~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Friday, September 2, 2005
Katrina
Again, this is something that others are able to keep up to speed with much better than I am able to. But I do have a few observations, though I'm not sure they are unique.
It's the most destructive natural disaster to strike the United States since the earthquake that destroyed San Francisco almost a hundred years ago. It's beginning to look like it ranks up there close to the South Asian Tsunami, though not as widespread. Your heart has to go out to all those whose lives have been affected by this calamity.
The earthquake in San Francisco was followed by the fire, which made it worse. In this case, it is the flooding and the looting/anarchy. Anyone who says anarchy is somehow kewl or will be pleasant only needs to look at real-life situations where law and a sense of order breaks down, supply & support breaks down, and people feel they can get away with whatever they want, including killing people with impunity who might try to stop them. Also, those who tend to think of looting as only a “property crime” that can be ignored in a situation like this, as apparently the local & State government officials did in the beginning, have been given a sober reminder that once people get the sense that law has broken down, anything goes. Thus there have been people going into hospitals in search of drugs like oxycontin, shooting at doctors and nurses, and more (more below on that).
On the other side of the coin are the people who are just trying to survive, not use it as an opportunity to make a killing stealing whatever isn't nailed down, but who can't get the help they need and can't get out. Dead litter the sides of highways and float in the water and aren't being cleaned up because what assistance there is naturally has focused on helping the living.
A lot of finger pointing can be made, from slow response, poor preparation in the immediate advance of the hurricane, to failure to construct levies of appropriate strength years beforehand, even though it was known something like this might happen, gambling (I guess a Louisiana past-time), the local & state authorities "saved" money in the short term by not going forward with needed engineering projects, thus costing people so much now.
Also, for as much criticism as Rudi Guiliani comes into, especially for his "Law and order" "fascism", when Manhattan was evacuated in the wake of Sept. 11 and there was a chance order could break down there and looting take over, that didn't happen, because of good city leadership which clamped down on any hint of it (and there was some), as well as providing sound leadership in organizing the entire recovery effort, moving millions off then back on to Manhattan while dealing with the crisis itself. There doesn't seem to be that in New Orleans. The looters and other lawless elements are making it too dangerous for emergency services, ambulances and the like, to reach people in many areas, because of lack of security. This isn't some harmless thing that only costs insurance companies or taxpayers (who will "foot the bill" for the damage as everything is written off). It's costing lives. Boaters who went out to try and rescue people today got called back when their lives were threatened by lawless bands. That means that innocent people who need help didn't get it, because of a relative few thugs. One of the major problems with the leadership in New Orleans, unlike NYC during 9/11, is they thought looters was just a property thing, no big deal, but it turns out that those who get away with looting with impunity will feel free to do other, more violent acts, as well, creating an atmosphere of mayhem. Only too late are the authoritahs learning the price of this folly - and that price is being measured, as is usual with such things, in other people's lives, not in "mere property". People who didn't have to die are thus dying, be it from being directly killed by thugs or indirectly because relief cannot reach them because of the danger such mayhem creates.
Also, though, as much as we sympathize with people's plight, as we should, we can't let people off the hook. Unlike the Tsunami or 9/11, there was advance warning. People were told to evacuate, but many many did not. Too many of these didn't precisely because they saw it as a potential opportunity (for looting and a "holiday" of sorts), others because, well, people have become jaded abut such things here in the States and many have come to dismiss the dangers and feel they can ride it out. Well, again, that might have been a gamble that "paid off" much of the time, over many hurricanes in the past, but it only takes one to take your life, or the lives of your loved ones. This includes people who build, and are allowed (even encouraged) to build, lovely homes right on the coast or in barrier islands, where they are destroyed by hurricanes and then rebuilt at the expense of others. This creates a moral hazard in and of itself and has encouraged more people than might otherwise to live on beaches that are, yes, beautiful, but dangerous.
Right now, it's the much-hated American military that is providing much of the significant recovery help, getting their fastest with the most, as it did in South Asia after the Tsunami: helicopters in particular, from the Navy and Army, are reaching people, and it's Army engineers that are working on controlling the flooding. Most likely it will also be military medical units that move in to support the local health workers in this, indeed they are doing that now. But it's tough going because of the scale of the disaster and sheer number of people needing assistance.
And all that last part said, it's clear that Homeland Securitytm is still a joke. But we knew that already. It's gotta do better at things like this.
I feel exactly the same. But there's a silver lining here: these "Trial of the Century" things are a dime a dozen nowdays, and I'm sure there'll be another one soon that we'll be able to use to tell us "Nothing's Happening".
Of course, on a more serious note, there's always something more serious to report. Obsessive coverage of such detritus, because it's cheap and picks up the same audience of channel-surfing trial-gazers every time, crowds out coverage of real news, that is always going on. The news media is always blaming their audience for stuff like this, but it's really their own indolence.
It's important for the American people and the world to know that while these terrible acts were perpetrated by a small number of U.S. military, they were also brought to light by the honorable and responsible actions of other military personnel.
There are many who did their duty professionally and we should mention that as well. First, Specialist Joseph Darby, who alerted the appropriate authorities that abuses were occurring. Second, those in the military chain of command who acted promptly on learning of those abuses by initiating a series of investigations, criminal and administrative, to assure that abuses were stopped and the responsible chain of command was relieved and replaced.
However, terrible the setback, this is also an occasion to demonstrate to the world the difference between those who believe in democracy and in human rights, and those who believe in rule by terrorist code.
We value human life. We believe in individual freedom and in the rule of law. For those beliefs, we send men and women of the armed forces abroad to protect that right for our own people and to give others who aren't Americans the hope of a future of freedom.
Part of that mission, part of what we believe in, is making sure that when wrongdoings or scandal do occur, that they're not covered up, but they're exposed, they're investigated, and the guilty are brought to justice.
Mr. Chairman, I know you join me today in saying to the world, judge us by our actions, watch how Americans, watch how a democracy deals with the wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes and our own weaknesses.
And then, after they have seen America in action, then ask those who teach resentment and hatred of America if our behavior doesn't give a lie to the falsehood and the slander they speak about our people and about our way of life. Ask them if the resolve of Americans in crisis and difficulty, and, yes, in the heartbreak of acknowledging the evil in our midst, doesn't have meaning far beyond their hatred.
RUMSFELD: Above all, ask them if the willingness of Americans to acknowledge their own failures before humanity doesn't light the world as surely as the great ideas and beliefs that made this nation a beacon of hope and liberty for all who strive to be free.
So last Sunday 60 Minutes had a piece on Charles Pickering that is being discussed here. Check out the comments, check out the transcript.
Credit where credit is due, of course. What does this do to theories such as mine about how much of the media are effectively an arm of the Kerry Campaign at this point? In particular when I slammed 60 Minutes the week before on this very subject?
Well, these things are not binary, they aren't digital. Likewise, none of the people involved see themselves as anything but open minded and fair to both sides. It's just their natural inclinations shade things, and more and more they think fair means getting Republicans out of office, exposing them, &tc. That doesn't mean they believe the Democrats are always right in every instance. Look, I go after Bush when I think he's wrong, jab the Republicans when I think they're wrong, and give kudos to Democrats and Liberals (see the Richard Cohen post yesterday) when I agree with them. But it doesn't change the fact that I believe what I believe and support who I support.
But blogging is by its nature a partisan - or at least ideological and not neutral - endeavor. We write about what we think about and how we react to something. The folks on 60 Minutes present themselves - and believe themselves to be - impartial transmitters of information. But it's not really the case and hasn't been since journalism became a "profession", if not before.
But not their own facts. That's the saying, at least, but apparently it's not a motto at the NYT.
I was going to let this stand on its own at Darren Kaplan's blog without additional commentary here. After all: what else is new? When I read that my reaction was "in other words, no change". But then I slept on it. Lets read the Public Editor's response:
The New York Times magazine -- like most magazines -- presents opinion and controversy. Its standards of objective analysis are far less stringent than those of our news columns. This passage would be out of place in the newspaper. But it is not out of place in the magazine.
(Emphasis added). Note here that the same principle (using that word very loosely) applies with respect to the newspaper's editorial page; the newspaper's Public Editor has said as much (and Instapundit posted it).
Which brings me to the phrase "objective analysis". Can it really be termed such? It seems quite clear that the NYT policy for its opinion/analysis writers is to allow them to shape the facts to fit their opinions. External reality and factual accuracy is secondary to promoting the right message, supporting the right ideology. Of course I've written here before many times on the Left's rationalizations for lying in support of their cause, most recently in commenting on a TNR piece whose author stated relatively openly that he didn't mind Kerry's demagogy as long as it got him elected.
We've also had a lot of discussion in the past on the origins of the perspective that factual accuracy and objective reality takes a back seat to promoting the ideological vision of the Left. I still maintain that this is something that is embedded by nature in the humanities, but this attitude does go back a long time, to the Sophists if not before. It's the principle expounded by O'Brien in Nineteen Eighty-Four: reality is fungible, ideological belief shapes facts, not the other way around.
But most people don't go for it, at least when they know what is going on. This kind of thing only works when it's done on the sly. That's why the NYT's "objective analysis" writers invoke invented facts, or at least massaged ones, in the first place, then using them as the basis for saying Bush or America is deceptive and hypocritical. But I wonder how effective these pieces would be if the NYT mag & NYT editorial page published a disclaimer along the lines of the Public Editor's response to Darren's mail above every such piece they publish. Something along the lines of:
Note: The New York Times' standards of factual accuracy are far less stringent in our opinion and analysis pieces than in our news reports
Of course, that would send a chill up the spine of anyone who knows just how. . .accurate. . .their news reports tend to be when it comes to telling the story straight. Their motto seems to be "everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but we're also entitled to our own facts".
Via Glenn Reynolds, Mort Kondracke echoes what I've been saying about what a clean, substantive, thoughtful campaign of thoughtful civic discourse the Democrats and Kerry have been running.
Then there is this article on how the Army, spread thin, will be re-deploying units back to Iraq a year after their return. Again, a point I made in suggesting that we need a larger Army.
Finally, related to earlier posts on Iraq, is this article on Basra's economic situation.
I have to say I'm more than a little disappointed in the 24 hour news channels. Yah, when little or nothing is going on I guess I can understand them filling time with constant updates of M.J., Kobe, Peterson, Martha, and the rest of the rogues gallery that makes up any given month's "trial of the century".
But yesterday something did happen, and it seems that these "news" channels gave quick, brief updates and couldn't wait to get back to discussing the same old fluff in greater detail at greater length. Is it ratings driven? Probably. The same half dozen people going from channel to channel absorbing every last detail of these trials does not a majority make, however. But there are those of us who know that there's something more going on out in the world beyond the CourtTV news. I mean, isn't there a war on or something? Say what you will about Jerry Rivers (AKA Geraldo Rivera), at least he did shift his focus from that garbage to the war. The rest of his brethren have yet to catch up with that. John Kerry isn't the only one who wants to go back to sleep, back to the '90s. I'm beginning to think that we need more than a "fair and balanced" news channel. We need a news channel that isn't just the daily celebrity police blotter. In the meantime, every time one of these cases is mentioned, my hand reaches for the button.
Well, I guess that's what the web is for. though you can certainly find that crap if you want to, you can also avoid it and focus on real news. Btw, did you know that South Korea's President has been impeached? And James Dunnigan is keeping score on Iraq.
Update: Andrew Olmstead has some thoughts, and I need to back off tad. Or at any rate add the caviat that there are some oases of hard news shows on these channels. I catch "Special Report" as often as I can, going so far as to tape it, for example.
Here's something I wish I had time to blog about - the current situation in Iran and the ongoing crisis of the Mullahcracy (Mullarchy?). This deserves a lot more attention than I've been able to give it over the last several weeks.
We're sending a small military security team to Haiti to assess the security of our embassy. Will there be more to follow, and if so will they be sent to try and clean things up (in Haiti?) or to head off the French. Of course, any intervention aimed at really fixing Haiti's political problems would have to be a long-term commitment.
Today modern Trudeaupian Canada, being semi-French, is a semi-detached member of the Anglosphere. A year ago public opinion in English Canada was more or less as pro-war as Britain and Australia. Over 60% of Canadians outside Quebec supported American action against Saddam. But French Canada was overwhelmingly antiwar. The only difference between the "conscription crisis" of World War II and the antiwar sentiment re Iraq is that this time around Quebec's position decided Canada's. The "Francization" of the political culture has ensured that the entire country has been relocated to the rue des Pussies.
Unfortunately, true, and will be as long as the Canadian Liberal Party is in power. That is, it will be true for a very long time.
Finally, check out this review of the movie Midway, an oldie but a goodie.
Two Opinion Journal pieces this morning. One on something I've been blogging about this week: Daniel Henninger writes that the '60s Generation has its candidate in John Kerry:
The Democrats, from day one of Terry McAuliffe's year-long nomination rondo, wanted a liberal who would be cast in their own likeness. They never wanted a moderate like Joe Lieberman, a Democrat trying to come to grips with the new political century--its security dangers, efficient global markets and a ragged domestic culture. Mr. Lieberman and those who share his views are secondary Democrats. They don't count. The Democrats who pick the winners in their party's primaries also choose its political course. They are the Primary Democrats. To oppose George W. Bush and his politics, the Primary Democrats want a candidate shaped as they were shaped in the late 1960s and the hard political battles they waged in the succeeding 30 years.
Which seems about right to me.
The other piece, unrelated, is Part IV of Brian Taylor's series on the Liberation of Iraq.
The Rocky Mountain News has an editorial supporting the Colorado version of the bill, though arguing for some tweaking. It concludes:
Even with these flaws, HB 1315 has much to commend it. Whether some professors like it or not, for example, lawmakers have every right to ensure public colleges and universities have a grievance procedure to protect students from political zealots who belittle, intimidate or even punish them academically for differing views. Such professors no doubt are a small minority, but they exist.
An academic bill of rights is a worthy goal if it is narrowly focused on political discrimination in the classroom. HB 1315 is a good starting point for such a statute.
This is related to last weekend's post on Cecile DuBois experiences and why such a Academic Bill of Rights is needed.
The RMN also has a piece today on "coming out" as a conservative at the Boulder Campus. My sister went to CU and it's a very Liberal campus - always has been.
Update: Glenn says that he doesn't approve of the Academic Bill of Rights because it takes a page from the petulance of the Left and will be used to silence people.
I hope that's not what will happen. I'd much rather see things opened up: I'm not in favor of silencing the Left, I just don't want conservative or non-Left views silenced in the classroom. There may be a better way of producing such an outcome than the Academic Bill of Rights. At least such proposals will cause us to look for the best solution.
The Hutton Report is out and has determined that Blair did not manipulate intelligence but the BBC did make reports not supported by the facts.
This is only news because of the feavered propaganda of the Left. I predict that feaverish propaganda won't go away, despite the findings of the Hutton inquiry or any other inquiries that are convened which come to similar conclusions, because the Left's propaganda has never been about the facts.
Update: Ripples of the report at the BBC and Downing Street. The good guys - the real ones - win one.
Tony Blair is facing a troublesome period this week, and he's saying that the Intel was right. Meanwhile, the Manchester Union Leader reports that al-Qaeda WMD program was halted by the war in Afghanistan. Senator Lugar thinks more troops are needed in Afghanistan. Hey, isn't that what internationalizing it and involving the UN and our allies was supposed to provide? After all, Afghanistan is being handled in the model that people believe should be applied to Iraq. We're told that internationalizing Iraq in the manner that we have in Afghanistan will produce a surefit of troops from other countries to share the burden. So then what's up with respect to Afghanistan?
The answer is obvious: such claims have always been more political than practical. Additional troops for Afghanistan aren't going to come from France or Germany, just as additional troops for Iraq aren't going to come from those countries even if we handled it exactly the way the Democratic candidates say we should have. Here's why Our Allies want America to share military technologies with them: So they can trade them to their new friends, making money and sticking it to Uncle Sucker at the same time.
Gen. Matloob Muslat Sayer, who was a member of the former Iraqi dictator's Fedayeen militia, gave himself up Monday in volatile Al Anbar Province, the military said in a statement.
The Fedayeen are a particularly nasty bunch, "dead-enders" if there ever were any. The fact that this guy is calling it quits may be telling. In Britain, the David Kelly/WMD story takes a bit of a swerve:
Kelly told the BBC before the war that Iraq's weapons could have taken "days or weeks" to deploy.
Again, if our intelligence was wrong, we weren't alone, as I pointed out in the analysis of Pollack's Atlantic Monthly piece and scapegoating America here isn't going to help fix the problem, which wasn't limited to our intelligence agencies. Facing up to this honestly is going to be a prerequisite of fixing whatever is broken, not only here but throughout the Western intelligence services. Again, if what is now being assumed to having been faulty intel was faulty.
You can always trust the Democrats to be strong when they should be weak and weak when they should be strong. One could hardly call Clark's own rhetoric anything but polarizing and "divisive" (More on the canard of that accusation in a later post sometime), and I linked yesterday to an article that said the Dems should go ahead and block that turkey (the spending bill). In the aftermath of Iowa, the Unions lick their wounds and wonder why the horses they backed, Gephardt & Dean, did so poorly. Meanwhile, David Frum and Richard Perle have a Test of the seriousness of Democratic contenders:
Cutting the terrorists off from the states that shelter them ? that facilitate their recruitment, training, planning and arming is essential. But doing so will embroil us in diplomatic disputes. Are the Democratic candidates ready for that?
. . .
If the Democrats are serious about their stated analyses of the terrorist threat, then they need to tell America their plan to destroy the terrorists and change the policies ? or, if necessary, the regimes ? of the states that support them. In addition, they need to propose a policy toward Saudi Arabia equal to the magnitude of the Saudi problem. Such a policy would be based on this direct challenge: either the Saudis put an end to the direct flow of money from the kingdom to extremist organizations or else the United States will no longer have an interest in the continued tenure of the present regime.
Can the Democrats credibly convey this message to the Saudis? Will they fight terrorism rather than chase terrorists? These are tests that they have thus far refused to take.
So far the Democratic candidates have limited themselves to platitudinous generalities and harsh criticisms, claiming "Bush has no plan" but not offering a realistic alternative themselves. That alone is why they deserve to fail in November.
Steel tariffs return - in China - as the EU goes further into trade war mode and the German economy shrinks. John Lott explains unemployment statistics in America. I say: employ 'em all. Let God sort 'em out..
Part III in Tom Friedman's War of Ideas appears, and Joshua Muravchik has his own thoughts on Arab democracy and its prospects. Jim Hoagland on doubt vs. hope and the transatlantic rift. See also the below post for related musings, and related to that post is an article on military and other resources: America's. Connected to that is our pledge to defend Taiwan. The Washington Post also wants us to stand up for Hong Kong and the democratic movements in Hong Kong and Taiwan. I can get onboard with that.
Amir Tahiri isn't buying Iran's "cooperation". The UN is at least consistent. Meanwhile, new Iraqi border guards are being trained by us. If they're as effective as our border security. . .um, er, nevermind I guess.
David Brooks on the Brooks Democrats (former NYC Mayor Ed Koch has more) and Max Boot on the blind seeing. Stalin supporter honored with a stamp. Only in America. Or Cuba, or Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, or North Korea, I guess.
Well, maybe I was wrong in saying Sharpton wouldn't have Jackson's influence. But it's too soon to say for sure.
We picked up Number 54 on the "Most Wanted" list in Iraq, while the new NATO chief says we need more guys in Afghanistan. See yesterday's post related to the subject, but here's Kristof's take on the Democrats trade positions:
Perhaps the candidates are simply pandering to unions, or bashing President Bush. But my guess is that they sincerely believe that such trade policies would help poor people abroad ? and that's why they should all traipse through a Cambodian garbage dump to see how economically naïve these schemes would be.
Read the whole piece for why.
Criticism from conservatives angers Soros, sugar daddy of Moveon.org. Of course, from the point of view of guys like him, freedom of speech is protected and advanced by silencing criticism aimed at him and the Left, which tends to chill such delicate flowers. Soros proves again that the Left can dish it out better than they can take it.
That's today's roundup; check 'em out, Space Cowboy.
So I did manage to blog a fair amount yesterday despite the hub-bub of Packing Day. But it wasn't wide in range. Here are some "yesterday's news" things.
First, heh. Some thoughts on Dean: he's not running as he governed Vermont, or speaking as he has in the past. Either he's changed a lot in the last couple years, and IMO not in good ways, or he's being insincere in order to appeal to the "Core Democratic Voter".
Now, all politicians do that to some degree. But Dean has either changed very much, or he's setting new standards in duplicitous campaigning and insincerity, while claiming he should be supported because he's the only truth-telling sincere candidate out there. This seems especially weasel-like to me, and I'm not some naif who thinks politics is full of straight shooters. But he seems to have elevated it to beyond-Clintonian levels, ironically while running against the Clintonian control of the Democratic Party.
Elsewhere on the campaign trail, here's a picture of Clark (AKA Gen. Jack D. Ripper) pondering purity of essence and what the Bushies plan to do with his precious bodily fluids if they win re-election.
However, not every Liberal or Democrat is like that. Here are several discussing Iraq. If any of the Democratic candidates recognized what Paul Berman (referenced here) or Tom Friedman has - that just because Bush is for something that doesn't mean opposition to it is axiomatic - and campaigned that way, then I wouldn't be as disturbed by the prospect of a Democratic victory this November as I am. Joe Lieberman comes closest to such a candidate, but it's only so close and his chances are negligible.
Two other items I want to mention, unrelated to domestic politics. The first is that in Iran, President Mohammed Khatami seems to have found his missing spine. Sort of. We'll see how well he follows through.
The other one is the suicide of serial killer Harold Shipman in England. On the one hand, the family members of victims feel cheated, in part because Shipman's death denied them the answers they sought. But were they likely to get answers to "why" from Shipman? Straight answers? Or was it more likely they'd have gotten the kind of things Ted Bundy gave out over the years?
Put this in context with Shipman's suicide, which is characterized as Shipman exercising control. If he had lived, any statements Shipman would have made would have been in the same vein - a way of manipulating others, keeping them on a string. They would have been distortive, self-serving, and designed to further his self-gratification, not straightforward and candid.
Look, I understand why people would want some answers, feel they need to know why this was done. But they weren't going to get such answers from Shipman no matter how long he lived. They'll have to search elsewhere for what they seek.
Here is Haiti today. Rather than people saying "we told you so" to the Clinton Administration, though, it might be something to keep in mind regarding Iraq (relevant to the Will piece). Those of us who are optimists on Iraqi democracy have to recognize the potential pitfalls, and learn from past experience to avoid mistakes.
One reason why the Arab world is in the state it's in is because one cannot raise certain subjects without it impacting severely on one's wellbeing. And if you can't discuss issues, they don't exist. According to Ibrahim Nawar of Arab Press Freedom Watch, in the last two years seven Saudi editors have been fired for criticising government policies. To fire a British talk-show host for criticising Saudi policies is surely over-reaching even for the notoriously super-sensitive Muslim lobby.
Of course we in the West will be subject to the same perils if topics are rendered taboo on the grounds of sensitivity.
This is interesting (Jan 11th entry). Not major, but not nothing as some will try to make it out to be.
This on the other hand doesn't sound like such a good thing. One of our strengths is the initiative of field commanders. Having the Generals in Washington looking over their shoulder at all times and interfering in combat decisions doesn't sound like a vehicle for success. It's more likely to produce paralysis than facilitate operations.
Regarding an item linked to in the Tuesday Roundup, Charlie Perkins, executive editor of the The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News writes, via e-mail:
The Jay Ambrose column in The Union Leader to which you've linked is not an endorsement by the newspaper. He's a conservative Scripps Howard writer whose column we run once in a while; he doesn't represent our editorial position. Lieberman has received both praise and criticism recently in our own editorials.
If you'd correct that error before it spreads, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for reading our online edition.
To which I say: D'oh! Normally I catch distinctions like that. My apologies for any confusion. I've corrected the post itself and apologize for any confusion that resulted.
In other news, if this is true, then that's excellent news indeed. Many people worried that, given the state of health care systems and reporting of infection rates/testing, that there were more than the estimates suggested. It'd be bonus-a-um if there are less.
Shortish today (solitarish, poorish, nastyish, and brutish, too. May as well go for 'em all).
Richard Cohen says that with Dean, there's a failure to connect. I guess that's broadly true. The only exception is with the people who will vote in Democratic Primaries. The Clintonian Candidate is the latest to surge in New Hampshire. Wonder if he'll also call himself the "Comeback Kid" and make a second place finish seem like victory. Jeff Jacoby sees Democrats running away from free trade. What was your first clue, Jeff? Hell, even Bush has been no great shakes on free trade. A new reality for Democrats? Or just the same-old Lefty cliques that always say they're a new force in American politics, repackaged once again? Dean could, of course, still lose. Well, Peggy Noonan wants Dean to win. Doesn't that endorsement count for something? Maybe not in the face of Austin Bay's scathing column on Dean.
Robin Toner discovers that campaigning on raising taxes may have pitfalls for Democrats. All together now: IT'S REAGAN'S FAULT!
The debate over taxes is painful terrain for the Democratic Party, which is still haunted by the memory of the 1980's, when Republicans ran successfully against the Democrats as "taxers and spenders."
Damned Republicans, refusing to be uncritical of Democratic policies. Even Bush. He refuses to be bullied by the billionaire fat-cats that finance Leftist front-groups. Er, wait: tribunes-of-the-people who represent the grass roots against Bush's contributors (average contribution: $201) and who control powerful media outlets that propigate the insidious Right-Wing agenda, such as the proprietor of this virulently Right-Wing Hate site. We all know how they slant the news.
Tom Friedman on the War of Ideas, aka "War Against Bad Philosophy" (pace Armed Liberal). This is one of the Friedman pieces that is worth reading, and the first of a five part series. What, is he channeling Den Beste? Or me? (D'oh: I still haven't done Part VI of my "America's 21st Century Foreign Policy" series). How Libya was brought to heel.
Economic growth will curb the deficit, like it did last time. If and only if we have some spending restraint, however. Meanwhile, America's poorest have, among other things, larger living quarters than the typical Parisian, Londoner, Viennese, or Athenian does. Yet we keep hearing how America does less for its least-well-off than the Social Democratic nations of the EU do. Well, it is true that we didn't care for our poor the same way France cared for Grandma and Grandma last summer. Possibly because two-thirds of our poorest have air conditioning.
Ever since they embargoed their comment & analysis section, I haven't been frequenting the Financial Times' webpage as often. It's just not the same, not being able to share some dopy, condescendingly smug Europolemic published by the FT with you all anymore. No other source of blogfodder is quite the same.
But they have some fairly good news stories today. Here's a battle of the would-be titans, pitting the EU's monetary affairs commisioner against the would-be Glory that is the Frankenreich. At question, whether the Restored Carolingian Empire can exempt itself from EU rules it imposes on its vassals in the rest of the EU. In another story, Pessimism sets upon the Eurozone economy goes the headline. I must have missed something, because I don't remember the pessimism lifting. Either that or this story is just on file and the computer (Trust The Computer, The Computer Is Your Friend) spits it out every couple of months. The more accurate headline would be "Cloud of Pessimism Persistently Blankets Eurozone Economy". Well, this is what the story says as the reason for the pessimism this time:
The dip in sentiment comes in the wake of an unexpected slowdown in the growth of the eurozone service sector and fuels doubts about the long-term sustainability of the region's economic upswing.
I'm beginning to think, though, that it's just because Continental Europe is a more pessimistic place than The Happy Country is. There is, of course, always something to be disappointed about in any economy: just ask America's Honorary Europeans, the Democratic Party elected officials and candidates. But most Americans are positive, up-beat, problem-solvers who get things done and believe in accomplishment. Thus we're not as gloomy over setbacks. (Overall. There are individual exceptions, and some of them run this weblog). Also, and this is always news when you tell the people who run "Europe", but freedom, not government regulation of everything and their dog (or their banana), well it works.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is planning on governing as a moderate and working with the California legislature. Some people are shocked and surprised. Some Conservatives are disappointed and even feel betrayed. Look, this is what he said he'd try and do. The only thing that surprises me is that his extended hand of cooperation isn't getting batted away by the Democrats who run California's legislature. Not yet, anyhow. But that's better than I expected. I never expected Schwarzenegger to govern as McClintock would have. Things are going better than I expected, so far, and Arnold is what he campaigned as.
Advice: if you want to enter this country, the best way to do it is illegally. Avoid the hassle a friend of mine's husband is having. He's trying to get in from Canada, and INS lost his paperwork once already. If he would just skip the border, we'd give him a pass. But, no: he's doing it the legal way, so we're going to yank his chain while giving freebies to line-jumpers who ignore the rules. (More here and here).
America: What a country.
In other immigration news: Blame Canada. Damned fer'ners, with their diseases n such.
Jesus, eh? He's that guy who wrote the Book of Job, right? I mean, that's what Dean said, and as we know, Democrats is smart and Republikans is Stoopid. So I can't trust my own dumb Wepublikan memory: Dean's gotta be right. But now I'm confusedated, 'cause Kristof sez Dean got it wrong. But it's unpossible for either Liberal to be wrong! I guess I'll have to accomodate this with Doublethink: believing contradictory things to be true. In related Dean news, first Andrew Sullivan, and now the Washington Times pushing for Dean to be nominated. The American Spectator disagrees.
Bush's approval rating is back up to 60%. In Texas, Judges allow Republican gerrymanders to replace the previous Democratic gerrymanders. Having politicians of either party select their voters, rather than having the voters select their representatives, is a bad thing. Some real, non-partisan, solution is needed. Dean is leading in Convention Delegates already. Read the story and you'll see why. Meanwhile, Bush is leading in campaign donations.
We bring you today's news roundup. Some of it is yesterday's news today, but much of it is fresh.
Krugman's Great Unraveling continues, as jobless claims hit a three year low and economists predict unemployment to fall. Indeed, Bush's December confirms Krugman's unraveling. Despite the impression you'd get from listening to Democratic candidates, office-holders, and their cheering section in the media, America is the Happy Country, oh, and money does buy happiness, sort of: There is a correlation. Married people are happier than unmarried people, not really a shock, ace, and conservatives and Republicans are happier than Liberals and Democrats. Again, not really a shock, though some try to claim that the Right is full of angry haters. Of course, not all of us fit our profiles.
Osama bin Laden has another album release. I still say: That dude is dead. Ralph Peters on Howard Dean (what am I? Peters' publicist?). Amir Tahiri on Afghanistan's balancing act: good luck with that new Constitution. Also, a test for the Arab world, one they'll likely fail. Peter Brookes on unfinished anti-terror business. Reform the institutions and the rest will follow. But more on that in a later post (oops! There I go again, calling down the Wrath of the Heavens by promising a post on something. "When will I ever learn? When will I, ever learn"). Here's one thing that's started: but it's rife with exemptions. I mean, this post suggesting we're getting more help from Libya than from Germany is funny, but not literally true. Never the less, Germany is exempt from the new foreign visitor tracking program, but it happens to be the case that Mohammed Atta and his merry men entered the U.S. from Germany. Other terrorists are likely to exploit the loopholes. And yet, the criticism of this system that comes from Liberals and Democrats tends to be of the sort that decries it as going too far ("violation of civil liberties!"), not that it doesn't go far enough (some notable exceptions do exist). We need a tighter system, but we're only going to get it when folks in my generation reform institutions that are still wedded to a sensitivity-model rather than a security-model. Along those lines (kinda), Wes Pruden on learning to sweat the important stuff.
The Air Farce wants flying command centers. What's an AWACS? I mean, not that this isn't a good idea, but as with most Air Force projects it'll probably cost four times as much as it really needs to, because of all the gizmos they'll want. Pentagon extends tours. People get all up in arms about that, but on the other hand one of the criticisms of how we handled Vietnam was short tours. Which is worse? I guess we'll find out. The Washington Times on Iraq's disbanded army. India & Pakistan are talking peace. Sounds like a good idea. But Egypt is surpressing the Democracy movement. Sounds like a bad idea.
The "Real Dean", like "The Real Gore", probably doesn't exist. The "I'll do what I have to to win power, be whoever I have to be to gain power" Dean is the Real Dean, just like that was the Real Gore and the Real Clinton. The editors of the New York Times, which are for just about every spending program the Democrats propose and spent the last couple years claiming Bush is "underfunding vital programs", now decides to criticize excessive spending. Well, ok guys. That's fine: I criticize excessive spending, too. But the difference is, I have principles beyond just "bash Bush and Republicans at every opportunity". That is, I'm not making hypocritical criticisms, on the one hand bashing him for not spending enough and on the other saying he's spending too much. Here's a more principled pi
