alda. The one black shown in the cast is shunted far off to one side, and is a low-ranking cast member who is never promoted, assigned a significant duty, or even asked for his opinion, except for some informal matter in the same patronizing tone might use on a family valet or butler. Small wonder that even in this promotional picture the man is not smiling or confident, and it speaks to the irony of Hillary Clinton’s “plantation” comment in ways she never intended.
NBC’s alternate universe show “West Wing” is dead. Finally realizing this fact, the producers at NBC will air the final episode sometime later this spring, followed by fumigation to remove the odor and some of the worst rodents and vermin attracted by the corpse.
From its beginning, “West Wing” was a lie. The show’s site boasts that WW “offer viewers a realistic, behind-the-scenes peek into the Oval Office and the campaign trail that leads there.” Nothing of the sort, actually. The pilot was run September 22, 1999, when Bubba “Perjury” Clinton was in office. From the beginning, the President was depicted as noble and unerring in judgment, while conservatives were dismissed as trivial and petty. The personal pettiness of Bill Clinton was never depicted in Josiah Bartlett. Indeed, as the years passed it became increasingly obvious that no Democrat seemed suited to the image of Bartlett, who never cheated on his wife, was well-liked by Congress in general and the public in large numbers. By the time the pilot of “West Wing” ran, President Clinton had already been investigated and impeached by the Congress, and tried by the U.S. Senate. While Clinton escaped conviction, the 67-vote threshold to remove him never seriously a threat (the vote was a predictable 50-50 ‘no condemn-no condone' agreement by ‘The Club’), the emerging details of his sordid conduct, especially in attempts to smear his enemies and escape responsibility so immoral that Richard Nixon’s image benefited from the comparison. “West Wing” was clearly a Mainstream Media attempt to rebuild the image of President Clinton, even if it meant contriving a man Bill Clinton could never hope to emulate. Like Clinton, Sheen tried to put the JFK patina on his portrayal of Josiah Bartlett, while deftly ducking the scandals and personal peccadilloes of the Camelot President. “West Wing” was a grand lie to protect a vulgar liar.
I found “West Wing” interesting at times, as a peek into the mind of the Left Coast. But as the years passed, it became more and more obvious that “West Wing” had no contact with Reality. When terrorists attacked America on 9/11, “West Wing” failed to notice it. In fact, to this day the only ‘unreasonable extremists’ depicted on “West Wing” are conservatives and Christians. We face serious real-world questions about National Security and Weapons of Mass Destruction proliferation, but “West Wing” focuses on greenhouse gas as a factor in presumed Global Warming, and on the ‘need’ to restore Welfare. Demographics in the real world show parity between Republicans and Democrats, and a general preference for Conservativism over Liberalism, but in the world of “West Wing” the people are overwhelmingly liberal.
But perhaps the most laughable series of episodes are the ones surrounding the ‘election’ between Democrat Matthew Santos (how convenient – a Latino candidate with no accent, Caucasian skin tone, tailored suits copying CEOs of Fortune 50 companies, even an Anglo first name) and Republican Arnold Vinick, two men who together lack the depth I could find in a single sheet of notebook paper. Ironic that in both cases, “West Wing” presumes that the candidate cannot rely on his party platform, which is irredeemably tied to special interests and cronyism, so that we are supposed to cheer for men who defy their party and refuse to make promises to the nation, except in vague assurances that they love America – shades of John Kerry! By the Christmas break, I was convinced that the producers and writers of “West Wing” had no confidence at all in grassroots party volunteers, to say nothing of the electorate at large. No, we need to be told by our leaders what is good for us. They will tell us what we must do, the whole ‘consent of the governed' thing is vastly over-rated, and anyway it was created by a bunch of dead rich white men, right? The arrogance of the writers of “West Wing”, even as rigor mortis sets in, is breath-taking.
I would have found it interesting, had “West Wing” examined some of the new social paradigms from the past election – Dean’s internet fund-raising, the Blogosphere’s investigation and commanding authority in the “Rathergate” scandal, or the evolution of magazines and newspapers towards web-focused articles and blogger columnists, for instance. But “West Wing” was too much like a certain liner captain, who saw the iceberg but couldn’t understand why it didn’t get out of his way when he sounded the horn. “West Wing” began with contempt for Conservatives, and from there simply added to its list of enemies, until there was virtually no one left to watch the show.
I did find one accidental bit of honesty in the show. If you check the website, you can see the cast of the show proudly portrayed as if a vanguard against the foes of Liberalism. You may note that with one exception, the skin tone of everyone lined up is exactly the same; even Jimmy Smits is shown with the same skin tone as Martin Sheen and Alan Alda. The one black shown in the cast is shunted far off to one side, and is a low-ranking cast member who is never promoted, assigned a significant duty, or even asked for his opinion, except for some informal matter in the same patronizing tone might use on a family valet or butler. Small wonder that even in this promotional picture the man is not smiling or confident, and it speaks to the irony of Hillary Clinton’s “plantation” comment in ways she never intended.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
The Oligarchess Returns
[ !.! ]
I like to listen to “Morning In America” as I drive to the Park-n-Wait each morning, and this morning I listened to the usually intelligent Bill Bennett interview Kathleen Parker. You know, the woman who said that bloggers are the “insidious enemies of decency, humanity and civility - the angry offspring of narcissism's quickie marriage to instant gratification.”
The woman is pure class, without a doubt.
This morning, Ms, Parker was opining on the state of the poor downtrodden male underclass. It seems that Ms. Parker, along with Dr. Bennett, believes that men are commonly the object of ridicule in television and movies, that many programs and businesses go out of their way to cater to women at the cost of men, and that the slide of pro-women, anti-male legislation has increased in both pace and effect. To this degree I find some common ground with Ms. Parker and the good Doctor.
However, from this point Ms. Parker went on to explain her help with the site “Save the Males”, which analogy Dr. Bennet found amusing. I did not. The implication that males are, as a whole, as helpless as beached whales, unable to help themselves and so in need of the mercy of kind-hearted women like Parker is so false as to be insulting, and ironically demonstrates that Parker actually is part of that derision for men and gender elitism that she pretends to fight against. Ms. Parker, for example, said on the show that she wants to help men “come out of hiding”, as if these poor timid souls cannot face the cruel injustice of the woman-dominated world. Parker went on to blame “sexually aggressive” women for the prevailing anti-male mood and her belief that men have gone into hiding. She even went to so far as to say that movies like “Brokeback Mountain” confuse men about their identity and roles, so that we are unable to find anyone to emulate. The Duke is gone, oh whatever shall we men do?
As if. Men are hardly about to faint from the stress of trying to satisfy the demands of feminists, nor are they weak-willed flowers cowering behind the shelter of a nanny or the obsolete memory of past glory. Ms. Parker makes the error of generalizing men, presuming that they are all similar in scope and character. Men continue to dominate government, business, science, all sorts of venues. The hottest TV show features a clearly dominant male. The top authors in many genres of fiction are male. The top athletes are male.
Of course, women are making their mark as well. After all, if we are to talk about Ken Lay, let’s not forget Martha Stewart. If we are to note the hypocrisy of Ted Kennedy talking about ethics, let’s not miss Hillary Clinton talking about the ‘plantation’. If we must wallow at the malicious level of E.J. Dionne, we certainly can’t leave out Maureen Dowd. If we recall the clueless sanctimony of a John Kerry, let’s not forget his charming wife Tereza. Way to go, ladies, you have made your mark indeed. We will sort out later who has to go clean it up.
Don’t worry about us men, though. We will be fine, as always.
I like to listen to “Morning In America” as I drive to the Park-n-Wait each morning, and this morning I listened to the usually intelligent Bill Bennett interview Kathleen Parker. You know, the woman who said that bloggers are the “insidious enemies of decency, humanity and civility - the angry offspring of narcissism's quickie marriage to instant gratification.”
The woman is pure class, without a doubt.
This morning, Ms, Parker was opining on the state of the poor downtrodden male underclass. It seems that Ms. Parker, along with Dr. Bennett, believes that men are commonly the object of ridicule in television and movies, that many programs and businesses go out of their way to cater to women at the cost of men, and that the slide of pro-women, anti-male legislation has increased in both pace and effect. To this degree I find some common ground with Ms. Parker and the good Doctor.
However, from this point Ms. Parker went on to explain her help with the site “Save the Males”, which analogy Dr. Bennet found amusing. I did not. The implication that males are, as a whole, as helpless as beached whales, unable to help themselves and so in need of the mercy of kind-hearted women like Parker is so false as to be insulting, and ironically demonstrates that Parker actually is part of that derision for men and gender elitism that she pretends to fight against. Ms. Parker, for example, said on the show that she wants to help men “come out of hiding”, as if these poor timid souls cannot face the cruel injustice of the woman-dominated world. Parker went on to blame “sexually aggressive” women for the prevailing anti-male mood and her belief that men have gone into hiding. She even went to so far as to say that movies like “Brokeback Mountain” confuse men about their identity and roles, so that we are unable to find anyone to emulate. The Duke is gone, oh whatever shall we men do?
As if. Men are hardly about to faint from the stress of trying to satisfy the demands of feminists, nor are they weak-willed flowers cowering behind the shelter of a nanny or the obsolete memory of past glory. Ms. Parker makes the error of generalizing men, presuming that they are all similar in scope and character. Men continue to dominate government, business, science, all sorts of venues. The hottest TV show features a clearly dominant male. The top authors in many genres of fiction are male. The top athletes are male.
Of course, women are making their mark as well. After all, if we are to talk about Ken Lay, let’s not forget Martha Stewart. If we are to note the hypocrisy of Ted Kennedy talking about ethics, let’s not miss Hillary Clinton talking about the ‘plantation’. If we must wallow at the malicious level of E.J. Dionne, we certainly can’t leave out Maureen Dowd. If we recall the clueless sanctimony of a John Kerry, let’s not forget his charming wife Tereza. Way to go, ladies, you have made your mark indeed. We will sort out later who has to go clean it up.
Don’t worry about us men, though. We will be fine, as always.
Monday, January 23, 2006
The Stealth Weapon of Global Commerce: Oil
[ <.<* ]
In discussing the China paradigm this weekend past, reader JohnMc identified an element in the discussion which is often ignored, yet critical to many nations’ infrastructure. JohnMc said “the US has traditionally been the premier developer of oil fields and their maintenance” and he is dead-on in that observation. Oil and technology go hand in hand and need each other at every step. As a result, nations which ostracize themselves from the West, and especially from the United States, do so at direct economic cost.
I mentioned some time ago, that a steady and reliable supply of Oil depends the refineries and distribution system in place to provide it. And I also noted that Oil obeys very real economic laws and scientific pressures. But it is vital to understand as well, that the existence of an oil distribution system can largely be credited to the British and American companies which invested the research and development to find the oil, drill it, process it and get it where it needs to be. Oil does not come out of the ground just anyplace, nor is it ready-for-use when it is first produced. For example, the jet fuel used for commercial airliners around the world, is a pretty exotic concoction, and can only be distilled from certain grades of oil, and under certain refining conditions. It is not generally understood that top-grade jet fuel is not widely produced in any Middle East country, which means that hypothetically, in a crisis the West could deny high-grade jet fuel to a hostile Arab nation, grounding some of its fighter jet fleet even if that Arab nation was a major oil producing nation! While in actual practice such an embargo would be extremely difficult to enforce (in such a scenario, the Arab nation would fall back to kerosene-derived jet fuels, which are easily made but which burn hotter and less efficiently, wearing out engines and reducing range), the fact that the West has control over certain grades of oil products is an important point to remember.
Almost every refinery and drilling installation in the Middle East was designed and built by a British or American company. While some European and Asian companies have been brought on board in the last couple decades, the number and quality of their facilities does not compare favorably with what the UK/USA offers. This is just one reason why a number of countries take pains to keep communication and negotiation open with U.S. oil companies, even when relations are strained with the U.S. government. I know personally of three incidents during the 1970s and 1980s where governments negotiated trade agreements with American companies through their consulates, establishing a de facto liaison with the Commerce Department and doing an end run on the State Department and their own Foreign Ministry. This sort of pragmatic approach cannot be ignored in determining the course of future negotiations.
Just one more card in the deck to think about.
In discussing the China paradigm this weekend past, reader JohnMc identified an element in the discussion which is often ignored, yet critical to many nations’ infrastructure. JohnMc said “the US has traditionally been the premier developer of oil fields and their maintenance” and he is dead-on in that observation. Oil and technology go hand in hand and need each other at every step. As a result, nations which ostracize themselves from the West, and especially from the United States, do so at direct economic cost.
I mentioned some time ago, that a steady and reliable supply of Oil depends the refineries and distribution system in place to provide it. And I also noted that Oil obeys very real economic laws and scientific pressures. But it is vital to understand as well, that the existence of an oil distribution system can largely be credited to the British and American companies which invested the research and development to find the oil, drill it, process it and get it where it needs to be. Oil does not come out of the ground just anyplace, nor is it ready-for-use when it is first produced. For example, the jet fuel used for commercial airliners around the world, is a pretty exotic concoction, and can only be distilled from certain grades of oil, and under certain refining conditions. It is not generally understood that top-grade jet fuel is not widely produced in any Middle East country, which means that hypothetically, in a crisis the West could deny high-grade jet fuel to a hostile Arab nation, grounding some of its fighter jet fleet even if that Arab nation was a major oil producing nation! While in actual practice such an embargo would be extremely difficult to enforce (in such a scenario, the Arab nation would fall back to kerosene-derived jet fuels, which are easily made but which burn hotter and less efficiently, wearing out engines and reducing range), the fact that the West has control over certain grades of oil products is an important point to remember.
Almost every refinery and drilling installation in the Middle East was designed and built by a British or American company. While some European and Asian companies have been brought on board in the last couple decades, the number and quality of their facilities does not compare favorably with what the UK/USA offers. This is just one reason why a number of countries take pains to keep communication and negotiation open with U.S. oil companies, even when relations are strained with the U.S. government. I know personally of three incidents during the 1970s and 1980s where governments negotiated trade agreements with American companies through their consulates, establishing a de facto liaison with the Commerce Department and doing an end run on the State Department and their own Foreign Ministry. This sort of pragmatic approach cannot be ignored in determining the course of future negotiations.
Just one more card in the deck to think about.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
PFL Conference Championships
[ **** ]
American: Reagan (18-0) 18, Teddy Roosevelt (17-1) 12
National: George W. Bush (18-0) 15, Eisenhower (16-2) 12 OT
American: Reagan (18-0) 18, Teddy Roosevelt (17-1) 12
National: George W. Bush (18-0) 15, Eisenhower (16-2) 12 OT
China In Limbo
..
The myth of Limbo is an intriguing one, of unresolved decision and unknown futures. I find the notion strangely similar to the current course of China. On the one hand, China is the last powerful Communist regime, but on the other it has been forced to adopt many business-friendly policies to bring in capital investments. China is a nation which will not countenance any sort of organized dissent (witness the crackdown on Falun Gong), yet China feels compelled to appease Muslim extremists in order to continue trade agreements to get much-needed oil. China wishes to become a regional hegemony, yet has agreed to treaties which put critical threats on its Southern flank, at the same time alienating regional Asian governments which could have been valuable allies. China, to describe its predicament, is in Limbo.
The significance in terms of American politics is simple, and drives my thought for the day:
What policies would the next American President pursue to increase the stability of the Asian continent, and to improve the American position in terms of security and opposing the Jihadists? Assuming, of course, that certain leading candidates can be bothered to address the crisis.
The myth of Limbo is an intriguing one, of unresolved decision and unknown futures. I find the notion strangely similar to the current course of China. On the one hand, China is the last powerful Communist regime, but on the other it has been forced to adopt many business-friendly policies to bring in capital investments. China is a nation which will not countenance any sort of organized dissent (witness the crackdown on Falun Gong), yet China feels compelled to appease Muslim extremists in order to continue trade agreements to get much-needed oil. China wishes to become a regional hegemony, yet has agreed to treaties which put critical threats on its Southern flank, at the same time alienating regional Asian governments which could have been valuable allies. China, to describe its predicament, is in Limbo.
The significance in terms of American politics is simple, and drives my thought for the day:
What policies would the next American President pursue to increase the stability of the Asian continent, and to improve the American position in terms of security and opposing the Jihadists? Assuming, of course, that certain leading candidates can be bothered to address the crisis.
Friday, January 20, 2006
The Shadow Of Death: The Threat From Iran In Context
[ sm ]
I have been thinking about how to explain the current crisis in Iran for more than a week now. As usual, when mundane minds hesitate, we are passed by our superiors, and so I see that Victor Davis Hanson has put up his own well-done article. Yet for all the salient points he makes in his column, titled “The not-so-mad mind of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”, I find I must disagree with the Stanford historian on certain important points. Certainly I agree that Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous man, and the threat from Iran must be taken as a grave danger. However, I do not agree that Ahmadinejad is not mad; he certainly is separated from a functional perception of Reality. Where Dr. Hanson contends that Ahmadinejad is not mad but is dangerous, I submit that the President of Iran is quite mad by any reasonable standard, but he is not stupid or foolish. That is to say, Ahmadinejad has been fully briefed on the various nations’ capabilities, he is experienced in the region’s politics, and he understands the difference between what his rhetoric promises and his regime can deliver. The difference between these perspectives is critical to the decision of the best response America can make.
One thing which must be understood is the reason for Ahmadinejad’s threats and prophecies. There are two errors which must be avoided by the West. One mistake would be to class Ahmadinejad’s noise as mere bluster, typical of the “Death To America” screeds which followed the 1979 Revolution. Iran had actually toned down its speeches and denouncements after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, especially after the fall of Baghdad, but has renewed hostility in recent months, especially with regard to its nuclear program. Also, Ahmadinejad’s election as President signals the regime’s determination to pursue a course not only opposed to the United States, but quite likely one to lead to conflict in force. Too many people forget that Iran was willing to attack U.S. Navy vessels when they escorted Kuwaiti tankers during the late 1980s, and too many people fail to understand the financing and support systems Iran created to enable and deploy terrorist organizations. Americans may not be impressed with Iran’s relative success at low-intensity warfare, but Iran believes it can fight the United States and win, provided it dictates the terrain, context, and scale. A pistol aimed at the head of a helpless hostage is more than a fond memory for Ahmadinejad; it neatly describes the Foreign Policy of the Revolutionary Jihadists in Teheran.
The second error however, would be to allow Ahmadinejad victory by granting him too much credence in his fantasies. Iran has made some serious mistakes in its policies since the Revolution, not least because Sharia does not fare well in real-world conditions. One significant reason for the radical shift in Iran’s public pronouncements is the growing momentum for Democracy in the Middle East. Free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, women actually voting, public schools teaching Science and History apart from the supervision of Mullahs, the growth of private businesses, public demonstrations against oppression in Iran, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, even Saudi Arabia, are all seen as signs of a tide moving against the will of Jihad. The anger from Ahmadinejad and his government is as much from desperation as from confidence; he sees the work of a generation slipping away, the dream of Jihadist Triumph paid by the blood of infidels lost to the vision of Arab Democracy, compulsory prayer five times a day defeated by the ideal of people choosing how to believe and how to practice their personal belief. The Reformation of Islam, so long overdue, is seen by Ahmadinejad and his regime as a fatal threat to the Prophet. The best strategy against Ahmadinejad therefore, includes keeping the pressure of such a Reformation fresh and strong before him, attacking him where he is weakest and where the best hope for the Muslim world may be found.
Before going further, it would also be worthwhile to examine the scale and feasibility of the Iranian threat. The problems for Iran are rather significant, if their stated desire to destroy Israel and the United States are to be accomplished. For one thing, it appears reasonable at this time to say that Iran does not yet have a nuclear bomb. This is a very big point in the matter, in part because making a nuke is not so simple as some would have you believe, nor is having a nuclear bomb quite the advancement some thought. Or to put it another way, one should ask just why Ahmadinejad thinks having a nuclear weapon will make a difference. And to do that, we need to consider the limited perspective of History as Ahmadinejad sees it.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sees his opportunity through the malaise of the West shown during the 1970s and 1990s. That much is clear. The rise of OPEC and the growth of small terrorist bands into global organizations are much-cherished glories in the mind of the radical Muslim, and give hope for greater victories to come, in the mold of Iran, Somalia, and naturally Vietnam. In a way, it is fascinating to see how much of the old Soviet dialectic finds its way into the thinking of the Jihadist – ‘wait long enough, and our enemy will grow weak’ seems to be the motto of their strategy. To move this process along, the Jihadist chooses only to strike soft targets, to try to weaken Western resolve, and to deny all evidence of the evil of Jihadist actions and intentions. And in the face of Television and the Press, the Jihadists come to believe they are winning the war. It’s only a matter of time, they assure each other.
But Ahmadinejad has problems in his plan, demonstrated by the periodic revival of Western resolve, and the undeniable superiority of American might. He shows no sign of acknowledging what a Reagan, a Thatcher, or a Dubya could mean to upsetting his plans. He could and should consider how previous high-profile troublemakers, like Qaddafi, Hussein, or even bin Laden fared once the U.S. decided to face them down. For all his annoying taped messages, after all, exactly what has Osama bin Hiding accomplished since 9/11? A reasonable person might warn Ahmadinedjad that calling out the West can sometimes be like waving a steak at a Rottweiler.
But even more to the point, it appears that Ahmadinejad wants to be yet another leader in the ‘Mahdi’ mold. He has not, however, considered the fate of all the prior would-be Mahdis. Instead, Ahmadinejad continues to ignore the inconvenient, and assume the best-case scenario will play out. That’s probably because Ahmadinejad’s plans have three stages, and he doesn’t believe he needs much luck to make them work.
Step one for Ahmadinejad is simple but difficult – get a nuclear bomb. The reason he wants one, is not because he plans to nuke Israel. Oh yes, he would love to do it, but it would take a stockpile to do the job, along with missiles that could reach the targets, and never mind the question of accuracy. Iran does not have missiles with the range or accuracy they would need, and as for bombers, the situation is even weaker. Iran does not have an air force worthy of the name; any attempt to attack Israel by bomber will only lead to the loss of every Iranian bomber. This means that in addition to developing the weapon, Iran must develop a delivery system, as well as a stockpile sufficient to the campaign along with the security needed to protect each part of the system. Knowing this, Ahmadinejad must be planning something other than an immediate immolation of Tel Aviv.
The obvious thought pops up, that Ahmadinejad could simply smuggle a nuke into Israel and detonate it via a suicide bomber. The problem there, is that such an attack could not reasonably coordinated in such a way as to destroy more than 3 or 4 locations, and probably nothing in a way which could disrupt the IDF’s own nuclear threat. And Ahmadinejad is not stupid enough to forget the Samson Option – the well-known threat by Israel that a nuclear attack on Israel would result in the use of Israeli nuclear missiles on every Arab capital or holy city. No matter how much the Jihadists would like to destroy Israel, they would not be willing to destroy themselves, especially their holy cities of Mecca and Medina, to do so. For all their bluster, the leaders of the Jihad are seldom willing to die for their cause. Kill yes, torture certainly, but they themselves are unlikely to accept their own death as the cost of victory.
Another point most people forget, is that Iran has Chemical and Biological WMD. It would be easy for Iran to attack Israel with the WMD already on hand, to say nothing of not bothering neighboring countries with the dangers of fallout from a nuclear volley. That has not happened either, possibly for reason of that same retaliatory threat from Israel, but also because attempting to out-and-out destroy a country by killing everyone in it is not only very difficult from a pragmatic perspective, but it also is all but impossible to justify. Such an attempt, Ahmadinejad knows, could easily create a global backlash against the Arab world and in support of Israel.
Consequently, Ahmadinejad has a longer plan, if also a slower one. By declaring that the Iranian Nuclear reactors are peaceful, Ahmadinajad hopes to generate sympathy for Iran among other nations excluded from the “Nuclear Club”, and so build a coalition of his own to stand against the greater powers. Trade agreements with China not only provide revenue for Iran and encourage China to support Iran in the United Nations, but also help Iran grow closer in its plans to foment insurrection along the China border later on. Most people are unaware of the growing Jihadist threat along China’s Southwest flank, which also could act against India if needed. The Jihadist threat against Russia can be demonstrated by a look at the difficulty posed by Chechnya, which now suffers from a number of active Al Qaeda cells. Add to that the unrest in France and Germany, and it is not difficult to see why Ahmadinejad believes that Iran’s long term strategy will work, keeping Europe and Asia out of the matter when Iran chooses to attack Israel. For now, it seems a simple measure for Iran to demand Europe and Asia not block its access to “peaceful” nuclear power, even though this means a bomb in a matter of two or three years. Also during this time, terrorist action may be expected to try to destabilize Saudi Arabia, either to crate an additional Jihadist regime or to force financial backing for an expanded Jihad.
Once Iran has the bomb, Ahmadinejad will test it, as a warning sign to the Unted States, and a ballistic missile capable of reaching the Gulf or the Mediterranean will be the next order or business. At some point, the missile will be test-fired into waters where U.S. aircraft carriers often travel, and the U.S. will be warned that Iran will not allow trespass. This does not mean that Ahmadinejad will seek direct confrontation with a carrier group, but he will hope to intimidate the United States, especially if this occurs after Bush leaves office. In similar fashion, Iran will make a number of statements forcing regional governments to choose a side, with the implication that anyone opposing Iran will stand alone and at significant danger. The deployment of terrorist cells may be expected to be timed to these announcements. Also, a regional alliance consisting of Iran, Syria, and at least one more Middle East power may be announced at this time. A strong effort will likely be made to create a military alliance on the order of OPEC. Provocations against Israel will also occur.
Essentially, the first two steps require finding a way to force the United States and Israel to back off pressure on Iran, while the Jihad builds regional support. The third step begins when Iran believes it has the means to invade a major regional power, such as Turkey or Egypt. When this happens, the Iran-led alliance will find a pretext to invade Israel, ostensibly on behalf of the Palestinians but actually to fulfill Ahmadinejad’s promise to wipe Israel off the map. The eventual war against the United States will depend on the acquisition of WMD sufficient to destroy a number of critical junctures, though in actual fact victory conditions for the Iranians would simply be to force de facto recognition of an Arab superstate in the Middle East, the long-awaited Caliphate.
Intimidating as this sounds, it has a rather large number of weak points and assumptions, and failure at any of several critical points would collapse the whole plan. The obvious problems for Ahmadinejad begin with the fact that Iran is not behind him on this plan. The average Iranian couldn’t care less whether Israel is destroyed or not, and he has little interest in fighting in a war that doesn’t have to happen. The young are demanding political reform, the women are demanding the vote, and the veterans from the old Iran-Iraq war are demanding a better sense of how to avoid killing off an entire generation of men. And that doesn’t include the people who could be interested in a counter-revolution against the Mullahs. One of the more ironic dangers for Iran in trying to develop a nuclear bomb, is the possibility that rebels could seize the weapon and use it against the regime.
And then there is Iraq. A rebuilt Iraq with a sense of its new independence is not likely to smile on a Jihadist neighbor, especially one with a violent history and threatening words. The war between Khomeini and Hussein was a very bad thing for both countries, but a new war between the two could be much bloodier. During the first Gulf War, there was fear that a weakened Iraq might be invaded by Iran. The possibility that Iraq, with or even without U.S. backing, might invade Iran must also be considered. There are real reasons why this would make sense to Iraq, and Iran has to plan how to prevent this possibility.
Also in play is Afghanistan. President Bush understood the Afghans in a way the British and Russians never did, and ironically the Iranians also have failed to grasp. In some ways the Afghans are very much like the Turks, absolutely relentless as an enemy, but absolutely trustworthy as a friend. The United States could not convince Afghanistan to attack Iran, but at the same time Afghanistan is highly unlikely to support an Iran-led alliance. This is a real problem for Iran’s long-term plans in the region, especially if Afghanistan sends an ultimatum of its own to Teheran, which is not as unlikely as some people think. The Afghans play Chess the old-school way: Shah Mat.
All this may help to explain why the United States is taking the tack it has. In the first place, Iran has a longer road than it pretends. Also, the U.S. sees no advantage in doing what Iran expects it to do, especially since the U.S. has options that Iran cannot prevent. Third, the U.S. has long-term goals of its own in play, and if these succeed, Iran will be in a bad way to prevent the dissolution of the Mullahs’ control. It’s a very dangerous business, but for more than one side.
I have been thinking about how to explain the current crisis in Iran for more than a week now. As usual, when mundane minds hesitate, we are passed by our superiors, and so I see that Victor Davis Hanson has put up his own well-done article. Yet for all the salient points he makes in his column, titled “The not-so-mad mind of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”, I find I must disagree with the Stanford historian on certain important points. Certainly I agree that Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous man, and the threat from Iran must be taken as a grave danger. However, I do not agree that Ahmadinejad is not mad; he certainly is separated from a functional perception of Reality. Where Dr. Hanson contends that Ahmadinejad is not mad but is dangerous, I submit that the President of Iran is quite mad by any reasonable standard, but he is not stupid or foolish. That is to say, Ahmadinejad has been fully briefed on the various nations’ capabilities, he is experienced in the region’s politics, and he understands the difference between what his rhetoric promises and his regime can deliver. The difference between these perspectives is critical to the decision of the best response America can make.
One thing which must be understood is the reason for Ahmadinejad’s threats and prophecies. There are two errors which must be avoided by the West. One mistake would be to class Ahmadinejad’s noise as mere bluster, typical of the “Death To America” screeds which followed the 1979 Revolution. Iran had actually toned down its speeches and denouncements after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, especially after the fall of Baghdad, but has renewed hostility in recent months, especially with regard to its nuclear program. Also, Ahmadinejad’s election as President signals the regime’s determination to pursue a course not only opposed to the United States, but quite likely one to lead to conflict in force. Too many people forget that Iran was willing to attack U.S. Navy vessels when they escorted Kuwaiti tankers during the late 1980s, and too many people fail to understand the financing and support systems Iran created to enable and deploy terrorist organizations. Americans may not be impressed with Iran’s relative success at low-intensity warfare, but Iran believes it can fight the United States and win, provided it dictates the terrain, context, and scale. A pistol aimed at the head of a helpless hostage is more than a fond memory for Ahmadinejad; it neatly describes the Foreign Policy of the Revolutionary Jihadists in Teheran.
The second error however, would be to allow Ahmadinejad victory by granting him too much credence in his fantasies. Iran has made some serious mistakes in its policies since the Revolution, not least because Sharia does not fare well in real-world conditions. One significant reason for the radical shift in Iran’s public pronouncements is the growing momentum for Democracy in the Middle East. Free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, women actually voting, public schools teaching Science and History apart from the supervision of Mullahs, the growth of private businesses, public demonstrations against oppression in Iran, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, even Saudi Arabia, are all seen as signs of a tide moving against the will of Jihad. The anger from Ahmadinejad and his government is as much from desperation as from confidence; he sees the work of a generation slipping away, the dream of Jihadist Triumph paid by the blood of infidels lost to the vision of Arab Democracy, compulsory prayer five times a day defeated by the ideal of people choosing how to believe and how to practice their personal belief. The Reformation of Islam, so long overdue, is seen by Ahmadinejad and his regime as a fatal threat to the Prophet. The best strategy against Ahmadinejad therefore, includes keeping the pressure of such a Reformation fresh and strong before him, attacking him where he is weakest and where the best hope for the Muslim world may be found.
Before going further, it would also be worthwhile to examine the scale and feasibility of the Iranian threat. The problems for Iran are rather significant, if their stated desire to destroy Israel and the United States are to be accomplished. For one thing, it appears reasonable at this time to say that Iran does not yet have a nuclear bomb. This is a very big point in the matter, in part because making a nuke is not so simple as some would have you believe, nor is having a nuclear bomb quite the advancement some thought. Or to put it another way, one should ask just why Ahmadinejad thinks having a nuclear weapon will make a difference. And to do that, we need to consider the limited perspective of History as Ahmadinejad sees it.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sees his opportunity through the malaise of the West shown during the 1970s and 1990s. That much is clear. The rise of OPEC and the growth of small terrorist bands into global organizations are much-cherished glories in the mind of the radical Muslim, and give hope for greater victories to come, in the mold of Iran, Somalia, and naturally Vietnam. In a way, it is fascinating to see how much of the old Soviet dialectic finds its way into the thinking of the Jihadist – ‘wait long enough, and our enemy will grow weak’ seems to be the motto of their strategy. To move this process along, the Jihadist chooses only to strike soft targets, to try to weaken Western resolve, and to deny all evidence of the evil of Jihadist actions and intentions. And in the face of Television and the Press, the Jihadists come to believe they are winning the war. It’s only a matter of time, they assure each other.
But Ahmadinejad has problems in his plan, demonstrated by the periodic revival of Western resolve, and the undeniable superiority of American might. He shows no sign of acknowledging what a Reagan, a Thatcher, or a Dubya could mean to upsetting his plans. He could and should consider how previous high-profile troublemakers, like Qaddafi, Hussein, or even bin Laden fared once the U.S. decided to face them down. For all his annoying taped messages, after all, exactly what has Osama bin Hiding accomplished since 9/11? A reasonable person might warn Ahmadinedjad that calling out the West can sometimes be like waving a steak at a Rottweiler.
But even more to the point, it appears that Ahmadinejad wants to be yet another leader in the ‘Mahdi’ mold. He has not, however, considered the fate of all the prior would-be Mahdis. Instead, Ahmadinejad continues to ignore the inconvenient, and assume the best-case scenario will play out. That’s probably because Ahmadinejad’s plans have three stages, and he doesn’t believe he needs much luck to make them work.
Step one for Ahmadinejad is simple but difficult – get a nuclear bomb. The reason he wants one, is not because he plans to nuke Israel. Oh yes, he would love to do it, but it would take a stockpile to do the job, along with missiles that could reach the targets, and never mind the question of accuracy. Iran does not have missiles with the range or accuracy they would need, and as for bombers, the situation is even weaker. Iran does not have an air force worthy of the name; any attempt to attack Israel by bomber will only lead to the loss of every Iranian bomber. This means that in addition to developing the weapon, Iran must develop a delivery system, as well as a stockpile sufficient to the campaign along with the security needed to protect each part of the system. Knowing this, Ahmadinejad must be planning something other than an immediate immolation of Tel Aviv.
The obvious thought pops up, that Ahmadinejad could simply smuggle a nuke into Israel and detonate it via a suicide bomber. The problem there, is that such an attack could not reasonably coordinated in such a way as to destroy more than 3 or 4 locations, and probably nothing in a way which could disrupt the IDF’s own nuclear threat. And Ahmadinejad is not stupid enough to forget the Samson Option – the well-known threat by Israel that a nuclear attack on Israel would result in the use of Israeli nuclear missiles on every Arab capital or holy city. No matter how much the Jihadists would like to destroy Israel, they would not be willing to destroy themselves, especially their holy cities of Mecca and Medina, to do so. For all their bluster, the leaders of the Jihad are seldom willing to die for their cause. Kill yes, torture certainly, but they themselves are unlikely to accept their own death as the cost of victory.
Another point most people forget, is that Iran has Chemical and Biological WMD. It would be easy for Iran to attack Israel with the WMD already on hand, to say nothing of not bothering neighboring countries with the dangers of fallout from a nuclear volley. That has not happened either, possibly for reason of that same retaliatory threat from Israel, but also because attempting to out-and-out destroy a country by killing everyone in it is not only very difficult from a pragmatic perspective, but it also is all but impossible to justify. Such an attempt, Ahmadinejad knows, could easily create a global backlash against the Arab world and in support of Israel.
Consequently, Ahmadinejad has a longer plan, if also a slower one. By declaring that the Iranian Nuclear reactors are peaceful, Ahmadinajad hopes to generate sympathy for Iran among other nations excluded from the “Nuclear Club”, and so build a coalition of his own to stand against the greater powers. Trade agreements with China not only provide revenue for Iran and encourage China to support Iran in the United Nations, but also help Iran grow closer in its plans to foment insurrection along the China border later on. Most people are unaware of the growing Jihadist threat along China’s Southwest flank, which also could act against India if needed. The Jihadist threat against Russia can be demonstrated by a look at the difficulty posed by Chechnya, which now suffers from a number of active Al Qaeda cells. Add to that the unrest in France and Germany, and it is not difficult to see why Ahmadinejad believes that Iran’s long term strategy will work, keeping Europe and Asia out of the matter when Iran chooses to attack Israel. For now, it seems a simple measure for Iran to demand Europe and Asia not block its access to “peaceful” nuclear power, even though this means a bomb in a matter of two or three years. Also during this time, terrorist action may be expected to try to destabilize Saudi Arabia, either to crate an additional Jihadist regime or to force financial backing for an expanded Jihad.
Once Iran has the bomb, Ahmadinejad will test it, as a warning sign to the Unted States, and a ballistic missile capable of reaching the Gulf or the Mediterranean will be the next order or business. At some point, the missile will be test-fired into waters where U.S. aircraft carriers often travel, and the U.S. will be warned that Iran will not allow trespass. This does not mean that Ahmadinejad will seek direct confrontation with a carrier group, but he will hope to intimidate the United States, especially if this occurs after Bush leaves office. In similar fashion, Iran will make a number of statements forcing regional governments to choose a side, with the implication that anyone opposing Iran will stand alone and at significant danger. The deployment of terrorist cells may be expected to be timed to these announcements. Also, a regional alliance consisting of Iran, Syria, and at least one more Middle East power may be announced at this time. A strong effort will likely be made to create a military alliance on the order of OPEC. Provocations against Israel will also occur.
Essentially, the first two steps require finding a way to force the United States and Israel to back off pressure on Iran, while the Jihad builds regional support. The third step begins when Iran believes it has the means to invade a major regional power, such as Turkey or Egypt. When this happens, the Iran-led alliance will find a pretext to invade Israel, ostensibly on behalf of the Palestinians but actually to fulfill Ahmadinejad’s promise to wipe Israel off the map. The eventual war against the United States will depend on the acquisition of WMD sufficient to destroy a number of critical junctures, though in actual fact victory conditions for the Iranians would simply be to force de facto recognition of an Arab superstate in the Middle East, the long-awaited Caliphate.
Intimidating as this sounds, it has a rather large number of weak points and assumptions, and failure at any of several critical points would collapse the whole plan. The obvious problems for Ahmadinejad begin with the fact that Iran is not behind him on this plan. The average Iranian couldn’t care less whether Israel is destroyed or not, and he has little interest in fighting in a war that doesn’t have to happen. The young are demanding political reform, the women are demanding the vote, and the veterans from the old Iran-Iraq war are demanding a better sense of how to avoid killing off an entire generation of men. And that doesn’t include the people who could be interested in a counter-revolution against the Mullahs. One of the more ironic dangers for Iran in trying to develop a nuclear bomb, is the possibility that rebels could seize the weapon and use it against the regime.
And then there is Iraq. A rebuilt Iraq with a sense of its new independence is not likely to smile on a Jihadist neighbor, especially one with a violent history and threatening words. The war between Khomeini and Hussein was a very bad thing for both countries, but a new war between the two could be much bloodier. During the first Gulf War, there was fear that a weakened Iraq might be invaded by Iran. The possibility that Iraq, with or even without U.S. backing, might invade Iran must also be considered. There are real reasons why this would make sense to Iraq, and Iran has to plan how to prevent this possibility.
Also in play is Afghanistan. President Bush understood the Afghans in a way the British and Russians never did, and ironically the Iranians also have failed to grasp. In some ways the Afghans are very much like the Turks, absolutely relentless as an enemy, but absolutely trustworthy as a friend. The United States could not convince Afghanistan to attack Iran, but at the same time Afghanistan is highly unlikely to support an Iran-led alliance. This is a real problem for Iran’s long-term plans in the region, especially if Afghanistan sends an ultimatum of its own to Teheran, which is not as unlikely as some people think. The Afghans play Chess the old-school way: Shah Mat.
All this may help to explain why the United States is taking the tack it has. In the first place, Iran has a longer road than it pretends. Also, the U.S. sees no advantage in doing what Iran expects it to do, especially since the U.S. has options that Iran cannot prevent. Third, the U.S. has long-term goals of its own in play, and if these succeed, Iran will be in a bad way to prevent the dissolution of the Mullahs’ control. It’s a very dangerous business, but for more than one side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
