David Schneider-Joseph Archives

Archives: September 2004

Deprecated: Function eregi() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/weblog.fns.php on line 597

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function eregi() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/weblog.fns.php on line 1040

Thu Sep 30, 2004

When George Meets John

Via VodkaPundit, a good analysis of the candidates' debating abilities.

9/30/2004 8:07 pm | Comments (0) | #

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/pmcode.fns.php on line 346

Deprecated: Function eregi() is deprecated in /home/machcu/public_html/mrr/lib/weblog.fns.php on line 1040

A Case for Kerry

As anyone who reads this blog knows, my plan is to vote for Bush. But Michael Totten (via InstaPundit) has laid out a very interesting argument in favor of Kerry, eloquently articulating a thread of thought that has lurked in the back of my own mind for a while, which I hadn't figured out how to resolve.

It goes like this: Michael Totten, first of all, recognizes that the "Bush Doctrine" is the right one necessary to win World War IV, the war against Islamofascism; that the policy of preemption which got us to Iraq is precisely the policy we need to continue during the next four years. He also recognizes that Kerry has been anything but a firm supporter of the Bush Doctrine:

The hawkish case against John Kerry is that his strategy -- such as it is -- is reactive. He promises to respond to any attack. I have no doubt he will. He isn't a pacifist.

The trouble is that, unlike President Bush, he doesn't have a pro-active strategy. Bush's push for democracy in the Middle East may or may not address the problem of terrorism constructively, but at least he's going after root causes and is willing to pre-empt a threat.

But being in a position of responsibility does strange things to someone, as I remarked in May. It's easy to criticize from the sidelines (Totten notes that the Republicans attacked Clinton during the bombing of Kosovo in the same hysterical and irrational way that Democrats now attack Bush). It's much more difficult to follow through on those criticisms when you're actually in a position to seriously effect U.S. policy. Totten says:

John Kerry is not interested in pre-emption now. But he is not in office. He is not responsible for the defense of the country today. He does not receive the same intelligence briefings as Bush, nor does he have advisors who suggest actual courses of action. He has campaign advisors, and they are completely different animals.

Norman Podhoretz writes that, in the last World War (the Cold War), the new doctrine of containment was just as vigorously challenged by Eisenhower, only to be ultimately adopted by him:

[E]nough bitter opposition remained within and around the Republican party to leave it uncertain as to whether containment was an American policy or only the policy of the Democrats. This uncertainty was exacerbated by the presidential election of 1952, when the Republicans behind Dwight D. Eisenhower ran against Truman’s hand-picked successor Adlai Stevenson in a campaign featuring strident attacks on the Truman Doctrine by Eisenhower’s running mate Richard Nixon and his future Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Nixon, for example, mocked Stevenson as a graduate of the "Cowardly College of Communist Containment" run by Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson, while Dulles repeatedly called for ditching containment in favor of a policy of "rollback" and "liberation." And both Nixon and Dulles strongly signaled their endorsement of General Douglas MacArthur’s insistence that Truman was wrong to settle for holding the line in Korea instead of going all the way—or, as MacArthur had famously put it, "There is no substitute for victory."

Yet when Eisenhower came into office, he hardly touched a hair on the head of the Truman Doctrine. Far from adopting a bolder and more aggressive strategy, the new President ended the Korean war on the basis of the status quo ante—in other words, precisely on the terms of containment. Even more telling was Eisenhower’s refusal three years later to intervene when the Hungarians, apparently encouraged by the rhetoric of liberation still being employed in the broadcasts of Radio Free Europe, rose up in revolt against their Soviet masters. For better or worse, this finally dispelled any lingering doubt as to whether containment was the policy just of the Democratic party. With full bipartisan support behind it, the Truman Doctrine had become the official policy of the United States of America.

OK, so John Kerry might ultimately continue the Bush Doctrine (though maybe not with the same conviction or understanding), but why would we take a risk on what he might do, when we know that Bush will do the right thing? In other words, what's the upside potential to voting for John Kerry?

No one can deny that the invasion of Iraq has cost Bush a tremendous amount of political capital. Incredibly divisive to begin with, it's even more so since WMD stockpiles were ultimately not found in Iraq (not Bush's fault, but his opponents act like it is).

A basic rule in warfare is divide and conquer. The corollary of that is don't let your enemy divide you. If there's one thing that's true about America, it's that when it has the will to do something, it will do it, plain and simple. When its citizens strongly believe in the value of an objective, that objective will be achieved. But right now we're divided. And not only internally. We're divided diplomatically from several other influential Western democracies.

"Only Nixon could go to China," and "only Kerry can confirm that Vietnam was a just war," as he implicitly did in his acceptance speech at the DNC. By extension (says Totten):

Democrats will justifiably scoff if Bush wants to wage another pre-emptive war. But they won't scoff if John Kerry does. They will sit up and take notice, and so will some people in Europe. Kerry can change the minds of skeptics. Bush can't.

In other words, only Kerry can go to Iran.

Thus, the strongest argument for Kerry is that he alone has the ability to divide the political forces which oppose the Bush Doctrine, because they cannot unite as strongly together if the man carrying the torch of that doctrine is a Democrat:

Journalists at prestigious and influential left-leaning media outlets like NPR and the New York Times will feel a bit less temptation to put a morale-sapping doom-and-gloom spin on our progress made in the Terror War. "Their guy," after all, will be the one waging it.

And ultimately, that is what it is important. I am not so concerned about the help of our French "allies" (not that Kerry is respecting our real allies, e.g. Allawi of Iraq and Howard of Australia). Watching Dominique de Villepin on Charlie Rose, I am convinced that they are so far removed from any sense of responsibility that they will never be united with us in this war. But Americans can, and should, be united in our objectives. Perhaps Kerry can unite us, precisely by his failure to achieve what he claims Bush failed to try:

Anti-Americanism will be a feature of the world's political landscape until our military power is matched. John Kerry might be able to finesse this problem a bit, but there is no way he can fix it. And when it's shown he can't fix it, liberals will take the upsurge in anti-Americanism personally. George W. Bush will no longer be there to act as a blame-magnet.

The brief period of national unity after the attack on September 11 came from the understanding that we're hated, we're under attack, and we're in this together. President Bush will never bring us back to that place unless Al Qaeda hits us again. John Kerry might be able to do so if and when his trans-Atlantic unity project fails.

Of course, this is all irrelevant if Kerry does not ultimately adopt the Bush Doctrine. But:

[W]hich will be harder? Changing the mind of one? Or changing the minds of millions?

It's a compelling case. The strongest I've ever read.

For nearly a year now, I've had a post brewing in my head for November 3^rd, should John Kerry be elected. My plan is to make a pledge to give his policies a chance and the benefit of the doubt. To act as if I want him to succeed, and as if I believe he will succeed. And, also, to refrain from the vitriol which has so terribly emanated from the left these past years.

It might work. If forced, I'll go along and give it a try.

But I'm not voting for John Kerry.

To me, this whole argument is predicated on psychological theories about "ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances". In other words, John Kerry's an ordinary man now, but when he becomes president, he'll be forced to make the responsible choices that any intelligent person would make in his shoes — the choices Bush is making now.

The problem is we can't judge people by how our psychological theories say they'll act. We have to judge people, as much as we can, by how they have acted, including what they have said. If someone pleads guilty to murder, you put that person in jail, plain and simple. You can try to sympathize with and rationalize that guilty plea all you want, but the fact of the matter is: he plead guilty. If he didn't really commit the crime, and he was just trying to get a lighter sentence, you can't be expected to know that. Above all, you have to be able to depend on someone's own words as a reliable indicator of what they have done and what they will do.

Similarly, if someone is pointing a gun at you, and threatening to shoot you, you defend yourself. If that person wasn't really going to kill you, well, that's just too bad. We have to hold people responsible for the things they say and the impressions they deliberately give.

Now, John Kerry is not a criminal, but I made the analogy simply to illustrate the fact that a politician is equally responsible for at least making the right promises (following through is another matter entirely, but Bush has a record: he invented the Bush Doctrine). Kerry has clearly promised to not follow the Bush Doctrine. Is it possible he will break that promise? Yes. But I will not vote for someone on the hope that he will break his own promise.

This pro-Kerry argument is also based on the assumption that a Kerry presidency would serve as a unifying political force for Americans. But if you're talking about domestic political effects, don't underestimate the inherent political force this election has as, essentially, a referendum on the Bush Doctrine. We have the ability, in November, to recharge the political capital that Bush has spent. Alternatively, we have the ability make a declaration that we do not accept his policy of preemption. If we make such a clear statement, how can Kerry conceivably ignore it?

9/30/2004 2:56 am | Comments (9) | #

Wed Sep 29, 2004

Blogging's Place

Some pretty interesting commentary on blogging's place in our public discourse (via VodkaPundit).

9/29/2004 12:48 am | Comments (0) | #

Fri Sep 24, 2004

Study finds dogs can smell cancer

Pretty incredible:

[The results of a study] showed that when urine from bladder cancer patients was set out among samples from healthy people or those with other diseases, the dogs -- ordinary pets -- were able to identify the cancer urine almost three times more often than would be expected by chance alone.

...

Perhaps the most intriguing finding, though, was in a comparison patient whose urine was used during the training phase.

All the dogs unequivocally identified that urine as a cancer case, even though screening tests before the experiment had shown no cancer.

Doctors conducted more detailed tests on the patient and found a life-threatening tumor in the right kidney.

9/24/2004 4:12 am | Comments (1) | #

Wed Sep 22, 2004

A funny joke

This, via Pej, is funny.

9/22/2004 8:13 am | Comments (0) | #

Virtual Memory

Here's a bible game show Mac users will find hilarious (via As the Apple Turns).

9/22/2004 5:34 am | Comments (0) | #

Tue Sep 21, 2004

How to steal an election

Some cause for concern (via VodkaPundit).

9/21/2004 8:58 am | Comments (0) | #

Israel's unexpected victory over terrorism

Good post via Curiosity.

9/21/2004 4:27 am | Comments (0) | #

Mon Sep 20, 2004

Jack & Bobby Review

I watched the first two episodes of Jack & Bobby, a new WB show about two brothers in present-day 2004, one of which will grow up to become president of the United States. The premise is pretty interesting and promising, and the pilot episode wasn't bad (though I had some gripes with it). But I thought the second episode was really good.

It may surprise some, but I was pleased when they showed Grace (their mom) chairing a college Democrats meeting, with everyone sporting Kerry/Edwards paraphernalia. To me, it was a foregone conclusion that a Hollywood-created political protagonist would be a Democrat, so I was glad that they were actually willing to give the characters substance and relevance (hey, it does take place in 2004). This stands in contrast to the remake of The Manchurian Candidate, which, though clearly hinting at the political parties of its characters, never actually went out and said it. Was still a good movie, however.

In any event, it turned out that despite the political persuasion of Grace's mom, Jack & Bobby did not present an unfair caricature of Republicans, and in fact even poked a little fun at the traditional anti-Republican bias in Hollywood. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but I was very pleasantly surprised that after the college Democrats metting, it is revealed that some of the main characters turned out to be "axe murderers [Republicans] coming out of the closet", and there was reasonable and meaningful depiction of political, educational, and familial issues in this episode.

I'm hoping this series keeps up its promise, and doesn't degrade into another Dawson's Creek, as Roswell did. I recommend you try to catch reruns of the first two episodes, and watch the third episode next Sunday at 9 pm.

9/20/2004 12:35 am | Comments (0) | #

Wed Sep 15, 2004

Saddam's taxes

A clever point by The World on how WMD possession was the main legal focus of the U.S., similar to how tax evasion was the crime for which Al Capone was busted.

9/15/2004 2:24 am | Comments (0) | #

Tue Sep 14, 2004

So let me get this straight

CBS says that some old typewriters didn't have the numeral "1", that you had to use a lowercase "L", and that in fact some of the memos had lowercase "L"'s in place of "1"'s, therefore proving that it was a typewriter that created them.

So let me get this straight.

The typewriter had a ^th key, but no 1?

::bangs head against wall::

9/14/2004 4:01 am | Comments (1) | #

Mon Sep 13, 2004

Maybe I'm just a sucker...

...but I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Dan Rather.

9/13/2004 11:22 pm | Comments (0) | #

Favorite Blogs

I have updated my list of favorite blogs at right. Gone are Andrew Sullivan (who I still read occasionally but seems to have gotten a defeatist attitude and his priorities mixed up), and Steven Den Beste (who has gone on a long-term hiatus).

New are:

As the Apple Turns — Apple/Mac news and rumors, formatted as a soap opera.
Geek Patrol — Mac and techie news, but only the good stuff.
Pejmanesque — Interesting political commentary from a Jewish Iranian American.

As the Apple Turns may want to update their disclaimer though. Wouldn't want to insult Dawson's Creek:

DISCLAIMER: AtAT is not a news site any more than "Inside Edition" is a "real" news show. We make "Dawson's Creek" look like "60 Minutes." We engage in rampant guesswork, wild speculation, and pure fabrication for the entertainment of our viewers. Sure, everything here is "inspired by actual events," but so was "Amityville II: The Possession." So lighten up...

9/13/2004 12:22 am | Comments (0) | #

Sun Sep 12, 2004

Just found this

Just found this picture of Dan Rather.

Seemed appropriate.

9/12/2004 6:19 pm | Comments (0) | #

Alaskan Earthquakes / North Korean Nukes

The American Mind links to seismographic data in Alaska on September 9th which might corroborate the North Korean nuclear test theory. The recordings were at 08:15 Alaskan time, or 16:15 GMT.

But this page lists three Alaskan earthquakes from 16:08 through 16:24 GMT. So they might have just been earthquakes after all.

UPDATE 4:16 AM: Via this page, look at the difference between a nuclear blast and an earthquake. Notice that with a nuke, the seismogram maxes out immediatley, then gradually fades, whereas with an earthquake there's a gradual buildup:

Now go back to the Alaskan seismograms. Definitely earthquakes.

UPDATE 4:35 AM: For the record, I'm guessing it probably was a nuclear test, even though the information I mentioned earlier seems to contradict that. After-all, there was a large mushroom cloud which left a crater visible from space. Plus there's the fact that we were already anticipating a North Korean nuclear test to happen shortly:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 - President Bush and his top advisers have received intelligence reports in recent days describing a confusing series of actions by North Korea that some experts believe could indicate the country is preparing to conduct its first test explosion of a nuclear weapon, according to senior officials with access to the intelligence.

UPDATE 4:47 AM: On second thought, you'd pick up a nuclear test anywhere in the world, with a seismograph, and it's clearly not on the Alaskan seismographs. So what's the explanation for the gigantic mushroom cloud and crater? I really don't know.

9/12/2004 3:30 am | Comments (12) | #

Sat Sep 11, 2004

Line Squishing

The Shape of Days did a great job, with the help of an expert on the IBM Selectric Composer, of analyzing the questionable 60 Minutes documents now all over the Blogosphere.

With tremendous effort, he was able to reproduce very closely one of the documents except for the line widths. For some reason, the first line of each paragraph matched closely, but the second line did not:

Well, one explanation is that, as remarked here, word processors will automatically adjust the character spacing of lines: if they are the last line of a paragraph, word processors will expand the character spacing a bit more to make them more readable, since the space would be unused otherwise.

This is one possible explanation for why the black text from the "original" CBS document seems to take up more width on the second line of each paragraph: it was written with a word processor, whereas the red text was written on a typewritter which could not possibly know if it was on the last line of a paragraph or not.

9/11/2004 1:41 am | Comments (0) | #

Thu Sep 09, 2004

Pseudoscientific Sociology

The fact that many people (such as the entire staff of MSNBC's Countdown) fell for this satirical story is a sad commentary on the state of pseudoscientific sociology, and the respect it gets in our society.

9/9/2004 4:06 pm | Comments (0) | #

Tue Sep 07, 2004

Ant Dissidents

I had a dream last night that Natan Sharansky was a dissident ant in an ant colony. Every time he broke the rules, he would be sent to the next "level" of ants, where the number of ants was many times the previous level. He did the math, and he determined that after the eighth level, there couldn't possibly be a large enough supply of ants, and he expected only a four month's supply at the ninth level. So he broke the rules over and over again, each time rising to the next level as a punishment, and each time there was the purported number of ants. Until he reached the ninth level, where sure enough there was only a four month's supply.

He now had his proof that the ant colony was lying to him. He called the ant leader on the phone. The leader responded with a cheap excuse: "Do you think I'm stupid? We need a week to get enough ants." Each day, Sharansky would call the ant leader on the phone, and each day he'd get the same excuse.

Then I realized: these guys are pretty smart for a couple of ants, and I woke up.

9/7/2004 4:54 pm | Comments (1) | #