For a decade CNN made a trade with Saddam's Iraq. For access to Baghdad CNN consciously avoided publicizing the atrocities committed by Saddam and his henchmen. Now American soldiers abuse prisoners and CNN is all over the story. Perhaps there are good reasons for the editorial decisions of CNN (the U.S. should be better than Saddam so this is a story whereas his abuses were not, these abuses will affect Iraqi opinion of us whereas a decade of Saddam's torture of his citizens has no bearing on world opinion of the U.S., etc). Since I can't know all the facts of CNN's failure to publicize torture during the 1990s (some background available here), nor do I even watch CNN, let's just stipulate for the sake of argument that this is in fact what CNN has done. Could CNN's conduct qualify as anti-American? I say it could.
CNN's selective reporting has the effect of pointing out the bad things done by American soldiers after not pointing out the bad things (much worse things actually) done by Saddam's thugs. You could make a case that this is simply CNN questioning the current policies of the U.S. or the specific actions of some of its soldiers (not necessarily anti-American). You could say that CNN is simply unbiasedly covering a big story, a story much bigger in the eyes of the U.S. or people around the world than what some Middle East tyrant was up to (not necessarily anti-American). But I think you could also make the case that CNN's actions in this case are anti-American. CNN chooses to publicize the bad about America where they did not publicize the bad about Iraq. That seems biased, biased against American interests. To me that qualifies as anti-American.
Just because a free press is fundamental to America, or just because criticizing the government or its soldiers is a fundamental right of Americans, or just because in this case publicizing the actions of the soldiers is the right thing to do I don't think that CNN is therefore innocent of the charge of demonstrating an anti-American bias in this episode.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Swift Boat Vets
These Swift Boat Vets really don't think John Kerry would make a good Commander-in-Chief. Here is a sampling of their comments, plus comments from the doctor who treated Kerry for what the doctor thinks was a self-inflicted wound. I'm sure the Kerry campaign will work overtime to discredit these guys. That won't be easy.
I could give a rip about Kerry's Vietnam service, but I do care what sort of Commander-in-Chief he'd make. I also care what he thinks now, not what he did or thought back in the early 1970s. But Kerry makes such a big deal of his Vietnam service, he must think it's relevant. This is just one more issue that makes me think I'm right that we're headed for a landslide Bush win in November.
That's quite odd, given how many people intensely dislike Bush. He won the presidency with fewer total votes than his opponent. He's a generally inarticulate speaker, not a seemingly good campaigner. He's been a disappointment in a lot of areas to a lot of people as president. Yet with a liberal senator from the Northeast as the Democratic challenger, Bush will probably win in November, and may even win big. If that happens, the Democratic Party will have a lot of explaining to do. More than when Gore somehow managed to lose to Bush in 2000.
Rhoads' response
Well, I checked out their web site, and for them to claim that they are apolitical is a total farce. Maybe they really believe that Kerry would be a poor Command-in-Chief. They don't say anything about their feelings about the current C-i-C who used his priviledged position in life to avoid Vietnam altogether.
I do find it interesting that they talk about Kerry's "abbreviated tour of duty" - which apparently was his second tour which he volunteered for when his first tour ran out. Apolitical indeed. Give me a break.
Bob's response
For them to claim they are "apolitical" seems silly to me, too. Of course this is political. John Kerry is running for president, a politically elected job. They have come together for the express purpose of opposing him. Therefore, I agree that they clearly are a political, not apolitical, group.
However, I think what they were trying to say is they are not political in the Republican and Democratic sense. Given that they are all military people, I bet they are overwhelmingly Republican. I'd like to see them disclose their party affiliations since I'm curious how many of them consider themselves, or have registered as, Democrats.
You may disagree with their judgment of Bush versus Kerry as a Commander-in-Chief, but if you're suprised by what these men say I'm afraid you're out of touch with the military. From what I know of the views of military people generally, their voting patterns, and of the views of the military people I know, I'm not surprised that a significant group of former military men have come out against Kerry. What did surprise me is the close association this group has with Kerry's time of service in Vietnam. From what I'd read he served honorably in Vietnam (though I was aware of some controversy about his Purple Hearts). Perhaps Kerry's antics upon returning pissed these guys off enough for them to make up stories about his service in Vietnam. That's not impossible. But I find it interesting that particularly this O'Neil fellow, after publicly debating Kerry in the early 1970s, has waited this long to come out against Kerry. Kerry has had a long political career. If this guy held a stong enough grudge to now be making stuff up, my bet is he would have been dogging Kerry all along.
I believe O'Neil and these guys when they say that, in their opinions, the stakes are now high enough, and Kerry unfit enough, that they have to come out and oppose his presidential candidacy. They say that if Kerry is not the nominee they'll disappear. In my opinion, the Democratic Party would be wise to call that bet. It may be too late for that. And as I've been saying, too late for a serious challenger to George W. Bush in 2004.
You've presented new information regarding Kerry's two tours of service that I'm unaware of. My understanding is that he volunteered for service. He went to Vietnam. On the basis of his being awarded three Purple Hearts his tour of duty in Vietnam was cut short (to 4 months and 11 days or something like that). This is his only service that I'm aware of and that tour in Vietnam was abbreviated. If you can provide links to the details of his service showing that what the Swift Boat Vets are referring to was his second hitch, that would save me some time. If you don't have any sources for Kerry serving two tours, I'll have the staff of BRG (me) get on it and see what I can find. I think the Kerry campaign released some of his records, or copies of his records, so this shouldn't be too hard to settle.
Meanwhile, I'm off to Costco. Sweet!
UPDATE by Bob: John Kerry signed up for one six year tour of duty with the US Navy on February 18, 1966. Click here for John Kerry's Official Naval Records and then click on the Enlistment Contract pdf link.
I could give a rip about Kerry's Vietnam service, but I do care what sort of Commander-in-Chief he'd make. I also care what he thinks now, not what he did or thought back in the early 1970s. But Kerry makes such a big deal of his Vietnam service, he must think it's relevant. This is just one more issue that makes me think I'm right that we're headed for a landslide Bush win in November.
That's quite odd, given how many people intensely dislike Bush. He won the presidency with fewer total votes than his opponent. He's a generally inarticulate speaker, not a seemingly good campaigner. He's been a disappointment in a lot of areas to a lot of people as president. Yet with a liberal senator from the Northeast as the Democratic challenger, Bush will probably win in November, and may even win big. If that happens, the Democratic Party will have a lot of explaining to do. More than when Gore somehow managed to lose to Bush in 2000.
Rhoads' response
Well, I checked out their web site, and for them to claim that they are apolitical is a total farce. Maybe they really believe that Kerry would be a poor Command-in-Chief. They don't say anything about their feelings about the current C-i-C who used his priviledged position in life to avoid Vietnam altogether.
I do find it interesting that they talk about Kerry's "abbreviated tour of duty" - which apparently was his second tour which he volunteered for when his first tour ran out. Apolitical indeed. Give me a break.
Bob's response
For them to claim they are "apolitical" seems silly to me, too. Of course this is political. John Kerry is running for president, a politically elected job. They have come together for the express purpose of opposing him. Therefore, I agree that they clearly are a political, not apolitical, group.
However, I think what they were trying to say is they are not political in the Republican and Democratic sense. Given that they are all military people, I bet they are overwhelmingly Republican. I'd like to see them disclose their party affiliations since I'm curious how many of them consider themselves, or have registered as, Democrats.
You may disagree with their judgment of Bush versus Kerry as a Commander-in-Chief, but if you're suprised by what these men say I'm afraid you're out of touch with the military. From what I know of the views of military people generally, their voting patterns, and of the views of the military people I know, I'm not surprised that a significant group of former military men have come out against Kerry. What did surprise me is the close association this group has with Kerry's time of service in Vietnam. From what I'd read he served honorably in Vietnam (though I was aware of some controversy about his Purple Hearts). Perhaps Kerry's antics upon returning pissed these guys off enough for them to make up stories about his service in Vietnam. That's not impossible. But I find it interesting that particularly this O'Neil fellow, after publicly debating Kerry in the early 1970s, has waited this long to come out against Kerry. Kerry has had a long political career. If this guy held a stong enough grudge to now be making stuff up, my bet is he would have been dogging Kerry all along.
I believe O'Neil and these guys when they say that, in their opinions, the stakes are now high enough, and Kerry unfit enough, that they have to come out and oppose his presidential candidacy. They say that if Kerry is not the nominee they'll disappear. In my opinion, the Democratic Party would be wise to call that bet. It may be too late for that. And as I've been saying, too late for a serious challenger to George W. Bush in 2004.
You've presented new information regarding Kerry's two tours of service that I'm unaware of. My understanding is that he volunteered for service. He went to Vietnam. On the basis of his being awarded three Purple Hearts his tour of duty in Vietnam was cut short (to 4 months and 11 days or something like that). This is his only service that I'm aware of and that tour in Vietnam was abbreviated. If you can provide links to the details of his service showing that what the Swift Boat Vets are referring to was his second hitch, that would save me some time. If you don't have any sources for Kerry serving two tours, I'll have the staff of BRG (me) get on it and see what I can find. I think the Kerry campaign released some of his records, or copies of his records, so this shouldn't be too hard to settle.
Meanwhile, I'm off to Costco. Sweet!
UPDATE by Bob: John Kerry signed up for one six year tour of duty with the US Navy on February 18, 1966. Click here for John Kerry's Official Naval Records and then click on the Enlistment Contract pdf link.
Niwot Baseball
Congratulations to the Niwot baseball teams, which each won their respective games yesterday in Ft. Morgan. The Varsity team beat Ft. Morgan 11-2 to sweep their conference and finish the season 18-1. The JV team beat Ft. Morgan 16-0 to finish with a 15-4 overall record, and a 15-1 record in the conference. The JV team is done for the Spring. The Varsity team hosts the regional playoff tournament this weekend.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
World Trade and America: Twin Enemies
Frenchman Jean Francois Revel finds it hard to separate anti-globilization from anti-Americanism:
How to understand this war against globalization, which has grown in scope and virulence over the past five years? First, we must realize that it is a war in the real, not the figurative, sense of the word. It is a physical struggle being fought in the streets, not just theoretically. The demonstrators who are its shock troops are organized by activist organizations, many of them subsidized by governments, and they sack cities and lay siege to international meetings during their battles.Read the whole essay.
What motivates this extraordinary resistance? Globalization simply means freedom of movement for goods and people, and it is hard to be violently hostile to that. But behind this fight lies an older and more fundamental struggle—against economic liberalization, and against the chief representative thereof, which is the United States. Anti-globalism carnivals often feature an Uncle Sam in a Stars-and-Stripes costume as their supreme scapegoat. In this way, the new movement taps into an old socialist tradition, where opposition to economic freedom and opposition to America are impossible to separate.
The simplistic article of Marxist faith that capitalism is absolute evil, and that it is incarnated in and directed by the United States, may be the most important principle shared by the current crop of anti-globalizers. America is the object of their loathing because for a half century or more it has been the most prosperous and creative capitalist society on earth. But ultimately it is something even bigger that the anti-globalizers want to destroy: liberal democracy and free-market economics. Or quite simply liberty itself.
Anti-American
I guess I have a way different idea of "Anti-American" than does Bob. To me, one of the most fundamental American rights is the right to speak out against the actions of the government, irrespective of whether the aformentioned government actions are happening in time of War. I believe that this is fundamental, because our Founding Fathers realized that one of the problems they had with the British government in the 18th century was that they did not have the freedom to speak out against what they felt were wrongs committed against them on behalf of the government.
So take, for example, the concept of burning the American Flag in a show of protest against the government. Is it an effective attention getter? Sure! Is it specifically something the Founding Fathers had in mind when they were writing the Constitution? I think so, because they probably spent a fair amount of time burning the King's flag. Is it something I would do personally? Probably not. Do I care about how the flag is treated in my own house? Absolutely - I don't ever let it touch the ground. Do I think passing a Constitutional amendment against it is wrong? ABSOLUTELY! Do I think it is Anti-American to burn the flag? No way! In fact, I think it is Anti-American to talk about such a Constitutional Amendment.
Similar logic applies to political cartoons. Do I appreciate cartoons which make fun of our governments actions in time of war? No. Do I think that the people who write them are using large amounts of hyperbole to make their points? Probably. Do I think the authors really believe them? Some of them do. Do I think they are Anti-American? Not a chance. Would I personally use the same techniques? Not a chance.
For me, Anti-American would mean someone who wanted to completly overthrow the American Government, or destroy the people and/or the government. Does a political cartoon have that capability? No.
Bob's response
Rhoads appeals to logic. Let's look at the conclusion to his post above.
A political cartoon cannot "overthrow or destroy the people and/or the government." Therefore, a political cartoon cannot be anti-American.
But that's just the second part of his conclusion. Before that Rhoads wrote "For me, Anti-American would mean someone who wanted to completly overthrow the American Government." So any act or statement short of a complete overthrow of the American Government would not qualify as anti-American.
We sure do have a different definition of anti-American.
In addition to mentioning the Ted Rall cartoon I linked to the post at Portland Indymedia. The poster advocated the killing of American officers by American soldiers. Since killing American soldiers, not to mention simply advocating it, falls far short of completely overthrowing the American Government, the poster is not anti-American.
Pardon me for thinking that in his conclusion Rhoads has defined away the term "anti-American" almost completely.
A fundamental right to criticize the government does not guarantee that any and all criticism of the government is not anti-American. At least not by the public school logic I learned.
Of course Rhoads himself isn't that illogical, either. Just above his conclusion Rhoads says that burning the flag is not anti-American, but that proposing an amendment to ban flag-burning is anti-American. So in fact an act short of overthrowing the American Government qualifies to Rhoads as anti-American. So he'll have to rework that concluding definition for us.
It looks to me like it boils down to Rhoads not really having as much of a problem with people advocating the killing of American soldiers as he does with people proposing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. I hope he'll corrrect me on that, because I can't believe the thinks that. But that's the impression his post left.
Rhoads' reponse
Thanks for completely truning my words and logic around, Bob. OK, let me spell it out for you. In the United States, people who protest against the governmennt should not be considered "anti-American" just because they protest against the government. People in the United States who advocate the killing of other people in the United States are called criminals and should be treated as such. You political cartoon was an example of someone protesting against the government, not of someone advocating the killing of US citizens. People in foreign countries who burn the US flag, or our president (in effigee of course), or who advocate killing of US citizens - those people I would call anti-American. People in foreign countries who make fun of our current president are probably not anti-American. However, they should probably be arrested for hunting in a baited field.
Bob's response
If quoting your words and applying logic is turning them around then I apologize. Rather than simply restating your case, you'll have to show me how I erred in my analysis of your prior comments and conclusion. I don't think you could have meant to leave the impression you left, but I didn't write your post, you did.
We have no disagreement that "people who protest against the governmennt should not be considered 'anti-American' just because they protest against the government." I would even extend that beyond our borders. The mere fact of protest in any isolated case, even in many cases, does not by itself make a person anti-American. I do believe that a person can be both American (a U.S. citizen) and anti-American. People are American by birth or by choice, but "American" in contrast to "anti-American" means agreeing on more than simply the right to protest the government. It looks to me like you're saying since political protest is a fundamental American right, the act of political protest is the perfect shield for a U.S. citizen against the charge that one is anti-American. I don't agree with that.
Here is the text of the post from Portland Indymedia which Citizen Smash clipped (after which Smash linked to the political cartoon as an aside):
The tasteless political cartoon that Citizen Smash linked to may not have been anti-American, just stupid and disgusting. I can accept that. But do you mean to leave the impression that by definition no political cartoon written by an American in the U.S. can be anti-American? Can a U.S. citizen who chronically burns the U.S. flag in protest, year after year, administration after administration be anti-American if he stops short of advocating the total overthrow of the government? How about a political cartoon that advocates a constitutional ban on flag burning?
Is "talking about" a constitutional ban on flag burning the only action an American can undertake short of advocating the complete overthrow of the government that qualifies as anti-American by the Rhoads definition? If not, give me another. Is there any form of political protest, short of advocating the complete overthrow of the government, that could possibly earn the protester the tag "anti-American" in your view?
So take, for example, the concept of burning the American Flag in a show of protest against the government. Is it an effective attention getter? Sure! Is it specifically something the Founding Fathers had in mind when they were writing the Constitution? I think so, because they probably spent a fair amount of time burning the King's flag. Is it something I would do personally? Probably not. Do I care about how the flag is treated in my own house? Absolutely - I don't ever let it touch the ground. Do I think passing a Constitutional amendment against it is wrong? ABSOLUTELY! Do I think it is Anti-American to burn the flag? No way! In fact, I think it is Anti-American to talk about such a Constitutional Amendment.
Similar logic applies to political cartoons. Do I appreciate cartoons which make fun of our governments actions in time of war? No. Do I think that the people who write them are using large amounts of hyperbole to make their points? Probably. Do I think the authors really believe them? Some of them do. Do I think they are Anti-American? Not a chance. Would I personally use the same techniques? Not a chance.
For me, Anti-American would mean someone who wanted to completly overthrow the American Government, or destroy the people and/or the government. Does a political cartoon have that capability? No.
Bob's response
Rhoads appeals to logic. Let's look at the conclusion to his post above.
A political cartoon cannot "overthrow or destroy the people and/or the government." Therefore, a political cartoon cannot be anti-American.
But that's just the second part of his conclusion. Before that Rhoads wrote "For me, Anti-American would mean someone who wanted to completly overthrow the American Government." So any act or statement short of a complete overthrow of the American Government would not qualify as anti-American.
We sure do have a different definition of anti-American.
In addition to mentioning the Ted Rall cartoon I linked to the post at Portland Indymedia. The poster advocated the killing of American officers by American soldiers. Since killing American soldiers, not to mention simply advocating it, falls far short of completely overthrowing the American Government, the poster is not anti-American.
Pardon me for thinking that in his conclusion Rhoads has defined away the term "anti-American" almost completely.
A fundamental right to criticize the government does not guarantee that any and all criticism of the government is not anti-American. At least not by the public school logic I learned.
Of course Rhoads himself isn't that illogical, either. Just above his conclusion Rhoads says that burning the flag is not anti-American, but that proposing an amendment to ban flag-burning is anti-American. So in fact an act short of overthrowing the American Government qualifies to Rhoads as anti-American. So he'll have to rework that concluding definition for us.
It looks to me like it boils down to Rhoads not really having as much of a problem with people advocating the killing of American soldiers as he does with people proposing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. I hope he'll corrrect me on that, because I can't believe the thinks that. But that's the impression his post left.
Rhoads' reponse
Thanks for completely truning my words and logic around, Bob. OK, let me spell it out for you. In the United States, people who protest against the governmennt should not be considered "anti-American" just because they protest against the government. People in the United States who advocate the killing of other people in the United States are called criminals and should be treated as such. You political cartoon was an example of someone protesting against the government, not of someone advocating the killing of US citizens. People in foreign countries who burn the US flag, or our president (in effigee of course), or who advocate killing of US citizens - those people I would call anti-American. People in foreign countries who make fun of our current president are probably not anti-American. However, they should probably be arrested for hunting in a baited field.
Bob's response
If quoting your words and applying logic is turning them around then I apologize. Rather than simply restating your case, you'll have to show me how I erred in my analysis of your prior comments and conclusion. I don't think you could have meant to leave the impression you left, but I didn't write your post, you did.
We have no disagreement that "people who protest against the governmennt should not be considered 'anti-American' just because they protest against the government." I would even extend that beyond our borders. The mere fact of protest in any isolated case, even in many cases, does not by itself make a person anti-American. I do believe that a person can be both American (a U.S. citizen) and anti-American. People are American by birth or by choice, but "American" in contrast to "anti-American" means agreeing on more than simply the right to protest the government. It looks to me like you're saying since political protest is a fundamental American right, the act of political protest is the perfect shield for a U.S. citizen against the charge that one is anti-American. I don't agree with that.
Here is the text of the post from Portland Indymedia which Citizen Smash clipped (after which Smash linked to the political cartoon as an aside):
Write a letter to a soldier to let him/her know what people really think of this war. Send a photo of a dead Iraqi civilian. Send a photo or message about an anti-war protest... Outreach to soldiers is the best way to persuade them to stop killing civilians. Maybe they will even begin fragging (killing their officers) like in Vietnam. It's worth a try...This is an American, anti-war protestor suggesting that it would be good to encourage the killing of American officers by American soldiers. Does this behavior, a written political protest by an American advocating the killing of American officers, qualify under the Rhoads definition of anti-American?
The tasteless political cartoon that Citizen Smash linked to may not have been anti-American, just stupid and disgusting. I can accept that. But do you mean to leave the impression that by definition no political cartoon written by an American in the U.S. can be anti-American? Can a U.S. citizen who chronically burns the U.S. flag in protest, year after year, administration after administration be anti-American if he stops short of advocating the total overthrow of the government? How about a political cartoon that advocates a constitutional ban on flag burning?
Is "talking about" a constitutional ban on flag burning the only action an American can undertake short of advocating the complete overthrow of the government that qualifies as anti-American by the Rhoads definition? If not, give me another. Is there any form of political protest, short of advocating the complete overthrow of the government, that could possibly earn the protester the tag "anti-American" in your view?
Monday, May 03, 2004
Is this Anti-American?
Click, read, and check out the Ted Rall cartoon. I call that anti-American.
Luckily, this America endures anyway. I doubt the people we meet from Dover to Wyoming underestimate the costs of war.
(Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for both links.)
Luckily, this America endures anyway. I doubt the people we meet from Dover to Wyoming underestimate the costs of war.
(Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for both links.)
My how time flies
Robert Tagorda has a post titled "What a difference a few months makes" where he notices quite a turnaround on the jobs picture by John Kerry. It looks like sometime in the last two months ten years of waiting for jobs creation vanished.
Kerry Called Unfit
A few weeks ago I wrote that while we may survive a Kerry presidency I didn't think it would be a good thing if the military held their commander-in-chief in contempt. Rhoads' doubted that the views of Lt. Gen (Ret) Hudson reflected those of the military more broadly. Rhoads also said that, of course, if he were in the military he'd prefer a president who actually served, say a President Kerry.
I don't think we'll ever know how the military as a whole would feel about a President Kerry, but here is a report on "[h]undreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry" who disagree with Rhoads. Tommorow they will say John Kerry is "unfit to be commander-in-chief."
UPDATE: Here's the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website and their mission statement.
I don't think we'll ever know how the military as a whole would feel about a President Kerry, but here is a report on "[h]undreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry" who disagree with Rhoads. Tommorow they will say John Kerry is "unfit to be commander-in-chief."
B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, believes that Tuesday's event will not be dismissed easily by Kerry's campaign as a "partisan" attack.Stay tuned.
"There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing to do with politics -- this has to with Vietnam Veterans who served, who have a beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com.
UPDATE: Here's the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website and their mission statement.
Great minds think alike
Lots of links to links to links here but Arnold Kling has a post that quotes Zimran Ahmed commenting on an article by David Warsh reviewing a book by by Paul Seabright that echoes the conclusion of my recent post on economics and and another on the "nation building" metaphor. Phew. Got that? Enough linking. Here's what Kling cut and pasted from Zimran Ahmed:
P.S. On a walk in the neighborhood with my wife, me, and my dog my mother-in-law pointed out a beautiful rock garden. A rock garden. "Hey, those don't spread," I thought. "And you have to build 'em!" Drat. I'll have to amend my garden metaphor to exclude rock gardens. No metaphor is perfect, I guess.
I've been thinking of why people find economics so fundamentally repugnant, and I think the fact that it goes against millenni[a] of natural selection that re-enforced building, monitoring, and maintaining social relationships, is a large part of that. We humans are hard-wired to prefer interacting with those we know and trust, those we consider family and friends, and the soul-less transactional nature of the market makes that cozy circle compete with anonymous firms, tellers, recorded voices, etc. [emphasis added]Kling agrees and so do I. Rhoads agreed with my "nation building" post, maybe he agrees with me and Kling on this one, too.
P.S. On a walk in the neighborhood with my wife, me, and my dog my mother-in-law pointed out a beautiful rock garden. A rock garden. "Hey, those don't spread," I thought. "And you have to build 'em!" Drat. I'll have to amend my garden metaphor to exclude rock gardens. No metaphor is perfect, I guess.
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Costs of War
Ted Koppel says ''The most important thing a journalist can do is remind people of the cost of war.'' Mark Steyn begs to differ. Steyn lets us know just how long it would take Koppel to remind us of the costs of some prior wars.
A. To honor the dead. (What about the dead in Afghanistan?)
B. To let us know the costs of war. (What about the costs of the war in Afghanistan?)
C. Ratings stunt. (His producer didn't know when sweeps were.)
D. He wants to strengthen our resolve to fight on. (The Life photos had the opposite effect.)
E. He wants to weaken our resolve to fight on. (The effect Life magazine photos had.)
F. He wants to hurt Bush in an election year. (He couldn't be so crass.)
At two seconds per name, to read out the combat deaths of the War of 1812 he'd have to persuade ABC to extend the show to an hour and a quarter. To read out the combat deaths of the Korean War, he'd need a 19-hour show. For World War II, he'd have to get ABC to let him read out names of the dead 24/7 for an entire week. If he wants to, I'd be happy to fly him to London so he can go on the BBC and read out the names of the 3,097,392 British combat deaths in World War I, which would take him the best part of three months, without taking bathroom breaks, or indeed pausing for breath.What were Koppel's motives for listing our combat deaths in Iraq? I'll toss out some possible motives:
A. To honor the dead. (What about the dead in Afghanistan?)
B. To let us know the costs of war. (What about the costs of the war in Afghanistan?)
C. Ratings stunt. (His producer didn't know when sweeps were.)
D. He wants to strengthen our resolve to fight on. (The Life photos had the opposite effect.)
E. He wants to weaken our resolve to fight on. (The effect Life magazine photos had.)
F. He wants to hurt Bush in an election year. (He couldn't be so crass.)
I'm a day late
May Day: A Day of Remembrance is the title of a post on Cattallarchy.net. The post is really an introduction to a series of essays, the first of which is called "The Tally". "The Tally" breaks down by country the roughly 100 million people who were killed by Marxist rulers. It looks like an unintended consequence of the ideology of the workers' paradise was the paradise of the grave for millions of workers.
May Day seems like a good time to celebrate the death of communism in most of the world. Maybe some day we'll be able to say all the world.
May Day seems like a good time to celebrate the death of communism in most of the world. Maybe some day we'll be able to say all the world.
Abuse in Iraq
The U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners in Iraq will quite likely spend the rest of their lives in the middle of Kansas, as they should. Of course as Glenn Reynolds pointed out, the difference between the U.S. military and Saddam's Iraqi military is that such abuse was "a top-down policy" under Saddam.
Arabs are rightly outraged at this behavior. No civilized person can condone or accept it. The guilty soldiers will be dealt with harshly. That being said, where was the similar outrage from Arabs and Muslim clerics when American contractors were killed and their bodies burned in Fallujah? As Daniel Drezner said, "[S]pare me the righteous indignation of the Arab street."
Arabs are rightly outraged at this behavior. No civilized person can condone or accept it. The guilty soldiers will be dealt with harshly. That being said, where was the similar outrage from Arabs and Muslim clerics when American contractors were killed and their bodies burned in Fallujah? As Daniel Drezner said, "[S]pare me the righteous indignation of the Arab street."
No Time for Air America
Calling Al Franken. Glenn Reynolds alerts us to a Washington Post story on a Lying Liar Against the War. Looks like a fake former Army Ranger named Micah Ian Wright even fooled my old favorite Kurt Vonnegut enough to have Vonnegut endorse his made up book.
Needless to say the military bloggers are none to pleased. Glenn has some links and reactions. I wonder if this lying liar, Wright, has earned the tag anti-American?
Needless to say the military bloggers are none to pleased. Glenn has some links and reactions. I wonder if this lying liar, Wright, has earned the tag anti-American?
Saturday, May 01, 2004
Another reasonable Democrat
As of December 2003, science fiction writer and Democrat Orson Scott Card wasn't planning on voting for any Democrats in November 2004. He explains why in this OpinionJournal.com piece titled "The Campaign of Hate and Fear: Some of my fellow Democrats are unpatriotic."
Rhoads' response
That's a ridiculous article, full of so many ridiculous assumptions that it is, well, ridiculous.
Could this insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually win the presidency? It might--because the media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure--even though by every rational measure it is not.Ouch. John Kerry's latest speech may be an effort to win back people like Mr. Card. He may lose the Teds, Kennedy and Koppel, who seem to think the Vietnam strategy is a winner.
And the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him--which means that if Mr. Bush does not win, we will certainly lose the war. Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives during the long year of campaigning that lies ahead of us.
Osama bin Laden's military strategy is: If you make a war cost enough, Americans will give up and go home. Now, bin Laden isn't actually all that bright; his campaign to make us go home is in fact what brought us into Afghanistan and Iraq. But he's still telling his followers: Keep killing Americans and eventually, antigovernment factions within the United States will choose to give up the struggle.
It's what happened in Somalia, isn't it? And it's what happened in Vietnam, too.
Rhoads' response
That's a ridiculous article, full of so many ridiculous assumptions that it is, well, ridiculous.
May I be allowed to work in that coal mine, please?
Bummed that I'm not in Omaha this morning I loogged onto Omaha.com to catch up on all the goings on. After reading a story about the Berkshire annual meeting I noticed another story, headline Omaha councilman proposes smoking ban for workplace. I live in Boulder which has a smoking ban pretty much everywhere and I was born and raised in Minnesota, motto "The State Where Absolutely Nothing is Allowed." Naturally I clicked on the story to see what was up in seemingly more reasonable Omaha, NE.
The fellow with the bright idea to ban smoking in the workplace is Councilman Marc Kraft. Why does he think Omaha lawmakers should force employers to ban smoking in the workplace?
Judging by the reactions from other members of Council, customers and business owners quoted in the story it looks like my faith in the good sense of the people of Omaha is justified. The ban will probably fail.
The fellow with the bright idea to ban smoking in the workplace is Councilman Marc Kraft. Why does he think Omaha lawmakers should force employers to ban smoking in the workplace?
"We don't allow people to work in areas full of asbestos or other carcinogens," he said.Leaving aside the question of whether tobacco smoke is analogous to asbestos or any carcinogen, look at what the man said. Big Brother only allows people to work in certain conditions. Any civil libertarians bothered by that?
Judging by the reactions from other members of Council, customers and business owners quoted in the story it looks like my faith in the good sense of the people of Omaha is justified. The ban will probably fail.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Worth 1,000 words
Mrs. Du Toit posts 15 Life magazine covers from WWII above 15 Life magazine covers from the Vietnam War. The context is a criticism of Ted Koppel's decision to run pictures of the Fallen in Iraq on Nightline tonight. Here is her lead in to the Life covers:
Does Koppel agree with Kerry?
It is impossible not to believe that the decision to list of the names of the Fallen in Iraq is politically motivated, and is done as an anti-war gesture. If that was not the case, why not include the names of the Fallen from Afghanistan? That intentional omission clearly defines the motives of those who wish to use the names of the dead, before this war is over, as a method of getting to the public and attempt to rattle their resolve.John Kerry said "that failure is not an option in Iraq."
Pictures have done that in the past. And as evidence, I'm posting a few pictures that have shaped or altered American public opinion. Never forget, that wars are lost not on the battlefield, but on the home front.
Does Koppel agree with Kerry?
Book recommendations
Arnold Kling put Virginia Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies on his must reading list for college students. I finished it a few days ago and highly recommend it.
Though the author tells me this book was written for an audience that hasn't been born yet, I also enjoyed Judgments Under Stress by Ken Hammond. I'll admit it seems silly to recommend a book whose audience hasn't been born yet. But heck, Ken wrote it and Oxford University Press published it. They must think there are others like me who are ahead of our time.
Both books are part of the BRG Library.
Though the author tells me this book was written for an audience that hasn't been born yet, I also enjoyed Judgments Under Stress by Ken Hammond. I'll admit it seems silly to recommend a book whose audience hasn't been born yet. But heck, Ken wrote it and Oxford University Press published it. They must think there are others like me who are ahead of our time.
Both books are part of the BRG Library.
Kerry steps up
John Kerry stepped up and delivered a speech that, if it becomes a pattern, may allow him to avoid the electoral pounding that I predicted.
Like Glenn Reynolds I wonder about the internationalization of the effort that Kerry proposes, but he sounds more sensible in this speech than in anything I've heard him say so far. In light of the oil-for-food scandal Kerry downplayed the importance of the UN, instead focusing on NATO. Good move. Earlier Kerry seemed to favor stability over democracy in Iraq as an exit strategy. In this speech he clearly says a democratic Iraq is a must. Another good move.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that he uses the hated "nation building" metaphor a number of times. Argh. Everyone seems to use it so I don't hold that against him anymore than I hold it against anyone else. I hope it's just a figure of speech, but I fear all these guys really believe in building things like nations.
(Link courtesy of Instapundit as are so darn many of my links.)
Like Glenn Reynolds I wonder about the internationalization of the effort that Kerry proposes, but he sounds more sensible in this speech than in anything I've heard him say so far. In light of the oil-for-food scandal Kerry downplayed the importance of the UN, instead focusing on NATO. Good move. Earlier Kerry seemed to favor stability over democracy in Iraq as an exit strategy. In this speech he clearly says a democratic Iraq is a must. Another good move.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that he uses the hated "nation building" metaphor a number of times. Argh. Everyone seems to use it so I don't hold that against him anymore than I hold it against anyone else. I hope it's just a figure of speech, but I fear all these guys really believe in building things like nations.
(Link courtesy of Instapundit as are so darn many of my links.)
Lileks sends me down memory lane
James Lileks was once a writer and editor for a college newspaper. That was way back in the mid-1980s. Here's how he describes his type back then:
The part I cut and pasted brought back memories of college for me. Join me for a stroll down memory lane, won't you.
During my first couple of years in college I was busy taking calculus, biology, chemistry, physics, anatomy and physiology courses. That sort of curriculum, even at the nation's number one party school, didn't leave me a lot of time to keep up with with local, national or global political issues. Well, not when you toss in athletics, drinking and so forth, but I digress. If anything my first two and one half years of college were my most liberal time (in the modern, statist-leaning sense). I blame my Vonnegut reading. But again I digress.
At some point a lesson from a principles of economics class sunk in. Specialize and trade. Do what you like and what comes easiest. Do what you're good at while others do what they're good at. I noticed that economics came easier for me than organic chemistry so I took more economics classes and punted the organic chemistry. I left the heavy lifting of chemistry and physics to the students who found that easy, fascinating, or both.
I suddenly had a lot more time to read and think. It was at this time that I noticed the students Lileks describes.
They were demonstrating against Rocky Flats. They were "freeze voters". They were pro-Sandinista, U.S. hands off Nicaragua types (who had to ask a friend of mine outside the Trident in Boulder how to spell Nicaragua). They proposed "National Industrial Policy" and wanted rent controls and higher minimum wages.
I noticed these students and the many marxist and socialist faculty members in various academic departments. Where earlier I ignored them or thought that maybe socialism was a better way -- after all Swedish women were awfully attractive and maybe it would be in my best interests to embrace a "third way" if you know what I mean... Where was I? Oh, yes. Where earlier I'd ignored or even sympathized with some of what these folks had to say, I came to think, "These people are missing something. What is it they don't understand?"
I'm not sure I've fully answered that question in the twenty years since those days of awakening for me. My own bias is that it boils down to not understanding the complexity of the interactions between people on a large scale. I suspect that if more people understood the messages of Adam Smith and F.A. Hayek, fewer people would take to the streets protesting corporations and world trade.
But I have to admit that the message of order emerging from complexity is not one that humans take to easily. It's natural to trust the intuition that says order emerges because somebody orders things, like Smith's pieces on a chessboard. It's easier to understand the workings of a family or of a clan than to understand how it is that my Dixon Ticonderoga No. 2 pencil is made with parts coming from all over the world and without any single individual knowing how to make it. To understand the creation of my pencil you have to put on your analytical thinking cap. That isn't the cap we've evolved to wear. We've evolved to wear the intuition cap. We have to learn to analyze things.
Luckily we don't have to understand the principles behind complex interactions between billions of people in order to benefit from them. Those of us in the West, especially the U.S., are fortunate to live in a time and place where the fruits of those principles grow in abundance. As communism and brutal dictatorships fall to be replaced with the rule of law and free people living under representative governments, more people around the world share in the fruits of freedom. That's a good thing.
I hope the kids on college campuses realize how good it is.
These things we knew: Soviet influence in Central America could be blunted by a complete withdrawl of American support; Ronald Reagan was indifferent to the possibility of nuclear war; Europeans were wise rational Vulcans to our crass carnivorous Earthlings, except for isolated throwback horrors like Margaret Thatcher. All new weapons systems were boondoggles that wouldn’t work and would never be needed, and served as penis substitutes for Jack D. Ripper-type generals who probably went home and poured lighter fluid on toy soldiers, lit them with a Zippo and cackled maniacally. A nuclear freeze was the first step to a safer world, because if everyone had 10,237 ICBMs instead of 10,238 we might be less inclined to use them. The Soviets were our enemy only because we thought they were, which forced them to act like our enemy. Soldiers were brainwashed killbots or gung-ho rapist killbots who signed up only because Reagan had personally shuttered the doors of the local steel mill, depriving them of jobs. Of all wars in human history, Vietnam was the most typical. Higher taxes on the rich resulted in fewer poor people. The inexplicable mulishness of big business was the only thing that held back widespread adoption of solar power.The whole piece is worth reading, as Lileks reacts to the ravings of a lefty student from UMass who wrote an essay titled, "Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him".
The world outside the campus was crass and stupid and run by the people who went to frats and sororities. Say no more.
The part I cut and pasted brought back memories of college for me. Join me for a stroll down memory lane, won't you.
During my first couple of years in college I was busy taking calculus, biology, chemistry, physics, anatomy and physiology courses. That sort of curriculum, even at the nation's number one party school, didn't leave me a lot of time to keep up with with local, national or global political issues. Well, not when you toss in athletics, drinking and so forth, but I digress. If anything my first two and one half years of college were my most liberal time (in the modern, statist-leaning sense). I blame my Vonnegut reading. But again I digress.
At some point a lesson from a principles of economics class sunk in. Specialize and trade. Do what you like and what comes easiest. Do what you're good at while others do what they're good at. I noticed that economics came easier for me than organic chemistry so I took more economics classes and punted the organic chemistry. I left the heavy lifting of chemistry and physics to the students who found that easy, fascinating, or both.
I suddenly had a lot more time to read and think. It was at this time that I noticed the students Lileks describes.
They were demonstrating against Rocky Flats. They were "freeze voters". They were pro-Sandinista, U.S. hands off Nicaragua types (who had to ask a friend of mine outside the Trident in Boulder how to spell Nicaragua). They proposed "National Industrial Policy" and wanted rent controls and higher minimum wages.
I noticed these students and the many marxist and socialist faculty members in various academic departments. Where earlier I ignored them or thought that maybe socialism was a better way -- after all Swedish women were awfully attractive and maybe it would be in my best interests to embrace a "third way" if you know what I mean... Where was I? Oh, yes. Where earlier I'd ignored or even sympathized with some of what these folks had to say, I came to think, "These people are missing something. What is it they don't understand?"
I'm not sure I've fully answered that question in the twenty years since those days of awakening for me. My own bias is that it boils down to not understanding the complexity of the interactions between people on a large scale. I suspect that if more people understood the messages of Adam Smith and F.A. Hayek, fewer people would take to the streets protesting corporations and world trade.
But I have to admit that the message of order emerging from complexity is not one that humans take to easily. It's natural to trust the intuition that says order emerges because somebody orders things, like Smith's pieces on a chessboard. It's easier to understand the workings of a family or of a clan than to understand how it is that my Dixon Ticonderoga No. 2 pencil is made with parts coming from all over the world and without any single individual knowing how to make it. To understand the creation of my pencil you have to put on your analytical thinking cap. That isn't the cap we've evolved to wear. We've evolved to wear the intuition cap. We have to learn to analyze things.
Luckily we don't have to understand the principles behind complex interactions between billions of people in order to benefit from them. Those of us in the West, especially the U.S., are fortunate to live in a time and place where the fruits of those principles grow in abundance. As communism and brutal dictatorships fall to be replaced with the rule of law and free people living under representative governments, more people around the world share in the fruits of freedom. That's a good thing.
I hope the kids on college campuses realize how good it is.
County Commissioner
I just got a call from a friend who is a higher up in the Boulder County Government who told me that he sees me running for County Commissioner some day. Wow!
Does a County Commissioner have a Chief of Staff? They probably do if they don't have to pay too much.. or anything at all..
Bob's response
Little or no pay? Perfect! Sounds like BRG and the University of Colorado Board of Regents.
Does a County Commissioner have a Chief of Staff? They probably do if they don't have to pay too much.. or anything at all..
Bob's response
Little or no pay? Perfect! Sounds like BRG and the University of Colorado Board of Regents.
Nation building
I don't like that metaphor, nation building. Bush criticized Gore and the Clinton Administration for their attempts at nation building in the 2000 campaign. Now part of the strategy in the Middle East and the War on Terror in general is that if we build at least one free nation in the Middle East the idea will spread.
Here's why I hate the metaphor. Do things you build spread? Not without more building they don't. Add another wing to the ol' homestead and then sit on the porch swing and watch it. Watch it real long. It ain't spreadin'. Not without some more wood and some carpenters it ain't.
Furthermore, I don't think a nation is something that can be built. I have a better metaphor. Most people can relate to this one because it's just outside their doors. It's a garden.
Nations grow. They are not built. Gardens grow. They are not built.
Even if you don't buy seeds, you'll have a garden. The sun, rain, soil, wind and even birds and bees will see to it. If you want a particular kind of garden with particular sorts of plants you need to establish the conditions in which those plants will grow. You probably should buy the right sorts of seeds. Plant the seeds in your garden and then tend to it. Over time, if things work out, you'll have the sort of garden you desire. Maybe. Assuming you've set up the right conditions, have the right kinds of plants for where you live, can control pests like bugs, rabbits, deer, and so forth. It's not easy to grow a good garden.
It's not easy to grow a good, civil, and free society, either. But I am pretty sure you can't build one. Just like you can't build a garden.
So there.
Rhoads' Response
You know what? I absolutely agree with Bob, once again. Amazing! And that reminds me of something I heard on NPR last weekend, and I didn't catch who said it, so I apologize for the lack of a reference, but it goes like this. America would not be as great a country as it is had the French come over in 1789, kicked out the British, and said: "Here: here is your new government." The point is that one of the problems is that it is WAY hard for Iraq to form a new government because we want quite a bit of control over what that looks like. Could make for a bad seed in the garden.
Here's why I hate the metaphor. Do things you build spread? Not without more building they don't. Add another wing to the ol' homestead and then sit on the porch swing and watch it. Watch it real long. It ain't spreadin'. Not without some more wood and some carpenters it ain't.
Furthermore, I don't think a nation is something that can be built. I have a better metaphor. Most people can relate to this one because it's just outside their doors. It's a garden.
Nations grow. They are not built. Gardens grow. They are not built.
Even if you don't buy seeds, you'll have a garden. The sun, rain, soil, wind and even birds and bees will see to it. If you want a particular kind of garden with particular sorts of plants you need to establish the conditions in which those plants will grow. You probably should buy the right sorts of seeds. Plant the seeds in your garden and then tend to it. Over time, if things work out, you'll have the sort of garden you desire. Maybe. Assuming you've set up the right conditions, have the right kinds of plants for where you live, can control pests like bugs, rabbits, deer, and so forth. It's not easy to grow a good garden.
It's not easy to grow a good, civil, and free society, either. But I am pretty sure you can't build one. Just like you can't build a garden.
So there.
Rhoads' Response
You know what? I absolutely agree with Bob, once again. Amazing! And that reminds me of something I heard on NPR last weekend, and I didn't catch who said it, so I apologize for the lack of a reference, but it goes like this. America would not be as great a country as it is had the French come over in 1789, kicked out the British, and said: "Here: here is your new government." The point is that one of the problems is that it is WAY hard for Iraq to form a new government because we want quite a bit of control over what that looks like. Could make for a bad seed in the garden.
Baghdad Bob and uranium
Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the fellow you may recall who said Iraq had not attempted to acquire uranium from Niger, has a new book out. Here's the start of the WaPo story on Wilson's book:
Remind me again what the case was for not invading Iraq? Was it that the inspections were working? He was contained? It's none of our business what goes on in a sovereign nation? The French and Russian beneficiaries of the oil-for-food larceny didn't want us to disturb the status quo? That the world would hate us for butting in? The neo-cons holding the puppet strings in the White House had ill motives? No blood for oil? The goal was to enrich Haliburton and Dick Cheney?
Rhoads' reponse
I think it is perfectly reasonable to debate whether or not it is appropriate to force a regime change in a brutal regime. Why stop at Iraq? There are many many others - N. Korea and Sudan for a start. But that is not the point. The point is that we were told that the had WMD. Not that they were building them - THEY HAD THEM. AND THEY WERE AND IMMINENT THREAT. SOON. Like NEXT WEEK. etc. etc. None of which was true. Was it going to be true soon? Who knows, but I don't think so.
Bob's response
Rhoads assumes that the Bush Administration's reliance on multiple fallible indicators must turn out to be correct, ex post, to justify invading Iraq, ex ante. That's not the world we live in. We have to base decisions on the best available evidence at the time, not on evidence in the rearview mirror. Of course we were told that Iraq had WMD. They did have WMD. They used them in the past. They failed to account for where the weapons they had went. Did they destroy them? Did they go to Syria (and on to Sudan)? We don't know.
Why don't we invade North Korea and Sudan? Good questions. We don't have unlimited resources so we have to prioritize. North Korea has nuclear weapons and is right next to a nuclear power, China. Sudan would be much easier to go in and depose the government, but the threat posed by the government there to its neighbors and to the rest of the world isn't as great as the threat posed by North Korea, Iran, Syria and a number of other dangerous regimes.
Maybe the reason was that dealing with the troubles posed by Iraq, to its people, its neighbors, and potentially the rest of the world was simply too costly. That could be. But not dealing with such troubles has its costs, too. By invading we'll never know the price tag of not invading. We see the costs of invasion. I am glad it's not my job to make these sorts of decisions. Unless you have perfect information and all your choices work out perfectly you'll be attacked by your political opponents.
Remind me again why people run for President of the U.S. Must be the free food and housing.
Rhoads' response
Don't forget the big library when you are done. And the automatic pals who go with you wherever you want.
Bob's response
You don't have to fly commercial, either. Oh, and I'm pretty sure chicks dig you.
It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.Drums full of pesticides, testing of biological agents, ballistic missiles capable of traveling hundreds of kilometers, and Baghdad Bob making nice with Niger in a possible attempt to acquire uranium. No evidence at all that Iraq was developing WMD. Just your average technologically advanced country trying to make the lives of its people better. Before stealing the oil-for-food money meant for them, torturing some and putting others through plastic shredders.
That's according to a new book by Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium.
Remind me again what the case was for not invading Iraq? Was it that the inspections were working? He was contained? It's none of our business what goes on in a sovereign nation? The French and Russian beneficiaries of the oil-for-food larceny didn't want us to disturb the status quo? That the world would hate us for butting in? The neo-cons holding the puppet strings in the White House had ill motives? No blood for oil? The goal was to enrich Haliburton and Dick Cheney?
Rhoads' reponse
I think it is perfectly reasonable to debate whether or not it is appropriate to force a regime change in a brutal regime. Why stop at Iraq? There are many many others - N. Korea and Sudan for a start. But that is not the point. The point is that we were told that the had WMD. Not that they were building them - THEY HAD THEM. AND THEY WERE AND IMMINENT THREAT. SOON. Like NEXT WEEK. etc. etc. None of which was true. Was it going to be true soon? Who knows, but I don't think so.
Bob's response
Rhoads assumes that the Bush Administration's reliance on multiple fallible indicators must turn out to be correct, ex post, to justify invading Iraq, ex ante. That's not the world we live in. We have to base decisions on the best available evidence at the time, not on evidence in the rearview mirror. Of course we were told that Iraq had WMD. They did have WMD. They used them in the past. They failed to account for where the weapons they had went. Did they destroy them? Did they go to Syria (and on to Sudan)? We don't know.
Rhoads' response
Sorry, but I don't assume that at all. What I do believe is that the Bush Administration did not attack Iraq because the best available evidence suggested that it was a prudent course of action. I believe that the Bush Administration attacked Iraq because they wanted to attack Iraq, and they manipulated the evidence to support their position. That's why I am so upset. I truly believe that they were so focused on getting rid of Saddam Hussein that they forced the evidence.
Bob's response
False motives and sensationalized evidence. That's what has Rhoads so angry. OK. Fine, those are reasons to be angry with the Bush Administration. But I'll repeat my question. What was the reason for not invading Iraq?
Rhoads' response
Because war is a big deal. Unless you have an overwhelming reason to do so, you don't start one. That's the point. There was not an overwhelming reason to do so. However, calling it a War on Terrorism instead of a War on Saddam (which is what it appears to have been) makes it overwhelming in some people's eyes.
Why don't we invade North Korea and Sudan? Good questions. We don't have unlimited resources so we have to prioritize. North Korea has nuclear weapons and is right next to a nuclear power, China. Sudan would be much easier to go in and depose the government, but the threat posed by the government there to its neighbors and to the rest of the world isn't as great as the threat posed by North Korea, Iran, Syria and a number of other dangerous regimes.
Maybe the reason was that dealing with the troubles posed by Iraq, to its people, its neighbors, and potentially the rest of the world was simply too costly. That could be. But not dealing with such troubles has its costs, too. By invading we'll never know the price tag of not invading. We see the costs of invasion. I am glad it's not my job to make these sorts of decisions. Unless you have perfect information and all your choices work out perfectly you'll be attacked by your political opponents.
Remind me again why people run for President of the U.S. Must be the free food and housing.
Rhoads' response
Don't forget the big library when you are done. And the automatic pals who go with you wherever you want.
Bob's response
You don't have to fly commercial, either. Oh, and I'm pretty sure chicks dig you.
Rhoads says: I wonder if Hillary minds that part too much.
Bob: Hmm. Does she mind that part? I think I'll leave that one alone.
Liberal Media?
Well, it is interesting to see that the Sinclair Broadcast Group has decided to not allow some of the TV stations to broadcast Ted Koppel and "Nightline" tonight, because Koppel plans to read aloud the names of U.S. Servicemen and women killed in Iraq. Here is the statement from Sinclair's web site:
I also distinctly remember seeing a TV show with the names of as many of the 9/11 victims as they could get. I don't think it was on Nightline, but it was on TV.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Koppel's show is apolitical. However, I think that it is a response to the Bush Administration's enforcement of a ban on photos of military caskets appearing at Dover Air Force Base. I think that Koppel is trying to get the president to own up to the cost of this war.
But perhaps this is a good example of how a Conservative politcal agenda (Sinclair's) is able to trump a Liberal media agenda (Koppel's) in the "major media" - at least on 63 TV stations.
Bob's response
Despite its clear Republican bias, Sinclair airs ABC network programming on its 63 TV stations without fail until this one episode of Nightline. Score one for Republicans trumping Democrats in the major media this time. Wonder what that makes the score now?
On the specific issue of Koppel and Nightline, this is a silly attempt to draw parallels between Iraq and the Vietnam War. Great publicity stunt.
You'd better get Al Franken on this claim by Nightline's producer that he doesn't know when the May sweeps are. Believe him? Brooklyln Bridge? Care to make a purchase?
ABC Nightline Pre-emptionNow this is their right to do, and I have no problem with that part of it. It will either turn out to be a good business decision or a bad business decision, and they get to make those decisions. However, I question whether Koppel is truly "motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq" or whether he is motivated by a desire to let people know that there is a very real human cost to this war.
The ABC Television Network announced on Tuesday that the Friday, April 30 edition of "Nightline" will consist entirely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq.
There is no organization that holds the members of our military and those soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in service of our country in higher regard than Sinclair Broadcast Group. While Sinclair would support an honest effort to honor the memory of these brave soldiers, we do not believe that is what "Nightline" is doing. Rather, Mr. Koppel and "Nightline" are hiding behind this so-called tribute in an effort to highlight only one aspect of the war effort and in doing so to influence public opinion against the military action in Iraq. Based on published reports, we are aware of the spouse of one soldier who died in Iraq who opposes the reading of her husband's name to oppose our military action. We suspect she is not alone in this viewpoint. As a result, we have decided to preempt the broadcast of "Nightline' this Friday on each of our stations which air ABC programming.
We understand that our decision in this matter may be questioned by some. Before you judge our decision, however, we would ask that you first question Mr. Koppel as to why he chose to read the names of 523 troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001. In his answer, we believe you will find the real motivation behind his action scheduled for this Friday. Unfortunately, we may never know for sure because Mr. Koppel has refused repeated requests from Sinclair's News Central news organization to comment on this Friday's program.
I also distinctly remember seeing a TV show with the names of as many of the 9/11 victims as they could get. I don't think it was on Nightline, but it was on TV.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Koppel's show is apolitical. However, I think that it is a response to the Bush Administration's enforcement of a ban on photos of military caskets appearing at Dover Air Force Base. I think that Koppel is trying to get the president to own up to the cost of this war.
But perhaps this is a good example of how a Conservative politcal agenda (Sinclair's) is able to trump a Liberal media agenda (Koppel's) in the "major media" - at least on 63 TV stations.
Bob's response
Despite its clear Republican bias, Sinclair airs ABC network programming on its 63 TV stations without fail until this one episode of Nightline. Score one for Republicans trumping Democrats in the major media this time. Wonder what that makes the score now?
On the specific issue of Koppel and Nightline, this is a silly attempt to draw parallels between Iraq and the Vietnam War. Great publicity stunt.
You'd better get Al Franken on this claim by Nightline's producer that he doesn't know when the May sweeps are. Believe him? Brooklyln Bridge? Care to make a purchase?
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Why can't I have partners like this guy Tillou?
This Alex Beam column in the Boston Globe describes John Kerry's income in 2003 from his art dealings. Kerry and his wife each owned a quarter share in some Dutch masterpiece. The other half was owned by an art dealer named Peter Tillou. Here's why I'm jealous:
Hey, Peter, next time you're thinking of working another deal like this click on the Bob link over to the left will ya? Drop me a line. I'm interested.
Rhoads' response
The Fay Vincent piece at the bottom is good, too.
Tillou says he contacted [Teresa] Heinz [Kerry] about buying back the painting, with an eye to reselling it, a few years ago. Over time, he reimbursed her $1 million, her original one-half stake in the purchase price. When he sold it last year to a private collector for $2.7 million, he shared the $700,000 profit with her.This Tillou dude bought back Teresa Heinz Kerry's half of the painting by reimbursing her the $1 million she originally paid. He sold the painting for $2.7 million and then split the profits with her. How cool is that?
Hey, Peter, next time you're thinking of working another deal like this click on the Bob link over to the left will ya? Drop me a line. I'm interested.
Rhoads' response
The Fay Vincent piece at the bottom is good, too.
Social Security revisited
Arnold Kling responds to Peter Diamond's Presidential Address to the American Economic Association. Kling asks What's Wrong with Social Security?
More tasty offerings at Cafe Hayek
While you're visiting Cafe Hayek be sure to read Inequality and its Contents, and Are SUVs more dangerous?
Since I'm a Hayek guy from way back and take Hayek seriously, I may have to make a few additions to my list of favorites.
Since I'm a Hayek guy from way back and take Hayek seriously, I may have to make a few additions to my list of favorites.
NCAA and major college sports
Here's a fantastic essay called Disorder on the Court by Russell Roberts of Cafe Hayek on the problems caused by unnatural NCAA rules. Roberts links to Disorder on the Court in a post called Million Dollar Coaches which is also worth reading.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Interesting Supreme Court case heard today
I am closely following the two cases which were argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court today. I don't really have a clear opinion about the Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld case. I think that I could probably see either side, since Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan.
However, the Rumsfeld vs. Padilla case really concerns me. I find it hard to believe that anyone could think that it is OK to hold a U.S. Citizen who was captured on U.S. soil without any of his normal Constitutional rights. It just seems to be so far against the Constitution as to be laughable. I hope that Dick Cheney's duck hunting buddy does the right think in that case.
Oh, and the fact that they are being held in Charleston makes it ever that much more interesting to me. They aren't too far from the H.L. Hunley
Bob's response
Well, I don't think the Padilla case is so unconstitutional as to be laughable. But I agree with Rhoads on both cases. See Randy Barnett's post on the Padilla case from December 2003 at The Voloky Conspiracy.
However, the Rumsfeld vs. Padilla case really concerns me. I find it hard to believe that anyone could think that it is OK to hold a U.S. Citizen who was captured on U.S. soil without any of his normal Constitutional rights. It just seems to be so far against the Constitution as to be laughable. I hope that Dick Cheney's duck hunting buddy does the right think in that case.
Oh, and the fact that they are being held in Charleston makes it ever that much more interesting to me. They aren't too far from the H.L. Hunley
Bob's response
Well, I don't think the Padilla case is so unconstitutional as to be laughable. But I agree with Rhoads on both cases. See Randy Barnett's post on the Padilla case from December 2003 at The Voloky Conspiracy.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Pest-free Iraq
I'm not sure what to make of this report from Insight magazine. The report says that we have without a doubt found prohibited ballistic missiles in Iraq. It also says that we've found an awful lot of pesticides in places like camouflaged bunkers and ammunition dumps. Add to that a possible biological agent test lab that we found in a prison complex and it looks like we've discovered a lot of what might be called at least precursors to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Some of the sources are anonymous, but some come from testimony before Congress.
Was Saddam obsessed with freeing Iraqi agriculture of pests or did he have some other pests in mind when he acquired all those drums of pesticides? Luckily we won't find out.
Rhoads' response
I think I can tell you what to think of this article. You can think that if it was based on any credible evidence at all it would have been shouted from the rooftops by all of the major news outlets because it would be big news. The fact that we have not seen it in major media does not mean that we have a liberal conspiracy on our hands. It does mean, however, that Insight magazine has about as much credibility as The Weekly World News
Bob's response
Ouch. I'll have to track down the tesitimony myself and see if the stuff about missiles and pesticides showed up in the Kay & Co transcripts like Insight said. Stay tuned.
Bob's UPDATE: Looks like the Insight story quoting the declassified testimony of Mr. Charles Duelfer before the Senate Armed Services Committee checks out.
Another Bob UPDATE: I don't know about any shouting from rooftops, but here's an AP story from March 30, 2004 that I found at FindLaw.com that sounds similar to the Insight magazine piece.
Was Saddam obsessed with freeing Iraqi agriculture of pests or did he have some other pests in mind when he acquired all those drums of pesticides? Luckily we won't find out.
Rhoads' response
I think I can tell you what to think of this article. You can think that if it was based on any credible evidence at all it would have been shouted from the rooftops by all of the major news outlets because it would be big news. The fact that we have not seen it in major media does not mean that we have a liberal conspiracy on our hands. It does mean, however, that Insight magazine has about as much credibility as The Weekly World News
Bob's response
Ouch. I'll have to track down the tesitimony myself and see if the stuff about missiles and pesticides showed up in the Kay & Co transcripts like Insight said. Stay tuned.
Bob's UPDATE: Looks like the Insight story quoting the declassified testimony of Mr. Charles Duelfer before the Senate Armed Services Committee checks out.
Another Bob UPDATE: I don't know about any shouting from rooftops, but here's an AP story from March 30, 2004 that I found at FindLaw.com that sounds similar to the Insight magazine piece.
Will Kerry be the nominee?
The Iowa Electronic Markets may be indicating the answer is starting to look like "No." Look at the recent sharp downturn in the Bush vs Kerry numbers for both Bush and Kerry. This indicates that the market participants don't think a Bush vs Kerry election is as likely to take place in November as they did just days ago.
UPDATE: James Ridgeway writes a piece in the Village Voice titled "John Kerry Must Go".
UPDATE: The only contracts moving up in the Iowa Electronic Markets are the Hillary Clinton vs George Bush futures. Hmm. They're still selling for under a penny a share, but they are increasing in price. Can't say that for any of the other 2004 contracts as of now.
UPDATE: James Ridgeway writes a piece in the Village Voice titled "John Kerry Must Go".
UPDATE: The only contracts moving up in the Iowa Electronic Markets are the Hillary Clinton vs George Bush futures. Hmm. They're still selling for under a penny a share, but they are increasing in price. Can't say that for any of the other 2004 contracts as of now.
Friday, April 23, 2004
Men, women, and competition
Since I'm a tennis guy, I wonder what this might mean for mixed doubles.
Science or B.S.?
Our children are not helped by this kind of "science" exhibit.
Here's how the "science" exhibit teaches kids about the effects of various gases on the environment:
Here's how the "science" exhibit teaches kids about the effects of various gases on the environment:
One panel gives visitors several options for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which are more prevalent than the methane created by cattle. Once the visitor makes a choice -- such as planting more trees or improving commercial transportation -- the panel shows how much impact that would have.Compare the false certainty of the "science" exhibit with the reality of environmental science explained by Michael Crichton:
[T]he unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge.To pretend that we know the effect of various changes on the environment misleads children in the name of "science" education. Here's how Russell Roberts says it at the end of his post:
Allowing kids to dial up some amount of carbon dioxide emissions misses the complexity of the environment and treats our world like a set of solvable simultaneous equations. Both our economy and our environment are much more alive than that.Maybe woeful science education is the most dangerous modern idea.
Dangerous faith
What is the Modern Era's Most Dangerous Idea?". Don Boudreaux offers the following answer:
If had to choose the single most dangerous modern idea I might pick, "If you kill infidels you'll go to heaven." In the modern world with sophisticated weaponry (chemical, biological, nuclear) and ease of travel, people willing to give up their lives to kill others will eventually succeed. Even with the very low probability of any one nutcase pulling off mass killings, given enough nutcases and enough time the probability of success approaches 1. That seems awfully dangerous to me.
[T]he deification of the state.I like that answer. In his post Boudreaux bemoans the widespread belief that there is a government solution to every problem. That certainly is a costly, mistaken belief.
If had to choose the single most dangerous modern idea I might pick, "If you kill infidels you'll go to heaven." In the modern world with sophisticated weaponry (chemical, biological, nuclear) and ease of travel, people willing to give up their lives to kill others will eventually succeed. Even with the very low probability of any one nutcase pulling off mass killings, given enough nutcases and enough time the probability of success approaches 1. That seems awfully dangerous to me.
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Media: Point of View vs. Agenda
Last night's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart had an interview with Fox News's own John Gibson, author of the new book Hating America: The New World Sport.
Looks like an interesting book. I may get a copy and read it.
Mr. Gibson made an intriguing point which I had not thought of. He was talking about how international media was fostering hate against the US, and he talked about the difference between media having a "point of view" vs. an "agenda."
I wonder how that would fit into our discussion of the "liberal" media. I wonder if, for example, show's like the Rush Limbaugh show are examples of media with a conservative "agenda" which came into being because there were many media outlets (previously enumerated by Bob) which had a liberal "point of view." This, of course, leads to liberal media such as Air America Radio, which definitely has a liberal "agenda."
Hmmm. Makes me think....
Bob's response: I think you and Gibson have it right. There's a difference between a "point of view" and an "agenda". My take is that the major news organizations are staffed by people with a similar worldview, a point of view, and that this necessarily affects their news coverage. I don't think any of us can free ourselves from our personal biases (and I don't mean biases in a bad way in this context). It may be that some journalists (not opinion writers, but straight journalists) have an agenda, but I don't think that's the main criticism of people who gripe about a "liberal media". They gripe that news reporters are mostly liberal and that affects what they believe to be newsworthy and how they cover those stories.
I don't think Rush's show came into being because of a liberal point of view in the major news media, though. I think Rush rose to popularity because he was good at what he did (entertain with political content) and a lot of people across the country agreed with his point of view. Hence, the national phenomenon of Rush. I think Air America Radio is a response to conservative talk radio, Rush being the 600-pound gorilla in that game. I also suspect there is an element of McCain-Feingold in the timing of the launch of Air America Radio. Limits on political speech will lead people to get around those limits.
Rhoads' response: (I like this new interactive thing). But would you agree that Rush's show, especially in recent years (like the past 10) definitely has a particular "agenda"? To wit: describing how all Republicans are good and all Democrats are bad.
Bob's response: Oh, yes. I agree that Rush has an agenda. No question about it. Editorialists, opinion writers, radio guys like Rush all have agendas. They want to pursuade people, entertain people, etc.
I think Fox News is more appropriate than Rush as a response to the major news outlets having a liberal "point of view". Fox News is popular because they do not have that slant. They may have another slant, that being toward the conservative or Republican "point of view", but they clearly do not have a liberal bias.
Rhoads' response:So the question becomes whether or not Fox News (as a cable channel) also has a conservative "agenda" rather than a "point of view." Not necessarily their new show, but all of the other shows (O'Riley, Hannity and Colmes, etc).
Bob's response:That's an interesting one. I think Fox News Channel was born due to an agenda. I think Murdoch and Ailes (sp?) thought that there was an underserved market in the U.S., a market for news without liberal bias. Did they set out to deliberately slant news shows toward the Republicans? I don't think so, but maybe they did. I don't get the impression that the news shows are biased, but then that reflects my point of view. Regarding the other shows, I think O'Reilly is more populist than conservative, but he's definitely not a liberal. Hannity and Colmes is a balanced show, one from each side of the spectrum. I don't watch Greta van Sustern's show much (nor do I watch the others, but I have in the past so I think I have an informed opinion on them), but my thought is she's probably a mainstream, left of center Democrat. Geraldo is all over the map, if he's even on Fox. Gibson seems to play it pretty down the middle. Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow and Brit Hume's show during the week are pretty balanced (panelists like Juan Williams, Mara Liason, to balance out Fred Barnes and William Kristol), but both hosts, especially Tony Snow, would describe themselves as conservative.
So does Fox News Channel have an agenda? I guess I'd say "probably".
I'm a fan of advocacy journalism in a way. I'd just like to see the AP, Reuters, the major broadcast networks, etc fess up and say, "Yes, we are mostly liberals, but we do our best to present the news in an objective way." I think the danger, if there is one, in having the major news media biased in one direction is that many consumers of that product don't realize that the news they get is coming through a filter. I think people on the far left agree with that proposition. They agree that the major media outlets have a "point of view". It's just that from their location on the political spectrum, mainstream Democrats in the major news media look like shills for the corporate right. Fox News to them is the worst thing that could happen because it represents a major news and analysis outfit that's even further to the right. I doubt the far left will ever be happy with anything in the mainstream, though, because they're not in the mainstream. Even if the stream shifted their way, they'd just move further left (see for example the planks of the Socialist Party in the early 20th Century – they were largely adopted in the US throughout the 1900s, but Socialists still think the US has a long way to go before its a Socialist country).
I think with the rise of the internet, blogs and so forth, the issue of bias in the major media is less and less of an issue for people who are truly interested in the news and issues. You can always find a variety of different viewpoints now. That was tough in 1960.
Looks like an interesting book. I may get a copy and read it.
Mr. Gibson made an intriguing point which I had not thought of. He was talking about how international media was fostering hate against the US, and he talked about the difference between media having a "point of view" vs. an "agenda."
I wonder how that would fit into our discussion of the "liberal" media. I wonder if, for example, show's like the Rush Limbaugh show are examples of media with a conservative "agenda" which came into being because there were many media outlets (previously enumerated by Bob) which had a liberal "point of view." This, of course, leads to liberal media such as Air America Radio, which definitely has a liberal "agenda."
Hmmm. Makes me think....
Bob's response: I think you and Gibson have it right. There's a difference between a "point of view" and an "agenda". My take is that the major news organizations are staffed by people with a similar worldview, a point of view, and that this necessarily affects their news coverage. I don't think any of us can free ourselves from our personal biases (and I don't mean biases in a bad way in this context). It may be that some journalists (not opinion writers, but straight journalists) have an agenda, but I don't think that's the main criticism of people who gripe about a "liberal media". They gripe that news reporters are mostly liberal and that affects what they believe to be newsworthy and how they cover those stories.
I don't think Rush's show came into being because of a liberal point of view in the major news media, though. I think Rush rose to popularity because he was good at what he did (entertain with political content) and a lot of people across the country agreed with his point of view. Hence, the national phenomenon of Rush. I think Air America Radio is a response to conservative talk radio, Rush being the 600-pound gorilla in that game. I also suspect there is an element of McCain-Feingold in the timing of the launch of Air America Radio. Limits on political speech will lead people to get around those limits.
Rhoads' response: (I like this new interactive thing). But would you agree that Rush's show, especially in recent years (like the past 10) definitely has a particular "agenda"? To wit: describing how all Republicans are good and all Democrats are bad.
Bob's response: Oh, yes. I agree that Rush has an agenda. No question about it. Editorialists, opinion writers, radio guys like Rush all have agendas. They want to pursuade people, entertain people, etc.
I think Fox News is more appropriate than Rush as a response to the major news outlets having a liberal "point of view". Fox News is popular because they do not have that slant. They may have another slant, that being toward the conservative or Republican "point of view", but they clearly do not have a liberal bias.
Rhoads' response:So the question becomes whether or not Fox News (as a cable channel) also has a conservative "agenda" rather than a "point of view." Not necessarily their new show, but all of the other shows (O'Riley, Hannity and Colmes, etc).
Bob's response:That's an interesting one. I think Fox News Channel was born due to an agenda. I think Murdoch and Ailes (sp?) thought that there was an underserved market in the U.S., a market for news without liberal bias. Did they set out to deliberately slant news shows toward the Republicans? I don't think so, but maybe they did. I don't get the impression that the news shows are biased, but then that reflects my point of view. Regarding the other shows, I think O'Reilly is more populist than conservative, but he's definitely not a liberal. Hannity and Colmes is a balanced show, one from each side of the spectrum. I don't watch Greta van Sustern's show much (nor do I watch the others, but I have in the past so I think I have an informed opinion on them), but my thought is she's probably a mainstream, left of center Democrat. Geraldo is all over the map, if he's even on Fox. Gibson seems to play it pretty down the middle. Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow and Brit Hume's show during the week are pretty balanced (panelists like Juan Williams, Mara Liason, to balance out Fred Barnes and William Kristol), but both hosts, especially Tony Snow, would describe themselves as conservative.
So does Fox News Channel have an agenda? I guess I'd say "probably".
I'm a fan of advocacy journalism in a way. I'd just like to see the AP, Reuters, the major broadcast networks, etc fess up and say, "Yes, we are mostly liberals, but we do our best to present the news in an objective way." I think the danger, if there is one, in having the major news media biased in one direction is that many consumers of that product don't realize that the news they get is coming through a filter. I think people on the far left agree with that proposition. They agree that the major media outlets have a "point of view". It's just that from their location on the political spectrum, mainstream Democrats in the major news media look like shills for the corporate right. Fox News to them is the worst thing that could happen because it represents a major news and analysis outfit that's even further to the right. I doubt the far left will ever be happy with anything in the mainstream, though, because they're not in the mainstream. Even if the stream shifted their way, they'd just move further left (see for example the planks of the Socialist Party in the early 20th Century – they were largely adopted in the US throughout the 1900s, but Socialists still think the US has a long way to go before its a Socialist country).
I think with the rise of the internet, blogs and so forth, the issue of bias in the major media is less and less of an issue for people who are truly interested in the news and issues. You can always find a variety of different viewpoints now. That was tough in 1960.
Environment and progress
Don Boudreaux concludes a post called Cleaned by Capitalism with this paragraph:
Unfortunately, Don misses the larger point about "ecotheology" or the modern radical environmental movement. For these lunatics, people are the problem. It's not a question of whether modern people are more or less clean and healthy than our ancestors. It's not a question of whether wealthy, advanced societies are cleaner or healthier than third world developing countries. Nope, that's not it at all. These radicals see humans as the problem. Humans are a cancer growing on the surface of the earth that will one day kill the earth (a few years ago I saw a show on local cable here in Boulder where satellite shots of the earth were said to show the "tumor-like" growth of human civilization). The modern radical environmentalists would much prefer a world, a Mother Earth, without humans.
Writer Michael Crichton gave a speech in San Francisco last September discussing what he calls the religion of environmentalism. He mainly calls for a return to science and the search for truth regarding environmental issues. He won't win over the nutcases who view people as the problem, but it's still a good speech.
UPDATE: Founder of Greenpeace says the environmental movement has hurt the Third World.
This list of how capitalism and commerce make our lives cleaner and healthier goes on and on. On balance, capitalism has done far more to clean our living environments than it’s done to pollute them. It’s good to keep this perspective in mind when listening to the loud complaints of unchecked pollution.Everyone wants relatively clean air and water. How clean, how much we're willing to pay to clean it up, what sorts of public policies best achieve the balance, and so forth are questions that reasonable people debate. Don provides evidence that capitalism, relatively free markets, wealth and progress lead to a cleaner not dirtier world.
Unfortunately, Don misses the larger point about "ecotheology" or the modern radical environmental movement. For these lunatics, people are the problem. It's not a question of whether modern people are more or less clean and healthy than our ancestors. It's not a question of whether wealthy, advanced societies are cleaner or healthier than third world developing countries. Nope, that's not it at all. These radicals see humans as the problem. Humans are a cancer growing on the surface of the earth that will one day kill the earth (a few years ago I saw a show on local cable here in Boulder where satellite shots of the earth were said to show the "tumor-like" growth of human civilization). The modern radical environmentalists would much prefer a world, a Mother Earth, without humans.
Writer Michael Crichton gave a speech in San Francisco last September discussing what he calls the religion of environmentalism. He mainly calls for a return to science and the search for truth regarding environmental issues. He won't win over the nutcases who view people as the problem, but it's still a good speech.
UPDATE: Founder of Greenpeace says the environmental movement has hurt the Third World.
Fighting terrorism
I don't get Mr. Kling's point. I think most Americans (even libbies like me) supported the attack of the Taliban in Afghanistan as part of the War on Terrorism. The problem is that many of us don't believe that the attack on Iraq had anything to do with the War on Terrorism. That's the point. Were the folks in Afghanistan a direct threat to the USA? No question in my mind. Was Saddam Hussein a direct threat to the USA? I still haven't been convinced. Neither have a LOT of other folks.
Bob's response: If you get the time, please do a search of The Nation or of Sojourners and provide me with a link to an argument in favor of the U.S. attacking Afghanistan from the fall of 2001. "War is not the answer" (or is that A.N.S.W.E.R.?) is what I recall reading. An invasion of Afghanistan would result in defeat and quagmire just like happened to the Russians in the early 1980s. I remember cries of the millions of dead Afghanies in the harsh winter to come if the U.S. invades. I don't doubt that most Americans supported that attack, but I do doubt that the passionate "anti-war" crowd did. Perhaps a speech or something by Al Gore would go a long way towards refuting the Kling parody. Maybe Gore would have taken some other course than the one Kling suggests, but I'd like to see some evidence that Gore wasn't part of the fringe left that said "war is not the answer" back in 2001.
I understand that Rhoads doesn't believe that the attack on Iraq had anything to do with the War on Terror. Fine. I happen to disagree. Getting beyond that, though, what are the left's suggestions for fighting the War on Terror? Just like Robert Tagorda I'd like to see a well-articulated presentation of the Kerry Plan for both Iraq (now that we're there) and the broader War on Terror. I'd also go one step further than Robert and request a plan of action from those to the left of Kerry, perhaps Kucinic or Nader supporters. Maybe Rhoads could find a link at The Nation or Sojourners for me to read that attacks both Kerry and Bush from the left, but that offers a plan of action rather than just an attack on the mainstream parties.
Bob's response: If you get the time, please do a search of The Nation or of Sojourners and provide me with a link to an argument in favor of the U.S. attacking Afghanistan from the fall of 2001. "War is not the answer" (or is that A.N.S.W.E.R.?) is what I recall reading. An invasion of Afghanistan would result in defeat and quagmire just like happened to the Russians in the early 1980s. I remember cries of the millions of dead Afghanies in the harsh winter to come if the U.S. invades. I don't doubt that most Americans supported that attack, but I do doubt that the passionate "anti-war" crowd did. Perhaps a speech or something by Al Gore would go a long way towards refuting the Kling parody. Maybe Gore would have taken some other course than the one Kling suggests, but I'd like to see some evidence that Gore wasn't part of the fringe left that said "war is not the answer" back in 2001.
I understand that Rhoads doesn't believe that the attack on Iraq had anything to do with the War on Terror. Fine. I happen to disagree. Getting beyond that, though, what are the left's suggestions for fighting the War on Terror? Just like Robert Tagorda I'd like to see a well-articulated presentation of the Kerry Plan for both Iraq (now that we're there) and the broader War on Terror. I'd also go one step further than Robert and request a plan of action from those to the left of Kerry, perhaps Kucinic or Nader supporters. Maybe Rhoads could find a link at The Nation or Sojourners for me to read that attacks both Kerry and Bush from the left, but that offers a plan of action rather than just an attack on the mainstream parties.
Two good Kling contributions
Arnold Kling wrote a good esssay called Hating the Solution for Tech Central Station that contains this amusing counterfactual:
The "alternative history" approach might be applied to ask "what if" the left had been in power in the United States on 9-11. I could imagine the following story appearing in the New York Times in December of 2002:In the above essay Kling links to an earlier essay of his called Nurturance and Terrorism where he argues there is no natural left-wing alternative to fighting terrorism. That essay is worth a read, too.
After more than a year of intricate and skillful diplomacy, the Gore Administration's efforts were rewarded, as the United Nations passed a resolution expressing its "concern with terrorism." Gore's victory comes nearly fourteen months after planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "Terrorists now have received a clear and unambiguous message," the President said.
The Administration was disappointed that the final resolution contained no provisions for economic sanctions against the Taliban regime. The U.S. withdrew the sanctions provision out of concern that it would have resulted in an economic boycott of Israel, which was branded a terrorist state as part of an amendment pushed by Arab and Muslim nations.
Vice-president Joseph Lieberman was dispatched to help mollify American Jewish groups, some of whom were upset by the amendment equating the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza with terrorism. "The resolution does not mention Al Qaeda or Afghanistan," one prominent Jewish leader complained. "The only country that it condemns by name is Israel."
Despite Israel's opposition, most diplomats pointed to the overwhelming vote that the resolution received as a triumph for the Administration. "It's the centerpiece of their response to 9-11," one source remarked. "They had to have a UN resolution, and even though it's not perfect, now they've got something they can point to."
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Mooney to coach Air Force
So the "bad news" of John Thompson III taking the Georgetown job has turned into an avalanche of good news. First Joe Scott accepted the Princeton job. Now Air Force replaces Scott with Chris Mooney, Scott's top assistant. How good is that?! JTIII gets to return to his DC roots. Joe Scott gets to return to his Jersey roots, and to his alma mater. Air Force sticks with the "Princeton basketball" style that served them so well under Coach Scott.
Awesome!
Awesome!
Guantanamo Bay
Last night I surfed on by C-SPAN and stopped to listen to Ted Olsen's Q&A with the Supremes during his oral argument in the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. I'm a nut, but I always enjoy those exchanges. I can't always follow what the heck they're talking about, but I enjoy the banter (and the nervousness of the lawyers – who doesn't like hearing lawyers suffer?).
Anyway, if the status of the Guantanamo Bay detainees is of interest and importance to you, Eugene Volokh, UCLA law professor and really smart guy (if getting a BS in Computer Science at age 15 – in your second language – makes you smart) has a lot to say over at The Volokh Conspiracy. This post is good, but there are a lot more nearby (here, here, here, and here).
Anyway, if the status of the Guantanamo Bay detainees is of interest and importance to you, Eugene Volokh, UCLA law professor and really smart guy (if getting a BS in Computer Science at age 15 – in your second language – makes you smart) has a lot to say over at The Volokh Conspiracy. This post is good, but there are a lot more nearby (here, here, here, and here).
Hall of Fame
Since I just posted something by Charlie Munger and something else about Princeton basketball, I thought I'd toss up a list of famous people who've influenced me the most in the last twenty-plus years. In chronological order of influence, here's my personal big-shot hall of fame:
Milton Friedman
Friedrich Hayek
Pete Carril
Warren Buffett
Charlie Munger
Richard Feynman
Two of the above (Feynman and Hayek) are unfortunately dead, one (Feynman) died before I even knew who he was. Two are worth well over a billion dollars (Buffett and Munger), one of them way, WAY over (Buffett). Three won Nobel prizes (Feynman, Hayek, Friedman). One coached hoops at Princeton from 1967-97 and is a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame (Carril). One of them (Friedman) sent me a very nice personal letter back in the 1980s.
Cool guys all!
Milton Friedman
Friedrich Hayek
Pete Carril
Warren Buffett
Charlie Munger
Richard Feynman
Two of the above (Feynman and Hayek) are unfortunately dead, one (Feynman) died before I even knew who he was. Two are worth well over a billion dollars (Buffett and Munger), one of them way, WAY over (Buffett). Three won Nobel prizes (Feynman, Hayek, Friedman). One coached hoops at Princeton from 1967-97 and is a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame (Carril). One of them (Friedman) sent me a very nice personal letter back in the 1980s.
Cool guys all!
Welcome aboard Joe!
Joe Scott resigns from the Air Force Academy to accept the head men's basketball coaching position at his alma mater, Princeton University.
I'm sorry to see him leave the region, but thrilled to have him back at Princeton.
Go Tigers!
I'm sorry to see him leave the region, but thrilled to have him back at Princeton.
Go Tigers!
Berkshire's (slightly) smarter half on Iraq and Afghanistan
Charles T. Munger, Vice Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and Chairman of Wesco Financial, asked at last spring's Wesco annual meeting if we're safer now because of Iraq and Afghanistan [courtesy of Berkshire Hathaway and Outstanding Investor Digest]:
I'm curious to hear what Charlie says a year later if he's asked that question again. Of course since I'm not going to be in Pasadena for the Wesco meeting, I'll have to read about it next year when the OID exerpts come in the mail.
I do have my credentials for the Saturday, May 1st, 2004 Berkshire annual meeting, but I'm leaning toward not making the trip to Omaha this year. I can plop down $114, board an Amtrak train in Denver at 7:30 PM on Friday night, travel through the night and arrive in Omaha at about 5:30 AM Saturday. The doors open at 7:00 AM and the meeting ends at 3:30 PM. I could kick around town, go to a barbeque at Nebraska Furniture Mart, and maybe have a DQ with Warren, before boarding the Amtrak at 11:30 PM for the return trip to Denver. I'd be back by late morning on Sunday.
Seems a shame to pass up such a whirlwind trip to the Capitalist Woodstock, doesn't it?
Your guess is as good as mine. The only thing I'll say on those subjects is that it's very easy to shrink from anything unpleasant and just conclude, "We don't really need it." And I at least kind of admire the willingness to suffer now in the hope of making the world better.
I'm skeptical of the general approach that never finds it necessary to suffer now to make the world better later. The general approach of figuring out, of actually seeking, ways to suffer now to make the world better later – well, there's a lot to be said for it.
That's what investment is. You don't spend the money – even though there are a lot of lovely things you can buy with it. You may even sacrifice something – because you're trying to do better later. Generally speaking, I like the approach.
Now whether or not our Mideast adventures will turn out to be good ideas, your guess is as good as mine. However, I kind of like the fact that we're trying.
I'm curious to hear what Charlie says a year later if he's asked that question again. Of course since I'm not going to be in Pasadena for the Wesco meeting, I'll have to read about it next year when the OID exerpts come in the mail.
I do have my credentials for the Saturday, May 1st, 2004 Berkshire annual meeting, but I'm leaning toward not making the trip to Omaha this year. I can plop down $114, board an Amtrak train in Denver at 7:30 PM on Friday night, travel through the night and arrive in Omaha at about 5:30 AM Saturday. The doors open at 7:00 AM and the meeting ends at 3:30 PM. I could kick around town, go to a barbeque at Nebraska Furniture Mart, and maybe have a DQ with Warren, before boarding the Amtrak at 11:30 PM for the return trip to Denver. I'd be back by late morning on Sunday.
Seems a shame to pass up such a whirlwind trip to the Capitalist Woodstock, doesn't it?
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Wal-Mart Blog
Keep up with the good and the bad regarding Wal-Mart with this new blog.
They're looking for contributors, pro and con.
They're looking for contributors, pro and con.
John Thompson III new Georgetown coach
Bad news for Princeton basketball fans. ESPN just reported that head men's basketball coach John Thompson III has accepted the head coaching job at Georgetown University. Thompson will now try to fill the enormous shoes of his father.
So, who will replace JT III at Princeton? JOE SCOTT! I have mixed emotions about that possibility. He'd be great for the Tigers. But, I don't want to lose him out here in Colorado. I love having the chance to watch "Princeton basketball" just down the road.
So, who will replace JT III at Princeton? JOE SCOTT! I have mixed emotions about that possibility. He'd be great for the Tigers. But, I don't want to lose him out here in Colorado. I love having the chance to watch "Princeton basketball" just down the road.
Arguments for the Kerry plan
If you're a supporter of John Kerry's plan in Iraq, Robert Tagorda wants your help.
Here's what I genuinely want to know: has a liberal (or, for that matter, disillusioned conservative) blogger made the case for the Kerry plan? If so, please notify me. I want to figure out whether I truly understand his positions and whether they're better than those of the administration.
Note that I'm looking for arguments in support of the Kerry plan -- not defenses of his positions against Republican spin, and not attacks on the Bush Doctrine. I frankly haven't seen such posts. I've read countless complaints about the administration -- some cogent, some unfair -- but I think that constructive alternatives should be proposed and examined.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Cornell guy
Peter Coors received an engineering degree from Cornell, Class of 1969, and an MBA from DU in 1970. That should make the Rhoads vs Pete race all the more heated, though less heated than if Coors had been a Harvard or Yale grad. Princetonians make regular work of kicking around Cornell grads, at least in hoops. Rhoads should have no trouble with Pete if Pete knocks off Bob Schaffer.
Tiger Coors
Dang it. I should have checked my facts before I blogged. It turns out the Pete Coors is not a Tiger. It was William Coors '38 *39 that I was thinking about. Must be Pete's dad?
Battle of the Tigers
I didn't realize Pete Coors was a Tiger. Are Rick Neuheisel and I the only people who didn't go to Princeton?
Unless Rhoads is going to run for the Republican nomination, he won't necessarily be running against Pete Coors for the vacant Senate seat. My understanding is that Coors has to beat Bob Schaefer (sp?) before he's on the ballot against Rhoads.
Given that Ken Salazar, a Catholic man and the presumptive Democratic senate candidate, said that the Archbishop of Denver (or some such thing in the Catholic church) should not tell Catholics how he thinks they should vote, I think Rhoads may have a better chance than Salazar of winning the vacant senate seat. I'm all for the separation of church and state, but to say that a religious leader can't speak his mind on issues or on candidates seems to me to be a dopey position. It's possible that I heard that wrong, but I'd like to see Salazar retract that statement if he in fact told the Archbishop to pipe down.
Let's see. Do I want to move to Washington, DC to be Rhoads' Chief of Staff? I do have some relatives out there and enjoyed my summer there. I have to assume Rhoads would prefer to hire a staff of like-minded people, so perhaps Chief of Staff is the wrong position for me. I could be the Chief of Opposition Research or something like that.
That raises an interesting issue. I don't think it matters all that much that senators or representatives have people on their staffs who disagree with them on fundamental issues. Each of them is after all just 1 of 100, or 1 of 435 in the legislative bodies. The Congress itself is supposed to be a deliberative body, so if each member comes at issues with viewpoints that haven't been scrutinized from every angle it isn't quite so troubling as it would be in the executive or judicial branches.
From what I've heard from former clerks and from sitting justices, the Supreme Court justices do a pretty good job of getting all viewpoints as they consider cases before them. I know that Justice Thomas assigns a clerk to make sure that the clerk knows Justice Thomas' biases and stays alert for detecting how those biases may affect the Justice's rulings. I think that by and large most of the justices hire clerks who more or less share their judicial philosophies, but such things are quite a bit harder to discern when hiring young clerks than permanent legislative or executive staffers, I think. So the justices, both from each other and from their staffs, tend to hear lots of well-reasoned opposition to their own positions.
The executive branch is where the troubles lay. I don't think many administrations hire, as political appointees, people who disagree with them on fundamental issues. It's common for executive branch electees and appointees to hire staffers who have helped them in prior political campaigns. None of this is surprising or terribly scandalous. The problem, though, is that executive branch decisions tend to be made with input only from fellow executive branch staffers. The legislative and judicial branches are checks on these decisions, but those checks work quite slowly. The ballot box is also a check, but that works slowly, too. I think it would be novel and very wise for a president to insist that he, his vice president, and each of his cabinet secretaries and other major division heads hire at least one primary advisor who differs with his fundamental viewpoint on policy issues. This person's job would be to provide expert advice that counters the prevailing wisdom of the administration. Human nature being what it is, and top government officials being generally quite smart and accomplished people, they would no doubt come up with very good reasons for discounting or disagreeing with the opposition positions, but at least they would be hearing those positions, presented by smart, respected people of their choosing, on a regular basis.
So my answer is no, I won't be Rhoads' Chief of Staff. That wouldn't work well for Rhoads or for the people who elected him based upon his positions on the issues. But I will accept a position on his staff as a check on his whacky liberal instincts. More importantly, should Rhoads ever become president (not likely from the US Senate), I'll continue to serve in his administration, if he wants me to.
Maybe Rhoads should run for governor instead of the US Senate. He may not have to run against a Princetonian and he'd have a shot at being president some day if he won (or even if he lost--see Nixon).
Unless Rhoads is going to run for the Republican nomination, he won't necessarily be running against Pete Coors for the vacant Senate seat. My understanding is that Coors has to beat Bob Schaefer (sp?) before he's on the ballot against Rhoads.
Given that Ken Salazar, a Catholic man and the presumptive Democratic senate candidate, said that the Archbishop of Denver (or some such thing in the Catholic church) should not tell Catholics how he thinks they should vote, I think Rhoads may have a better chance than Salazar of winning the vacant senate seat. I'm all for the separation of church and state, but to say that a religious leader can't speak his mind on issues or on candidates seems to me to be a dopey position. It's possible that I heard that wrong, but I'd like to see Salazar retract that statement if he in fact told the Archbishop to pipe down.
Let's see. Do I want to move to Washington, DC to be Rhoads' Chief of Staff? I do have some relatives out there and enjoyed my summer there. I have to assume Rhoads would prefer to hire a staff of like-minded people, so perhaps Chief of Staff is the wrong position for me. I could be the Chief of Opposition Research or something like that.
That raises an interesting issue. I don't think it matters all that much that senators or representatives have people on their staffs who disagree with them on fundamental issues. Each of them is after all just 1 of 100, or 1 of 435 in the legislative bodies. The Congress itself is supposed to be a deliberative body, so if each member comes at issues with viewpoints that haven't been scrutinized from every angle it isn't quite so troubling as it would be in the executive or judicial branches.
From what I've heard from former clerks and from sitting justices, the Supreme Court justices do a pretty good job of getting all viewpoints as they consider cases before them. I know that Justice Thomas assigns a clerk to make sure that the clerk knows Justice Thomas' biases and stays alert for detecting how those biases may affect the Justice's rulings. I think that by and large most of the justices hire clerks who more or less share their judicial philosophies, but such things are quite a bit harder to discern when hiring young clerks than permanent legislative or executive staffers, I think. So the justices, both from each other and from their staffs, tend to hear lots of well-reasoned opposition to their own positions.
The executive branch is where the troubles lay. I don't think many administrations hire, as political appointees, people who disagree with them on fundamental issues. It's common for executive branch electees and appointees to hire staffers who have helped them in prior political campaigns. None of this is surprising or terribly scandalous. The problem, though, is that executive branch decisions tend to be made with input only from fellow executive branch staffers. The legislative and judicial branches are checks on these decisions, but those checks work quite slowly. The ballot box is also a check, but that works slowly, too. I think it would be novel and very wise for a president to insist that he, his vice president, and each of his cabinet secretaries and other major division heads hire at least one primary advisor who differs with his fundamental viewpoint on policy issues. This person's job would be to provide expert advice that counters the prevailing wisdom of the administration. Human nature being what it is, and top government officials being generally quite smart and accomplished people, they would no doubt come up with very good reasons for discounting or disagreeing with the opposition positions, but at least they would be hearing those positions, presented by smart, respected people of their choosing, on a regular basis.
So my answer is no, I won't be Rhoads' Chief of Staff. That wouldn't work well for Rhoads or for the people who elected him based upon his positions on the issues. But I will accept a position on his staff as a check on his whacky liberal instincts. More importantly, should Rhoads ever become president (not likely from the US Senate), I'll continue to serve in his administration, if he wants me to.
Maybe Rhoads should run for governor instead of the US Senate. He may not have to run against a Princetonian and he'd have a shot at being president some day if he won (or even if he lost--see Nixon).
Niwot Baseball Review
For those of you who missed the live broadcast of the Niwot Baseball JV team doubleheader against Berthoud this past Saturday, you can now catch the archived broadcast by going to the Niwot Baseball web page. CoffeeWithRhoads is proud to be one of the main sponsers of the Niwot Baseball internet broadcasts, featuring the "voice of the Cougars" - CwR's own Bob. Oh - and Game 2 of the doubleheader is available now. Game 1 is uploading and should be online in about 15 minutes.
Chief of Staff?
I am considering a Senate bid - challenging fellow Princetonian Pete Coors for Ben Nighthorse Campbell's seat. If I win, I would like for Bob to be my Chief of Staff. I want want him to blog my daily activity and to keep my honest on my wacky liberal opinions. Is he up for the job?
Sunday, April 18, 2004
The Official Coffee With Rhoads T-Shirt?
I just ordered my Hayek t-shirt. Too bad it doesn't come in green so I could wear it to Niwot Baseball games.
Kosovo, Kerry, and the UN
The latest from Kosovo is just the most recent example of the failure of UN-led multilateral efforts at peaceful nation building (or rebuilding). Is John Kerry wise to stress turning Iraqi governance over to UN control?
Here is Kerry from the Washington Post on April 13, 2004:
I'll have to look into this Brahimi character. I don't know anything about him at the moment, but it seems like pledging in advance to "support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders" seems a bit dicey. I'm not saying this is likely, but what if those leaders are Baathist thugs and he proposes giving them back power?
I'm also suspicious of any plan that turns over primary responsibility for the success of the goals of the Iraqi invasion to the outfit that managed the oil-for-food scandal, or UNSCAM for short.
At least Kerry had the good sense to say that security should still be our responsibility until Iraqi's can take that over themselves. Unfortunately, combined with the other priorities he puts forth, that means our soldiers will continue to take the bullets while the UN screws up the transition to Iraqi self-rule. If we're going to take the bullets, I'd rather we continue with responsibility for establishing self-rule. Over the last sixty years our record is better than the UN's.
Here is Kerry from the Washington Post on April 13, 2004:
In recent weeks the administration -- in effect acknowledging the failure of its own efforts -- has turned to U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to develop a formula for an interim Iraqi government that each of the major Iraqi factions can accept. It is vital that Brahimi accomplish this mission, but the odds are long, because tensions have been allowed to build and distrust among the various Iraqi groups runs deep. The United States can bolster Brahimi's limited leverage by saying in advance that we will support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders. Moving forward, the administration must make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq's transition to a new constitution and government. We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq. We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.
We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers. The events of the past week will make foreign governments extremely reluctant to put their citizens at risk. That is why international acceptance of responsibility for stabilizing Iraq must be matched by international authority for managing the remainder of the Iraqi transition. The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people. The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility. (emphasis added)
I'll have to look into this Brahimi character. I don't know anything about him at the moment, but it seems like pledging in advance to "support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders" seems a bit dicey. I'm not saying this is likely, but what if those leaders are Baathist thugs and he proposes giving them back power?
I'm also suspicious of any plan that turns over primary responsibility for the success of the goals of the Iraqi invasion to the outfit that managed the oil-for-food scandal, or UNSCAM for short.
At least Kerry had the good sense to say that security should still be our responsibility until Iraqi's can take that over themselves. Unfortunately, combined with the other priorities he puts forth, that means our soldiers will continue to take the bullets while the UN screws up the transition to Iraqi self-rule. If we're going to take the bullets, I'd rather we continue with responsibility for establishing self-rule. Over the last sixty years our record is better than the UN's.
Saturday, April 17, 2004
22 guesses
I cracked the code using Nonlinear Feedback my first try. It took me 22 guesses. I'm not going to try again.
Friday, April 16, 2004
Kling on Weinberg on paternalism
Arnold Kling, one of my favorite economists, takes on Steven Weinberg, one of my favorite physicists, over an issue of economics. Advantage Kling.
In this essay Arnold Kling covers three basic arguments against paternalism: the libertarian argument, the utilitarian argument, and the Public Choice argument.
In this essay Arnold Kling covers three basic arguments against paternalism: the libertarian argument, the utilitarian argument, and the Public Choice argument.
Liberal foreign policy
Generally I think the liberal position on foreign affairs has been more internationalist than the conservative policy. This has shifted over the years to be sure. But the Republican Party used to be the isolationist party. Pat Buchanan still holds many of those beliefs. The Democratic Party used to be the party interested in spreading democracy around the world.
From Roger L. Simon:
From Roger L. Simon:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."--John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961Here's Woodrow Wilson from April 2, 1917:
for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.Robert Tagorda links to this discussion of what he calls liberal internationalism. Tagorda defines that as "using American power for the spread of democratic values."
Spinsanity
I also like the Spinsanity site. But since I beat Rhoads to the punch on Niwot Baseball, I'll let him find the room for Spinsanity in his Favorites. Besides, if I add it, Rhoads' Favorites will be pushed down even lower on my screen. We can't have that.
I agree with Rhoads that the piece by Ben Fritz on Spinsanity provides a good summary of the imminent threat claim.
I agree with Rhoads that the piece by Ben Fritz on Spinsanity provides a good summary of the imminent threat claim.
Liberal on Foreign Policy
I am not sure what Bob means when he says "liberal on foreign policy." Is there a definition somewhere?
Imminent Threat
If the Administration says that the threat is not imminent (in the State of the Union) but then they also say that it is (in many other contexts) would that mean that they said it was imminent? Yes (my opinion, as are all of these answers). Does it mean they are trying to be deceptive? Yes. If the president says one thing and many members of his staff say something different, is the president still accountable? Yes. Is this all political spin? ABSOLUTELY. Did the administration succeeed in convincing me through all of this that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to me personally? Yes. Is that why I am pissed off? Yes (that's not an opinion).
Here is a good link to an article that I think covers this issue from both sides, and leans more in Bob's favor than mine, but is still very good. I highly recommend it. This paragraph in particular captures the essence:
Here is a good link to an article that I think covers this issue from both sides, and leans more in Bob's favor than mine, but is still very good. I highly recommend it. This paragraph in particular captures the essence:
As a factual matter, conservatives are largely correct and liberal critics and journalists are guilty of cheap shots or lazy reporting. However, the evidence is not completely clear and both sides are guilty of distorting this complex situation for political gain. Specifically, while there's some evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent threat, there's much more that it did not. Those attempting to assert that the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant information to the contrary. Similarly, those who say the Bush administration never used the phrase or implied as much are ignoring important, though isolated, evidence.I may have to put spinsanity on my favorites list, if I can find room.
Crowbar
I kinda remember both "crowbar" and "pipe wrench" being used to say how mad they were at Arthur Liu, but in both cases, they said "that's a metaphor" after the remark. So I think they were refering metaphorically to a legal crowbar (to get the doors open) and a legal pipe wrench. In fact, here is the text from their web site on wednesday:
I don't find it particularly funny. But there ya go.
The Sludge Report
After just two weeks on the air, Air America Radio, the fledgling liberal talk-radio network featuring Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, and that really loud woman from Florida, appears to have encountered serious cash-flow problems.
Stop the presses!!! There's nothing more exciting than half a story from a third hand source!!!!
Insiders tell SLUDGE, that the reason the network was pulled off the air this morning in Chicago and Los Angeles, the network's second- and third-largest markets, was because, the owner of both stations, Arthur Liu of Multicultural Broadcasting, said, the network bounced a check and owes him more than $1 million! The run-on sentence, tortured grammar and the exclamation point clearly means it's true!!
Only it isn't.
Normally we'd let this go because "habitual liars" like Drudge are laughable, and ridicule is our business.
But Arthur Liu --- not funny. He lied to us, he ripped us off and now we're chasing him down with a pipe wrench. It's a metaphor.
Here's what really happened:
This Liu-ser was ripping off our boss Evan Cohen big time (he can't do that, that's our job). Evan found out about it and he stopped payment on a check to keep Liu-cifer from ripping him off even more. You can touch Evan for the occasional meal or drinks but a million bucks is crossing the line. And if we ever get low on cash, we can always call Barbra Streisand. Or any of the Baldwins. Except Stephen.
So we got screwed, Liu'd, and tattooed. How Liu can you get? In Liu of payment. Liu'd and lascivious behavior. These write themselves. What we're getting at is that we hate him.
So now everyone's saying we're going down the dumper in Chicago and Los Angeles, but what they don't tell you is that we're still on in Portland. And we OWN Portland. And let's not forget Riverside and Plattsburgh. And New York. And streaming on the internet. And XM. And Sirius. Actually we're fine.
So cool your jets. Air America Radio isn't dead, we're in court and we're going to slam Liu's head in a car door. Another metaphor. We hope to be back on the air tomorrow or the next day in those markets.
In the meantime, why don't you give Arthur a call at (212)966-1059.
Arthur Liu, I wouldn't show your face around here.
Or Riverside. Or Plattsburgh.
I don't find it particularly funny. But there ya go.
Reading skills test
Does either Porter-Gaud or Princeton offer guarantees and refunds? Rhoads thinks that George Bush lied when George Bush said that Saddam was an "imminent threat". Here's the section from the State of the Union address Rhoads quoted from before:
Rhoads batting average isn't too good on these things. That blasted internet. Perhaps he can provide a source where George Bush says what Rhoads claims he said. Bush explicitly said the opposite of what Rhoads says he said in the biggest pre-invasion speech he gave to the American people.
Regarding terrorism and Iraq, I acknowledge that the explicit link, the bloody footprints leading to the door, the picture of Saddam kissing bin Laden's cheak is missing. The link between Iraq and bin Laden has not been proven. I acknowledge that.
However, does Rhoads or his candidate John Kerry really want to claim that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism before we invaded?
UPDATE: Iraq and terrorism. I Googled [+terrorism +Iraq +nidal ].
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (emphasis added)
Rhoads batting average isn't too good on these things. That blasted internet. Perhaps he can provide a source where George Bush says what Rhoads claims he said. Bush explicitly said the opposite of what Rhoads says he said in the biggest pre-invasion speech he gave to the American people.
Regarding terrorism and Iraq, I acknowledge that the explicit link, the bloody footprints leading to the door, the picture of Saddam kissing bin Laden's cheak is missing. The link between Iraq and bin Laden has not been proven. I acknowledge that.
However, does Rhoads or his candidate John Kerry really want to claim that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism before we invaded?
UPDATE: Iraq and terrorism. I Googled [+terrorism +Iraq +nidal ].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)