August 05, 2004
AND NOW, FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
I'm a big fan of sly and clever movie lines. You know, the ones that only a few people in the theater get the joke to and laugh hysterically at. I like them because it seems as if the moviemaker just shared a private snicker with a select group of the audience.
What kind of sly and clever lines do I speak of? Well, try the following exchange from the movie Airplane:
STRIKER: I flew single engine fighters in the Air Force, but this plane has four engines. Its an entirely different kind of flying, altogether.RUMACK and ATTENDANT (in unison): It's a entirely different kind of flying.
Or try this exchange from Spaceballs:
SANDURZ: We're beginning metamorphosis, sir.SKROOB: Good. Get on with it.
HELMET: Ready, Kafka?
I'd say that each time I saw these two movies with an audience, out of ten people, 2 would get the jokes and laugh hysterically. The other 8 would laugh only because they knew they should.
Of course, my favorite exchange of this genre comes from another Mel Brooks classic--History of the World, Part I. I couldn't find an online script, but I don't need one for the brief conversation that passes between Josephus (played by the late Gregory Hines) and Oedipus (query--what was Oedipus doing in Rome?):
OEDIPUS: Hey, Josephus!JOSEPHUS: Hey, motherf***er!
Share your favorite sly and clever movie lines in the comments section below.
VETERANS, PEOPLE WHO KNOW THEM AND THEIR PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES
So much has been made of the past military experience of the two major candidates for President that at times we forget to ask just how well are the two major Presidential candidacies being received by voters who are veterans, or who know someone who is serving now. This poll gives us some insights regarding that question:
A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%.The potential grassroots impact of the war issue is highlighted by the fact that 48% of Americans say they know someone who is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Among these voters, Bush currently has a ten-point advantage in the poll. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans know someone serving in these war zones.
When it comes to perceptions of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is likely that information from family and friends has a bigger impact than news coverage.
I don't pretend to certain knowledge as to why veterans and those who know them might prefer Bush over Kerry by such a pronounced margin. But I do have a theory on why the poll turned out the way it did. In any event, it is something to keep in mind and keep an eye on as the election season rolls on.
(Thanks to Stephen Green for the link.)
PATRIOTIC SHOPPING IS UNPATRIOTIC"
So sayeth Xander Stephenson. 'Tis true:
Countries get richer through international trade because trade increases efficiency and reduces costs. I might, as an individual, try to be self-sufficient by making my own shoes, I suppose I could find a cow to get leather from, I could process it, trim it, and add the wood and hemp to assemble it. It would take weeks for much lower quality than I could find in any shoe shop. As Smith pointed out, specialization of labour increases wealth. In other words, imports usually make us richer.We buy cheaper from abroad and are richer by the amount we saved. They, in turn are richer because they have our money. Everyone gains. Those who say it is in our interests to buy British are simply echoing the mercantilist myth. It may be in the interest of a particular British company if everyone buys British products, but it is not in the general interest.
There is an old saying that everyone wants competition when they are buying, but protection when they are selling. The truth is that it serves everyone’s interest if we have free trade in both.
OF BARCODES AND "TRADITIONAL CONSUMPTION RITUALS"
Man, people really have to stop giving Lileks material to beat them over the head with.
JUST IMAGINE . . .
If Republican legislators threatened to use "legislative avenues" to get better media coverage from a particular news outlet. The lamentations would be unceasing.
"EXPLODING THE MYTHS OF OFFSHORING"
If you want some semblance of respite from the Kerry campaign's relentless demagoguery on outsourcing, try this article on for size. It's conclusions are most revealing:
With the digital revolution and the dramatic fall in international telecommunications costs comes the prospect that white-collar jobs--once insulated from global competition--can be performed offshore in low-wage nations such as India, where labor can be hired for as little as one-tenth its cost in the United States.Call-center agents, data processors, medical technicians, and software programmers could all find their jobs at risk from the U.S.'s growing trade in services with emerging markets. In fact, offshoring is frequently blamed for the agonizingly slow pace of job growth in the United States, despite a recovering economy.
Even free traders have wavered in their beliefs. Critics warn that millions of people in the United States will become jobless. The response from Congress has been to include in a fiscal 2004 spending bill a provision prohibiting federal agencies from outsourcing some kinds of work to private companies that use workers in foreign countries. Indeed, 23 states are considering similar restrictions; four have already passed them. Jobs and trade have become the hot-button issues of the 2004 presidential election race.
The current debate is misplaced, however, because the problem is neither trade itself nor globalization more broadly but rather the question of how the country should allocate the benefits of global trade. Trade in services, like other forms of international trade, benefits the United States as a whole by making the economic pie bigger and raising the standard of living. Outsourcing jobs abroad can help keep companies profitable, thereby preserving other U.S. jobs. The cost savings can be used to lower prices and to offer consumers new and better types of services. By raising productivity, offshoring enables companies to invest more in the next-generation technologies and business ideas that create new jobs. And with the world's most flexible and innovative economy, the United States is uniquely positioned to benefit from the trend. After all, despite a large overall trade deficit, the country has consistently run a surplus in its international trade in services.
A 2003 study by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) showed that offshoring creates wealth for the United States as well as for India, the country receiving the jobs. For every dollar of corporate spending outsourced to India, the U.S. economy captures more than three-quarters of the benefit and gains as much as $1.14 in return. Far from being a zero-sum game, offshoring creates mutual economic benefit.
UPDATE: In other outsourcing news, Dan Drezner casts a skeptical eye on Hillary Clinton's claim that the cost-effectiveness of outsourcing is overstated.
ANOTHER UPDATE: For a very thorough review of Kerry's economic plan, be sure to check out this post.
MONEY CAN'T BUY EVERYTHING
It certainly can't buy an increase in pupil performance--bleatings to the contrary notwithstanding:
Reg Weaver, President of the National Education Association, took to the podium in Boston this week to say that John Kerry was his man. And why not? Nearly one in 10 of the delegates to this week's Democratic convention belongs to a teachers union.Mr. Kerry had canceled his appearance at the NEA's own convention at the last minute earlier this month, only to scramble and address it by satellite the next day after Mr. Weaver protested. The little scheduling snafu notwithstanding, if you're a teachers union leader, what's not to like in a candidate who has called for "fully funding education, no questions asked?"
We would have thought that calling for the feds to throw tax dollars at a problem with "no questions asked" was a little much, even for a Senator from Massachusetts. But the call for more spending looks all the more unthinking in the light of a study just-released by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
Though it zeroes in on local rather than state spending, the most obvious point underscored by "K-12 Education: Still Growing Strongly" is that whatever the problem with education, it's not caused by any unwillingness to throw more money at it. Between 1997 and 2002, state and local governments increased K-12 spending by 39%. Even after adjusting for inflation and growth in pupil enrollment, real spending was up nearly 17%. And it went up in every state, even those with strict tax and spending limits.
So what did we get in return? The Rockefeller study didn't say, so we decided to look at test scores for reading because there's probably no skill more fundamental to life-long learning. When we cross-referenced spending increases with the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading scores, we found virtually no link between spending and performance.
The table here tells the story. The states are ranked in order of their real, K-12 education spending increases from 1997-2002. Next to each state we list whether performance on the NAEP reading tests rose, fell or remained largely the same from 1998-2003--the period when the spending benefits should have kicked in. It's not as if the states were starting from a high base, either: According to these same tests, fewer than a third of fourth-graders are proficient in reading, math, science or American history.
The results are a direct refutation of the We Need More Spending chorus. Even a quick glance shows that the results are all over the map: Some states show improvements despite lower spending increases while others spend more yet make no dent in their scores. Surely it's telling that, even after jacking up its education spending by 46%, the top-spending District of Columbia improved its scores by no more than Florida, which is at the bottom of the spending chart but has been at the forefront of reforms allowing choice and demanding accountability.
THE LATEST ON HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN IRAN
Amnesty International has this report:
The recent hunger strike in Tehran's Evin prison and the unabated wave of arrests and temporary detention of students, journalists and workers are some of the signs of a worsening human rights situation in Iran. These have renewed international concern over the situation in the Islamic Republic.The international community accepted at face value statements made by judicial officials throughout 2003 that the penalty of stoning had been suspended as a result of a "moratorium". Yet, to widespread dismay, the judiciary initiated an amendment to existing laws detailing how to carry out a stoning and crucifixion in November 2003.
International human rights organizations, along with many states, fear that such contradictory behaviour undermines Iran's commitment to international human rights law.
Iran's judicial authorities have failed to acknowledge and implement recommendations made by by the UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, two of the United Nations thematic bodies. This failure is causing international human rights organizations and, in particular, the European Union (EU) to call Iran’s commitment to upholding international human rights standards and, in particular, the EU-Iran Human Rights Dialogue into question.
The death in custody in July 2003 of Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian photojournalist, led the Canadian government to propose a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in October-November 2003. The resolution provided a comprehensive criticism of the situation of human rights in Iran. The grossly flawed investigation and trial into the circumstances of Ms Kazemi’s death are expected to further exacerbate diplomatic concern over the human rights situation in Iran.
Meanwhile, we have this report on the digital movement to liberate Iran. It's excellent. comprehensive and highly recommended.
NEWS ON THE EMPLOYMENT FRONT
This is encouraging:
The number of new people signing up for unemployment benefits dropped last week, a hopeful sign for the job market recovery.The Labor Department reported Thursday that new applications for jobless benefits declined by a seasonally adjusted 11,000 to 336,000 for the week ending July 31. It marked the lowest level since the beginning of July and was slightly better than some analysts were expecting. They were forecasting claims to fall to around 340,000 for last week.
New claims have bounced up and down in recent weeks, with much of the volatility associated with the impact of temporary shutdowns at auto plants to retool for new models, something that's done each year. Even so, the long-term trend in claims shows improvement. A year ago claims stood at 399,000.
SHORTER NEW YORK TIMES
President Bush should work to ensure that we are up to date about terror warnings, but at the same time, he should lay off the terror warnings.
For the longer exposition, go to this post.
PREEMPTED AGAIN
I wish I had something original to say about the apparent leaking of classified material to the press by Senator Richard Shelby. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), Tacitus said everything I have to say on the matter.
CONSISTENCY MATTERS
I was against carpetbagging when Hillary Clinton appallingly sought to convince the nation that she was a New Yorker at heart just so that she could get into the United States Senate. I'm equally--if not more--appalled that a member of my party would seek to carpetbag in my state. This is an insult to the voters of Illinois, and craven opportunism at its worst.
Barack Obama will not get my vote. But Alan Keyes won't either. Hopefully, the Illinois GOP will learn something from this debacle and not see fit to pull a fast one on the voters of this state again. In the meantime, suggestions are welcome for a write-in candidate who (a) is constitutionally eligible for a Senate seat and (b) actually is a resident of this state--and won't make himself a resident for the sole purpose of winning a Senate seat.
August 04, 2004
SHOWHORSES AND WORKHORSES
The latest attempt to buttress John Kerry's thin legislative credentials involves comparing the number of bills passed by Kerry to the number passed by Dick Cheney when he was a member of the House of Representatives (as Wyoming's sole congressman). Put aside for the moment the fact that bills may have multiple authors and sponsors, and that merely because a bill carries a person's name does not mean that said person was the one who did the primary work authoring the bill. The reason this pro-Kerry excuse fails can be found in the dynamics in which Cheney and Kerry worked.
For the entire time that Cheney was in the House, he was in the minority. Minority members rarely get their bills passed, or even out of committee. Nevertheless, Cheney's legislative leadership was seen as impressive enough that he was elected to the post of House Republican Whip--a post he only gave up when President Bush the Elder nominated Cheney to serve as Secretary of Defense. (It should be noted that when Cheney vacated his Whip post, the resulting election had the post filled by a certain Georgia congressman named Newt Gingrich. Had Cheney remained in the Whip post, and had all other things remained equal, he would have become Speaker of the House of Representatives.)
By contrast, John Kerry spent 7 and 1/2 of his years in the Senate (1989-1995, and April, 2001-January, 20031) in the Senate majority. Even if a Senator is in the minority, he/she can still wield more influence over the legislative process than can a minority House member. This is due to the accommodations made to Senators who exercise blue slips and filibuster powers, as well as "holds" on legislation and other Executive nominations in order to try to get those Senators to drop their obstructionist tactics. Additionally, the Senate Rules Committee is not nearly as powerful as the House Rules Committee, and non-germane amendments can be attached to legislation in the Senate (not the situation in the House--where the Rules Committee can strictly prevent non-germane amendments from even being offered). As such, there is more freedom of action for Senators--even when they are in the minority--than there is for House members.
No one can, of course, think of Dick Cheney as a showhorse of any kind. He is the ultimate workhorse. He holds the record for being the youngest person to have begun work as a Chief of Staff to the President of the United States (34 years old when he commenced that job for President Ford), and whatever the slings and arrows shot at him by the likes of Donna Brazile, Cheney was impressive enough to be elected Republican Whip in the House, and could have been elected Speaker. As Secretary of Defense, he oversaw a military victory in Iraq as well as the beginnings of force transformation in the military in preparation for a post-Cold War world--while at the same time warning of Soviet backsliding from glasnost and perestroika (which we nearly saw in the attempted 1991 coup against Mikhail Gorbachev). At the same time, John Kerry has tried to pretend that his Senate record doesn't even exist (we certainly haven't heard him discuss it much recently, and it got almost no play whatsoever at the Democratic National Convention). All of this should go to show that not only is Cheney's resumé favorable when compared against that of John Edwards, it is favorable even when compared against a veteran legislator like John Kerry, who has spent nearly two decades on Capitol Hill--mostly marking time before he could run for President.
Something to remember as you witness the battle of the legislative records. There are showhorses and there are workhorses. Who do you want to see at or near the pinnacles of political power?
1This latter period involves the time in which the Democrats held the majority in the Senate thanks to Jim Jeffords's defection from the Republican Caucus.
THE "GEORGE HARRISON" OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS
I must admit: I never quite thought of James Madison this way.
PART OF THE AMERICAN DREAM NOW
It is good to see that in general, Iranian-Americans are benefiting from the American dream. Check out the following stats about the group--which are startlingly impressive:
46% have a bachelors degree or higher, which ranks the group not only higher than any other recently-arrived immigrant group, but also higher than natives in terms of educational achievement.This high academic achievement has undoubtedly contributed to the high occupational and financial accomplishment of Iranians as well. 43% of Iranians are in professional and managerial positions, 35% in technical and administrative, 10% are in various services and the balance are spread over farming, craft and laborers.
48% of the Iranian-American community are dual income earners and 22% own their own businesses.
Median family income is $55,501 (substantially above the national average of $35,492) and per capita income is $18,040. 92% of Iranians have a mortgage (yuk!)
Well, "yuk!" or not, these numbers show that Iranian-Americans are one of the most successful ethnic groups to have entered the country. We can testify to the fact that talk about the American dream is no idle chatter--that the opportunities available in this country are quite real and should never be taken for granted.
And of course, those who benefit from American generosity should give back to America as well. Here is one Iranian-American who is working to do just that. Those of you who have the good fortune to live in Oregon's First District have an excellent opportunity to make history by sending a superb candidate to Congress who would be the first Iranian-American to serve there.
We should be proud that such things are possible in this country. And that they can happen to manifestly good people--regardless of their ethnic background. America is not perfect in that regard, but is light years ahead of where it used to be--and where others are even now.
ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE
Following up on this Robert Kagan essay (noted here), David Adesnik--who is no one's idea of a Bush partisan--has the following to say about John Kerry:
. . . If faced with an impending genocide, say in the Sudan, Kerry would check the opinion polls and, if America wants, declare that genocide is a mortal threat to all that America stands for. If faced with wanton aggression, say a Russian invasion of Georgia, Kerry would check the polls and declare that America cannot be secure in a world without law.In the finaly analysis, I think Kagan is right about what Kerry believes but doesn't recognize just how much ambiguity there is even in some of Kerry's most explicit statements.
UNPOPULAR CULTURE
Be sure to check out the latest Jane Galt project--which actually looks to be a good way to combat any tendency for pleasure reading to somehow become passé. Here's hoping that this new project does well and prospers.
*GROAN*
Iraqis visiting on a civil rights tour were barred from city hall after the city council chairman said it was too dangerous to let them in.The seven Iraqi civic and community leaders are in the midst of a three-week American tour, sponsored by the State Department to learn more about the process of government. The trip also includes stops in Washington, Los Angeles and Chicago.
The Iraqis were scheduled to meet with a city council member, but Joe Brown, the council chair, said he feared the group was dangerous.
"We don't know exactly what's going on. Who knows about the delegation, and has the FBI been informed?" Brown said. "We must secure and protect all the employees in that building."
Elisabeth Silverman, the group's host and head of the Memphis Council for International Visitors, said Brown told her he would "evacuate the building and bring in the bomb squads" if the group entered.
"They are in charge of setting up processes in their country. They have to educate themselves about how it works in this country," Silverman said.
Silverman did not immediately respond to a message Tuesday seeking comment, and it was not clear whether the group had run into trouble elsewhere on their tour.
I can't imagine worse public relations--and a greater genuine affront--than to offend a visiting delegation in this manner. This visit should have received much better advance work, and should have gone without a hitch so that the Iraqis could go back to their country and tell their compatriots that the American people were firmly and solidly behind them.
Instead, they'll go back and talk about how they were insulted in an atrocious manner. The people responsible for the insults should be ashamed.
August 03, 2004
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
While my interest in natural history has added very little to my sum of achievement, it has added immeasurably to my sum of enjoyment in life.
--Theodore Roosevelt
BECAUSE THERE CANNOT BE ENOUGH FISKINGS . . .
I give you this one by Suman Palit--in reaction to John Kerry's convention acceptance speech.
I TAKE BACK EVERY NEGATIVE THING I SAID ABOUT JOHN EDWARDS
His presence on the Democratic ticket is finally starting to pay dividends.
LETTING US IN ON THE SECRET?
Regarding John Kerry's secret plan to draw down American troops in Iraq, the AP has this report which seeks some clarification--as it were--on how the secret plan is to be achieved:
"I can't give you the details of any deal, obviously,'' Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Monday. "You don't negotiate a deal until you have a leader who is there to negotiate a deal.''Levin said he has talked to foreign leaders about potential changes in their Iraq policies after the U.S. election. "Nobody is going to say what the details of the deal are. They simply report to us that distrust of the administration is so intense that you can't take a risk'' and deploy troops to Iraq," he said.
"I'm not going to tell you which foreign leaders, because I'd be breaking the confidence of foreign leaders that I've met,'' said Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Last spring, Kerry said foreign leaders preferred him to Bush, though he also refused to identify any.
Levin wavered on the question of whether any foreign leader promised to get more involved in Iraq if Kerry wins. "It seems to be that's the basic implication,'' he said at first.
But has any leader made a commitment?
No, he replied.
"I'm not in position nor should I attempt to negotiate with a foreign government,'' Levin said.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., a top Kerry adviser, thinks Kerry could sway allies better than the president, said spokesman Norm Kurz. But that's only hypothetical - "I don't think there's a guarantee,'' he said.
Well, there you have it then.
UPDATE: Secret plans aside, Sebastian Holsclaw has some typically well-grounded thoughts on the issue of troop withdrawal. Key passage:
When your policy goals are in the 'bring the troops home' vein instead of a 'we need to change X in the Middle East' vein (or at least 'X in Iraq') you aren't taking the War on Terrorism seriously. Bringing the troops home will be a side effect of a successful long-term Middle East policy. It is a stupid goal in and of itself.
TERROR THREATS, INTELLIGENCE REPORTS AND POLITICS
More bloggers than I can count have latched onto this report--which indicates that the intelligence leading to the latest Homeland Security threat update--is three or four years old, and that as a result, it can plausibly be suspected that the Bush Administration is playing politics with terror threats. Jeff Goldstein has the roundup on the tinfoil hat brigade and their reactions on the issue.
Well, as usual, things are a bit more complicated than the X-Files fanatics would have you believe. Dan Drezner explains:
. . . However, both the Times account and this Chicago Tribune story make it clear that while most of the information was old, it was only in the past few weeks that it was obtained by U.S. intelligence. The Tribune report also states, "The senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that while much of the surveillance predated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, some information about one of the targeted buildings was from 2004."
So despite the fact that the intelligence was dated, it was still necessary for the Administration to share it with the public, and they couldn't do it earlier because the intelligence was not collected until just recently. I'm sure that these and other facts will not prevent people from arguing that the Administration is manipulating security threats for political advantage--we are in an election cycle after all. But as facts are stubborn things, I hope that they can overwhelm and outlast the stubbornness of those who wish to twist or deny the facts.
CARPETBAGGING WASN'T ACCEPTABLE IN THE NEW YORK RACE SENATE RACE IN 2000 . . .
And it is not exactly setting my heart afire in 2004:
Barack Obama might get a race, after all.Former GOP presidential candidate Alan Keyes told Illinois Republicans Monday that he is ''open to the idea'' of taking on the Democrat in the U.S. Senate race -- a move that would pit two eloquent, nationally known African Americans against one another.
''It would be a classic race of conservative vs. liberal,'' said state Sen. Dave Syverson, a member of the panel looking for a candidate to go up against Obama. ''It would put this race on the map in this country -- just for excitement.''
Syverson spoke to Keyes several times Monday and said Keyes did not commit to making the run. The former State Department official and radio and television personality was unable to fly from his home in Maryland to Chicago for a meeting the Republican State Central Committee is holding today to interview potential candidates.
''But he certainly has an interest, and he said if the group is interested in meeting with him and speaking with him about his views that he would be happy to come out and meet [later]," said Syverson, a Rockford member of the committee.
''He said that he was open to the idea. And he felt that Obama didn't really represent the views of the people of Illinois. So I think he was really just in the exploration stage."
This is ridiculous. Keyes ran for the Senate in Maryland--his home state--twice, and lost each time. Now, with this desperate attempt to transplant him to Illinois, the state GOP will only dig itself into an even bigger hole with voters. I like Alan Keyes just fine, but to think that we can just turn him into an Illinoisian for the purposes of one Senate race 90 days away is just insulting.
FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH . . .
Here is the latest on what we are hearing from an al Qaeda operative in the custody of British intelligence:
More financial institutions than previously disclosed may be at risk of attack, and an al-Qaida operative has told British intelligence that the group's target date is early September, intelligence sources said yesterday.The operative, described as "credible" by British intelligence, told his debriefers that the attack would take place "60 days before the presidential election" on Nov. 2, according to a former senior National Security Council official. On Sept. 2 President George W. Bush is expected to address the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden.
Counterterrorism officials are analyzing data from a computer seized in Pakistan last month to see if financial institutions in addition to the five disclosed Sunday are at risk of attack, U.S. officials said yesterday.
The former senior National Security Council official said he was told by British intelligence that they are interrogating an al-Qaida operative who confirmed that financial institutions are being targeted and that an attack was planned for September.
And a U.S. official familiar with the ongoing analysis of the computer said, "There are references to other things [buildings]" in the al-Qaida computer's data, including a picture of the Bank of America building in San Francisco. "There is mention of other places."
August 02, 2004
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer.
--IBM Maintenance Manual (1925)
HOW EUROPEANS REACTED TO JOHN KERRY'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH
This New York Times article discusses the European reaction to John Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. The following passage is quite instructive:
Noting the line in Mr. Kerry's speech about not needing a green light from abroad before taking actions to defend its interests, Mr. Vaďsse said: "In France, they don't have overblown expectations. Kerry would be like the second Clinton administration, not as arrogant and unilateral as Bush, but it would be no multilateral paradise either."Berliner Zeitung took a stronger view, saying in an editorial on Saturday that there was little in Mr. Kerry's speech to please Europeans.
"Europeans are surprised to hear that John Kerry is talking about America the same way as George W. Bush does," the paper said. "They are amazed that at the Democratic Convention in Boston, he saluted like a soldier, one hand up at his temple. They would prefer not to hear it when Kerry promises that he would never hesitate to use force in case America is under threat. They are disappointed."
(Emphasis mine.) Remember, that these European countries are classified as "allies" and that the Kerry campaign repeatedly seeks to apologize for the Bush Administration's supposedly shabby treatment of these allies. And yet, a Kerry Administration would offend these allies by merely "us[ing] force in case America is under threat."
To be fair to Kerry, he did not even say that much. Instead, he said that "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." (Emphasis mine.) This would appear to mean that it is not enough that America is under threat--there actually has to be an attack before military force is used. As such, it might perhaps be said that Kerry's position is closer to the Europeans than they realize. Perhaps someone should tell them before they get too colicky.
But the fact remains that the Europeans are interested in placing as many limits as possible on the exercise of American power. It is highly doubtful that most Americans would be content to wait for an attack before using force, and that the use of force would be acceptable to Americans even before an attack takes place, if America is indeed "under threat." For the Europeans, however, the thought of the United States taking action if "under threat" is a frightening specter--one that smacks of the hegemonic exercise of power Europeans are unhappy with if they cannot be the hegemons.
There has been much debate over the past few years regarding the proper creation and use of alliances. Democrats are fond of saying that we must consult with our traditional allies before taking on a particular action. The Bush Administration and Republicans respond by saying that we determine a particular mission and then create the coalition that supports that mission. This may mean shifting coalitions for different missions, but that's better than having the mission hamstrung by a prearranged and static set of allies whose interests may differ with those of the United States, and who may therefore either alter a particular mission, or cause it to be stillborn.
It would seem that the belief that America should not use military force when "under threat"--along with the rather astonishing aversion to a Presidential candidate "salut[ing] like a soldier, one hand up at his temple"--helps vindicate the Bush Administration's conception of alliance-formation. Under that conception, the Administration may make common cause with other allies regarding other issues, while at the same time working to create alliance partnerships with countries that believe that a nation-state has the right to use military force when it is "under threat." Under the Kerry approach, a rigid loyalty to allies who can't stand even the barest hint of preemption would likely make an American administration more averse to any kind of preemption because that would threaten said administration's concept of alliance structures.
If you are diametrically opposed to the Berliner Zeitung's view of the proper exercise of American power, your choice in this election is a clear one. If you are uncomfortable with the Berliner Zeitung's view of the proper exercise of American power, but still plan on voting for John Kerry, ask yourself what Kerry can do--or has proposed to do--to enhance our supposedly tattered alliances while at the same time, not embracing the Berliner Zeitung view of how American power should be wielded.
If you cannot answer that question to your own satisfaction, then again, your choice in this election is a clear one.
CALLING ALL LEGAL NERDS . . .
Judge Frank Easterbrook has given an interview to Howard Bashman. As expected, it is very interesting reading.
BE VEWWY, VEWWY QUIET . . .
John Kerry has a secret plan to bring troops home from Iraq:
John F. Kerry pledged Sunday he would substantially reduce U.S. troop strength in Iraq by the end of his first term in office but declined to offer any details of what he said is his plan to attract significantly more allied military and financial support there.In interviews on television talk shows, the Democratic presidential nominee said that he saw no reason to send more troops to Iraq and that he would seek allied support to draw down U.S. forces there. "I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," he said on ABC's "This Week."
Kerry accused President Bush of misleading the country before the war in Iraq, burning bridges with U.S. allies and having no plan to win peace. But when questioned about saying Thursday in his acceptance speech, "I know what we have to do in Iraq," he would not tip his hand.
"I've been involved in this for a long time, longer than George Bush," he said. "I've spent 20 years negotiating, working, fighting for different kinds of treaties and different relationships around the world. I know that as president there's huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I'm not going to play them in public. I'm not going to play them before I'm president."
Reminded that he sounded like Richard M. Nixon, who campaigned in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, Kerry responded: "I don't care what it sounds like. The fact is that I'm not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power."
Well, of course, no one asks that Kerry "negotiate in public." What is requested is an explanation to the American public--which last I heard, still has a vote to cast in the Presidential election--on how Kerry will supposedly achieve his goal of withdrawing from Iraq. That Kerry cannot spell out the specifics of his plans should speak volumes--even if Kerry himself refuses to.
REMARKABLE
The following exchange in an interview with Kerry foreign policy advisor James Rubin leaves me utterly gobsmacked:
One of the findings of the 9/11 Commission concerns Iran and its alleged support for Al Qaeda. U.S.-Iranian policy has been in the deep freeze for 25 years. How is that going to change with Kerry?John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration's. One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control. That will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators. Secondly, he has laid out, I think in the most comprehensive way in modern memory, a program to secure nuclear materials around the world—particularly in the former Soviet Union but also in the places where research reactors have existed that could be susceptible to proliferation. The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it." Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.
(Emphasis in italics mine.) Would someone care to explain to me how this is in any way, shape or form a good idea?
AS I FEARED . . .
Instead of strengthening the current intelligence system, the Bush Administration has decided to embrace the worst recommendation from the 9/11 Commission, and simply increase the bureaucracy:
President Bush on Monday will endorse the creation of a national intelligence director and broadly back other intelligence reforms recommended by the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the White House said.But Bush would not locate the national intelligence director within the executive office of the presidency, as the commission had recommended, administration officials said. There have been bipartisan fears that putting the director in the White House could politicize the job.
Bush will also propose establishment of a national counter-terrorism center, and take temporary actions to enhance the authority of Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin pending creation of the national intelligence director, administration officials said.
I see no reason why the enhancement of the DCI's abilities is not sufficient. And I don't understand why the first resort of Washington must be to create a "czar" for just about every problem and simply create bureaucratic overlaps in the process.
OH DEAR . . .
I'm rather worried that the results of this study will be abused:
It is news guaranteed to raise a cheer among those who enjoy a glass or two: drinking half a bottle of wine a day can make your brain work better, especially if you are a woman.The benefits of alcohol, which are thought to be linked to its effect on the flow of blood to the brain, can be detected when a person drinks up to 30 units of alcohol - about four to five bottles of wine - per week.
The researchers were unable to test the effect of higher levels of alcohol consumption, although drunkenness probably negates any positive effects on the brain.
I don't know what to think of this. Maybe a drink would help . . .
DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY . . .
Robert Kagan takes John Kerry's acceptance speech before the Democratic National Convention and tears it into shreds:
Someday, when the passions of this election have subsided, historians and analysts of American foreign policy may fasten on a remarkable passage in John Kerry's nomination speech. "As president," Kerry declared, "I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation." The statement received thunderous applause at the convention and, no doubt, the nodding approval of many Americans of all political leanings who watched on television.Only American diplomatic historians may have contemplated suicide as they reflected on their failure to have the smallest influence on Americans' understanding of their own nation's history. And perhaps foreign audiences tuning in may have paused in their exultation over a possible Kerry victory in November to reflect with wonder on the incurable self-righteousness and nationalist innocence the Democratic candidate displayed. Who but an American politician, they might ask, could look back across the past 200 years and insist that the United States had never gone to war except when it "had to"?
The United States has sent forces into combat dozens of times over the past century and a half, and only twice, in World War II and in Afghanistan, has it arguably done so because it "had to." It certainly did not "have to" go to war against Spain in 1898 (or Mexico in 1846.) It did not "have to" send the Marines to Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Nicaragua in the first three decades of the 20th century, nor fight a lengthy war against insurgents in the Philippines. The necessity of Woodrow Wilson's intervention in World War I remains a hot topic for debate among historians.
And what about the war Kerry himself fought in? Kerry cannot believe the Vietnam War was part of his alleged "time-honored tradition," or he would not have thrown his ribbons away. But America's other Cold War interventions in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are also problematic. Most opponents of the Vietnam War, like Kerry, believed it was symptomatic of a larger failure of U.S. foreign policy stemming from what Jimmy Carter memorably called Americans' "inordinate fear of communism." The other Cold War interventions were premised on the same "misguided" anti-communism and the concomitant democratic idealism, that pulled Kerry's hero, John F. Kennedy, into Vietnam. The United States, by this reckoning, did not "have to" go to war in Korea in 1950. Nor could a post-Vietnam Kerry have considered Lyndon Johnson's 1965 intervention in the Dominican Republic necessary. Or has Kerry now retroactively accepted the Cold War justification for these interventions that he once rejected?
Then there were the wars of the post-Cold War 1990s. The United States did not "have to" go to war to drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. No one knows that better than Kerry, who voted against the Persian Gulf War, despite its unanimous approval by the U.N. Security Council. Nor could anyone plausibly deny that the Clinton administration's interventions in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo were wars of choice. President Bill Clinton made the right choice in all three cases, but it was a choice.
Why is Kerry invoking an American "tradition" that does not exist?
[. . .]
The doctrine Kerry enunciated on Thursday night, after all, was the doctrine initially favored by the antiwar movement and the mainstream of the Democratic Party after the debacle of Vietnam. "Come home, America" was the cry of those who believed America had corrupted both the world and itself in "wars of choice" in Vietnam and elsewhere.
Advocates of this doctrine did not propose a "return" to some mythical American past. Rather, they proposed a radical departure onto a very different course in American foreign policy. Their goal was a retraction of American power and influence from around the globe. Nor did they have any doubt that their view of America was patriotic. They would cleanse America of its sins.
Would it really be surprising if John Kerry, whose life and thought were so powerfully shaped by his Vietnam experience, now returned to the view of American foreign policy which that experience led him to three decades ago? There seems to be a conspiracy on both sides in this campaign not to take Kerry seriously as a man of ideas and conviction. But the fact that he has waffled so visibly on Iraq may be the best proof of his commitment to the beliefs about American foreign policy he came to hold in the 1970s.
Maybe Kerry's real act of cynicism was his vote for the Iraq war in the fall of 2002. With that vote, he ignored everything he believed he had learned from his Vietnam experience. In retrospect, he may feel that he sold his soul to make himself electable. In the months since the war, Kerry has had to pretend he did the right thing, not only because a politician dare not admit error but because his political advisers believe that in a post-Sept. 11 world most of the electorate does not want an "antiwar" president. Throughout the long months of the campaign, Kerry disciplined himself to sound like a hawk. But in his heart, based on all he learned during the formative years of his life, Kerry is not a hawk. At the Democratic National Convention, John Edwards followed the script. Kerry followed his heart.
The ironies abound. Three decades ago, Kerry came out in opposition to the war he had fought in Vietnam. Today, Kerry extols that service so that he may safely, patriotically distance himself from the war in Iraq that he had supported.
THE "HEADS I WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE" ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTINUES
Make no mistake: If there is a terrorist attack on American soil in the months running up to Election Day, there will be blame that falls on the shoulders of the Bush Administration. But if the Bush Administration warns about a terror threat, it is accused of playing politics:
"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," Howard Dean, a former rival of Mr. Kerry for the Democratic nomination, told Wolf Blitzer on CNN on Sunday."His whole campaign is based on the notion that 'I can keep you safe, therefore at times of difficulty for America stick with me,' and then out comes Tom Ridge," Mr. Dean, the former Vermont governor, added, referring to the homeland security secretary. "It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in it."
White House officials denied that suggestion, and other Democrats and Mr. Kerry's advisers would not embrace it. "I certainly hope not," Steve Elmendorf, Mr. Kerry's deputy campaign manager, said. "You have to take them at their word."
Remember one thing as you go to vote in this election: You won't just be electing a President. You will be electing the people who will have that President's ear for the next four years. If the thought of having the likes of Howard Dean serve as consigliere to the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is more than a little worrisome, then your choice in this election should be a clear one.
WHITHER GOES THE GOPHER STATE?
As discussed previously here and on other blogs, Minnesota is shedding its longtime image as a Democratic bastion, and is now in play for the Bush campaign. To that end, this announcement can only help Republican efforts in the state:
St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly broke Democratic Party ranks on Sunday to announce his support for President Bush's re-election."George Bush and I do not agree on a lot of issues," Kelly said in a statement. "But in turbulent times, what the American people need more than anything is continuity of government, even with some imperfect policies."
Kelly, who said he's remaining a Democrat, said the economy is going in the right direction. "There's no reason to believe a change of course will produce better or quicker results," he said.
And the mayor said the United States will bring the troops home from Iraq a lot sooner if "we don't try to bring in a whole new leadership team to run the show. We must stay the course."
Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who co-chairs the Bush-Cheney campaign in Minnesota, praised Kelly. "His bold decision is courageous and a welcome move toward working across party lines," Pawlenty said in a statement.
U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, the Bush-Cheney campaign's other co-chair in Minnesota, called Kelly's announcement "bipartisanship at its finest."
"Mayor Kelly recognizes that jobs are being created and that tax cuts have stimulated that job growth. He has done the same for St. Paul," said Coleman, Kelly's predecessor as mayor of Minnesota's capital city.
Obviously, the Democrats will now seek to ostracize Kelly for his apostasy. But his switch may very well be emblematic of how competitive Republicans have gotten in Minnesota.
August 01, 2004
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
The real question of government versus private enterprise is argued on too philosophical and abstract a basis. Theoretically, planning may be good. But nobody has ever figured out the cause of government stupidity and until they do (and find the cure) all ideal plans will fall into quicksand.
--Richard Feynman
OF WARS AND PRIORITIES
I'm still something of a strong anti-drug warrior, and I'm not quite sure where I stand on the issue of legalizing marijuana since I get conflicting information regarding its addictive properties and effects. But I do know that the war on terrorism is certainly more of a priority than the war on drugs--especially given the fact that the latter war is being so badly fought, as even many of its advocates will admit.
John Kerry's inner circle--and perhaps my extension, John Kerry--does not share my priorities. Asparagirl has the details.
LOVE ME . . . LEAVE ME . . . LOVE ME AGAIN
Fresh off their disastrous decision to embrace yet more tariffs, the Bush Administration throws a big bone to ardent free-traders like me with the resumption of the Doha rounds aimed at securing a liberalizing free trade agreement. I am--needless to say--delighted with the news.
What is less delightful is the continued prehistoric thinking--provided courtesy of the Kerry-Edwards campaign--regarding the issue of free trade and outsourcing. Robert Tagorda has the details.
SMARTER JOSH MARSHALL
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if from time to time, Josh Marshall wakes up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat after a nightmare in which Tom Maguire fact checks him into the prisons of Azkaban.
ONE BIG HAPPY FAMILY?
Well, not really:
Masked gunmen loyal to Yasser Arafat broke up a conference of reformers from his Fatah movement who were calling for a "revolution," as the veteran Palestinian leader faced new, sharp divisions among his people.The incident in the West Bank city of Nablus was just the latest in weeks of internal Palestinian unrest. The unrest centers on charges of widespread corruption in Arafat's administration, and beneath the surface, frustration with lack of progress toward creation of a Palestinian state or economic development after four years of bloody conflict with Israel.
Less than a week after Arafat ended a crisis in the Palestinian Cabinet, he was again under pressure for changes from among his own supporters, although there was no suggestion Arafat himself should go.
About 20 men, all armed and many wearing ski masks, burst into a conference of more than 70 Fatah officials, firing over the heads of the presiding officials and claiming that the conference was an anti-Arafat conspiracy.
The weeklong meeting was meant to discuss reform and new elections for the Fatah leadership, which were last held 15 years ago.
No one was injured by the gunfire, but the meeting broke up. Several delegates met with the gunmen to discuss whether the conference could continue.
The gunmen identified themselves as members of the Al Awda Brigades, a small militant group.
In a letter released later to reporters, the Fatah leaders warned Arafat that corrupt officials "are using their position in the Palestinian Authority to steal and to break the law," and that the Palestinian government was losing the public's trust.
"President Arafat, this might be the last chance for reforming our situation, before reaching the end. We need a revolution within our Fatah movement," said the letter.
There once was a man who said the following about Yasser Arafat:
. . . Most of the governments that we most strongly support are brutal, vicious dictatorships. No elections, with much autocratic rule. There has been one elected leader in the Middle East, one, who was elected in a reasonably fair, supervised election...namely Yassir Arafat. So how do the great "democrats" like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld treat him? Lock him up in a compound so that he can be battered by U.S.-provided arms to their local client under military occupation. They force him out...they declare his administration irrelevant while they force in somebody who they think will be more pliable.
The above story kind of puts the lie to the canard that Arafat is a democrat, now doesn't it?
THE "HARD WORK" IS STILL WITH US
Remember when Andrew Sullivan said that "much of the hard work has now been done" regarding the war on terror? Well, this report tells us that sadly, that's just not the case:
ABC News has learned that federal and New York City officials have received credible intelligence that al Qaeda has been plotting to carry out suicide attacks on corporations based in the city. Sources at several law enforcement agencies tell ABC News that an "overseas source" has provided the information about the threat to New York and that it is more significant than the usual "chatter" intercepted from likely terrorists that has prompted warnings in the past.Officials from dozens of local and federal agencies met into the night Friday and again this morning.
"Intelligence reporting indicates that al Qaeda continues to target for attack commercial and financial institutions, as well as international organizations, inside the United States," the New York City Police Department said in a statement released today on the "ongoing al Qaeda threat."
"The NYPD recommends that corporate and institutional security directors review their protection of HVAC systems, parking installations, and security in general," the statement added. "The alert level for New York City remains unchanged at 'orange' or 'high.'"
SO MUCH FOR "HELP IS ON THE WAY"
Those who believed that a Kerry Presidency would somehow spell relief for American troops in Iraq have to be worried after reading this story:
Democratic White House challenger John Kerry said on Sunday he did not anticipate sending more American troops to Iraq and promised a fresh start with U.S. allies "burned" by President Bush.Despite some clamor among Democrats for an accelerated U.S. military withdrawal, Kerry said Washington must stay the course but asserted he could do a better job of convincing foreign leaders to help with security and reconstruction in Iraq.
The Massachusetts senator, who voted for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use force to oust Saddam Hussein, said Bush misled Americans.
"Everybody knows that just saying that there are weapons of mass destruction didn't make it so," he said on the CBS program "Face the Nation."
"Just saying you could fight a war on the cheap didn't make it so. Ignoring the advice of generals as to how many troops we needed didn't make our troops safer who were there."
Kerry criticized Bush's Iraq policy in his speech on Thursday accepting the Democratic nomination as the president's opponent in the Nov. 2 election, but beyond holding out the prospect of greater international participation, he did not offer the exit strategy many Americans are looking for.
He rejected the suggestion that his plans were vague. "No, not at all," Kerry said.
Famous last words. In any event, given that the French blocked any attempt to get NATO into Afghanistan and oppose any effort to get NATO forces into Iraq, it would seem that Kerry would not be able to get foreign troop support from NATO. The French simply do not see it to be in their interest to be of assistance regarding this issue. Kerry gives no indication that he has any kind of plan to overcome the forces of realpolitik and machtpolitik, so it is unlikely that a change of administrations will be able to alter the obstinance of the French--and would make it more difficult to get troops from other countries as well. And even if troops were to be gotten from elsewhere, wouldn't it open up a Kerry Administration to the same critique that Kerry has leveled against the Bush Administration--that he is only able to get help from minor countries ("the coalition of the bribed and coerced" in Kerry's words), and that he was unable to get our major allies on board?
So to recap, we won't get help from other countries in a Kerry Administration, and Kerry himself will do nothing to add to the number of American troops in Iraq--despite the fact that he has run in part on the claim that the Bush Administration did not send enough troops to Iraq to secure the peace.
If I didn't know better, I would say that Kerry's position constitutes flip-flopping. Or rank hypocrisy. Or insincerity. Or an inability to plan and explain the plan in detail to an American electorate hungry for details. Or . . .
LEAD BALLOON
In addition to the reports from the Iowa Electronics Market, more conventional polls are showing that John Kerry and the Democrats did not get the kind of bounce they wanted from the Democratic National Convention:
The Democratic National Convention boosted voters' perceptions of John Kerry's leadership on critical issues, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. But it failed to give him the expected bump in the head-to-head race against President Bush.In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and John Edwards trailed the Republican ticket of Bush and Dick Cheney 50% to 46% among likely voters, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2%.
Before the convention, the two were essentially tied, with Kerry at 47%, Bush at 46%.
The change in support was within the poll's margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points in the sample of 763 likely voters. But it was nonetheless a stunning result, the first time in the Gallup Poll since the 1972 Democratic convention that a candidate seemed to lose ground at his convention.
I'm not even remotely prepared to call this election or venture a prediction. But this ticket is in trouble, and now, it has to hope that external events help it catch up. That entails a strategy based at least in part on hoping for salvation from afar, and if I am running a Presidential campaign, the last thing I want to do is to place my hopes in events beyond my control.
July 31, 2004
OPEN THREAD ON THE CUBS AND NOMAR GARCIAPARRA
Does the trade help or hurt the Cubs--regardless of how sorry we Cubs fans may be at seeing Alex Gonzalez leave the organization? I hear that Nomar doesn't really have a lot of enthusiasm for the game, and is bad for locker room morale, but then I read articles like this one that say that Nomar is a spectacular talent. What should I believe?
The comments are yours. Fire away.
