Archives: October 2004
Thu Oct 28, 2004
France will be always on your side
Well, the side of terrorists, at least.
As Arafat flies to Paris to receive medical treatment,
This is just three months after refusing Sharon in Paris. They're just on the other side. Who wants them as allies?
Voting age protests
I haven't written about ASFAR (Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions) at all on my blog before, mainly because most people who read my blog already know about it. But I just thought I should mention that ASFAR's holding nationwide protests of the voting age this Saturday, the 30th, as well as Election Day, Tuesday, November 2nd. Here's a picture from the protest we held in August on Boston:
Mon Oct 25, 2004
Counsel of despair
Another quote from Belmont Club, which, if you read one blog, should be the one:
Sun Oct 24, 2004
Sat Oct 23, 2004
A poem
Though have’th in thy Birth of one mane,
But two men can’t take—
What three can’t becometh.
On ver’ time,
For dearths an’ Births—
Where Fore entreguing, thence,
An’ mane canneth eviance!
Sat Oct 16, 2004
Cause and effect
This is tongue-in-cheek, of course, but it's a good demonstration of how statistics can be distorted. And they often are, by psychiatrists, doctors, psychologists, social scientists, educationalists, and the like:
...
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president made the decision based on new polling data which shows that Mr. Bush enjoys overwhelming popularity among U.S. military personnel, and 94 percent of them plan to vote.
"Two-thirds of the military want to see President Bush beat Sen. Kerry," said Mr. McClellan, "So, Karl Rove convinced the president that more soldiers means more votes for Bush-Cheney."
...
"If I understand the data correctly," said Mr. Bush, "this move alone should turn hundreds of thousands of America-hating, anti-Bush slackers into patriotic, voting Republicans. That ought to help put the swing in a few states."
Fri Oct 15, 2004
The word for this is “irony”.
Thu Oct 14, 2004
Pillar of Salt
Wretchard of Belmont Club has written a brilliant, almost poetic essay explaining why John Kerry's view of this war as a "blend" of police, intelligence, and legal action is nothing but nostalgia for a past that we can never return to. A past, in fact, that only existed in our minds. Here's an excerpt, but you should read it all:
Theoretically, Kerry could still find a way to wrap his ideas into some bold and cohesive construct for the next half-century -- a Kerry Doctrine, perhaps, or a campaign against chaos, rather than a war on terror -- that people will understand and relate to. But he has always been a man who prides himself on appreciating the subtleties of public policy, and everything in his experience has conditioned him to avoid unsubtle constructs and grand designs. His aversion to Big Think has resulted in one of the campaign's oddities: it is Bush, the man vilified by liberals as intellectually vapid, who has emerged as the de facto visionary in the campaign, trying to impose some long-term thematic order on a dangerous and disorderly world, while Kerry carves the globe into a series of discrete problems with specific solutions.
Bai's article reminds me of one of those products which are described on the packaging as being a new space age, high-technology, portable illumination aid which on closer inspection turns out to be a flashlight. When the newfangled description of terrorism as a "blended threat" is subtracted, the entire program consists of the policies of the late 1990s. Bilateral talks with North Korea. Oslo. G-8. The United Nations. Warrants of arrest. Extradition requests. Not a single new element in the entire package, except the fancy rationale. There is nothing wrong with that, any more than there is anything objectionable about a flashlight, but a more candid characterization of Kerry's proposals is not a voyage into uncharted waters so much as return to the world of September 10; in Kerry's words "back to the place we were". It has the virtue of producing known results, and suffers only from the defect that those results do not include being able to prevent massive attacks on the American mainland.
Kerry's world, in a way, is where one goes if George Bush's vision proves false: the frying pan, as a place of refuge if one lands in the fire. As a negative vision it will always hold some attractions; which will grow in proportion to failures in the Global War on Terror and fade in proportion to its successes. Roger Simon succinctly described Bai's article as a plea to return to "business as usual", a call to the past from "the ultimate conservative". It is heartbreakingly pathetic in its own way.
I cannot help but think that September 11 was far more tragic to Liberalism than to anyone else. Over time it will be represented as a kind of Fall, the moment Eden was stolen, in a way that an earlier generation saw the Kennedy assassination as the end of a dream and the way some undefined instant in the 1970s marked "the day the music died". The United Nations, the photo opportunities with Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn, the outward solidarity with Europe must seem so tantalizingly close, an election away; just a month distant, but it may be already past, even with a Kerry presidency. In reality even Kerry will be forced to live in a changed world. He may mount the United Nations podium again, but it will not be the same podium; and revive the same policies only to discover they have acquired strange, new and unpredictable effects.
Is John Kerry a flip-flopper?
It's easy to take a sentence out of context from a statement someone made a year or two ago, and make that person sound inconsistent with what they say now. People have short memories, and the rewriting of history is always a danger when there are groups with a serious interest in presenting history in a certain way.
You'll notice on this blog I've never called John Kerry a flip-flopper. That's because I don't know if he is, as much as I strongly disagree with him on his positions. These days, he comes off as incoherent at best, but additionally someone who just doesn't get it and would make our country less safe.
It's still an important question, however, whether he has changed positions many times, or whether he has basically said the same things all along. I intend to determine which it is. Instead of relying on video clips from partisan political ads, I will re-watch in their entirety all the Democratic primary debates from C-SPAN, starting with the first one from May 4, 2003.
I'll let you know what my findings are.
Why trade deficits are good
A lot of people point to our foreign trade deficit as an indication that there's something wrong with the way our economy works. Many have retorted with an explanation that such a statement depends on a faulty assumption of what trade deficits actually are.
But few people go the extra mile and actually argue that our trade deficit is an indication that our economic system is superior to other parts of the world. I was about to write a post on that very topic, to explain. But then I discovered it's already been written by the CATO Institute.
The basic point is that a trade deficit signifies an influx of foreign capital and investment into the U.S. That investment comes about because foreigners have confidence in the ability of the U.S. economy to give a strong return on that investment. Thus, a consistently large and growing trade deficit is one of the best indications that our economy is on the right track.
Final debate thoughts
Well, I set up two TVs side by side, so I could watch the debate on one, and the Yankees/Red Sox game on the other. So I had MSNBC's Hardball on the first, baseball on the second. Heh.
First thing I noticed is they wore the exact same outfit, including their tie:
Second thing I noticed is it's probably not smart to say this to a CBS News anchor, of all people:
Last thing I noticed (boldface mine):
The gap between rich and poor is growing wider. More people are dropping into poverty. Yet the minimum wage has been stuck at, what, $5.15 an hour now for about seven years. Is it time to raise it?
KERRY: Well, I'm glad you raised that question.
And that concludes my brilliant debate analysis series. I hope this helps you make an informed decision in two and a half weeks.
Wed Oct 13, 2004
Pseudo-liberalism and Che Guevara
An interesting essay on how some people who call themselves liberals and claim to oppose oppression and tyranny, find themselves defending dictators and tyrants, in this case how "The Cult of Che" has formed around Che Guevara.
Tue Oct 12, 2004
A Conversation
I got into a conversation today with someone who opposed the invasion of Iraq. Not surprisingly, we got nowhere arguing back and forth about that. So instead, I tried to just understand his general political worldview. Here is the conversation we had. It's pretty interesting. A bit to wade through, but worthwhile, in my opinion.
UPDATE: If you need a little incentive, here are some quotes:
...
MachCU (6:14:12 PM): [Kim Jong Il] represses political dissent
mungojelly (6:14:30 PM): well of course he represses dissent
mungojelly (6:14:39 PM): communism is a different perspective on these things
MachCU (6:15:33 PM): You think it's okay for communist countries to repress dissent?
mungojelly (6:15:33 PM): he just has nukes because he wants to maintain independence, right? i mean what did he say about them?
mungojelly (6:15:43 PM): what's ok? like morally ok?
MachCU (6:15:48 PM): yeah
mungojelly (6:15:53 PM): i don't think it seems to work so well, as far as their aims
mungojelly (6:16:04 PM): but you have to understand that they're working within that ideology
MachCU (6:16:33 PM): Well I mean, do you want them to stop?
mungojelly (6:16:56 PM): i suppose
Mon Oct 11, 2004
Sat Oct 09, 2004
Hey, good news!
Al Gore hits the campaign trail for Kerry
UPDATE 10/15/04: Changed the link text from "Click." to the actual article headline, since the Miami Herald requires a subscription. The headline's the important part anyway.
Fri Oct 08, 2004
Town hall debate thoughts
I'm told "prognosis" isn't the right word, so it's just "thoughts" from now on. This time I took notes during the debate so I could write my original thoughts without having to liveblog, and without having to watch the debate a second time all the way through.
During the first debate, I honestly didn't notice the "peeved" attitude that was attributed to Bush after the fact. I thought it was close to a draw, with a slight edge for Kerry. On the other hand, Bush seemed clearly annoyed this time around. Was always speaking in a very loud voice, verging on yelling. Sounded constantly frustrated. I get the feeling that Bush, though right on the important stuff, has a difficult time understanding the mis-understandings of others. He doesn't really know how to figure out why someone would ask or say something that doesn't jive with the knowledge he's developed in his office over the past few years. He has a hard time taking the need to persuade others seriously. I can sympathize with him, but it is his job to communicate.
Kerry, however, didn't have nearly the same presence that he had in the first debate. Maybe it's the need to engage with the audience, which shifted the format from the one-on-one debate setting that he's so proficient with, and it brought him down to a more personal, real level, which he has a harder time connecting on. He also spent more time complaining about Bush, and basically whining.
I was very surprised when Bush interrupted the moderator, Charles Gibson, and basically demanded to respond to Kerry, even though Gibson was going to give him a chance. It reminded me of Al Gore's constant sighing, stalking, interruptions, and out-and-out disdain for the rules in 2000. While I had a preference for Harry Browne in 2000, and saw no substantive difference between Bush and Gore back then, the series of debates between them really clinched at least a preference for Bush over Gore, given those two options. Bush just seemed more honest and more respectful.
On the other hand, Bush seems to have lost some of that respect for the rules this time around. He would routinely immediately respond to Kerry as soon as Kerry finished, before Charles Gibson even got in a simple "President, your response?" Perhaps in Bush's rehearsals, the moderator kept a lower profile, so he just got used to responding right away rather than waiting for the prompt from the moderator, but it came across as slightly disrespectful. So I had to really cringe when Bush basically shouted down the moderator and demanded a response right then and there. I was sure that scene was going to be replayed many times on TV, as a major blunder during the debate. I even ran to my computer to see if there was a small down-tick in Bush's price on Intrade (there was none).
While MSNBC did replay that scene, to my surprise it was offered as an example of Bush's aggressiveness! The pundits all liked it! They thought it showed that he was exercising his privilege as "commander in chief", and was confident and on the offensive! All the pundits on MSNBC have called this a victory for Bush, much to my surprise. While I certainly agreed with Bush content-wise on the important issues, maybe I'm just cynical about the ability of viewers to recognize substance over style.
Other bloggers, at least in my circle, seem to also think it was a Bush victory. On the other hand, Bush's contract fell from 59.5 just before the debate, to 54.5 just after. He's back up to 56 as I write this.
Final thoughts: Kerry stole the term "fuzzy math" from Bush's 2000 debates. Also, some on the left contend there's only one Internet. But this is a classic case of unilaterally disregarding the Internets of alien civilizations. They should be ashamed.
UPDATE: I just re-watched the part of the debate where Bush demands to have a chance to respond to what Kerry just said. It's not as bad as I originally interpreted it, because Gibson was asking him to respond to the issue of the draft, but Bush wanted to respond to Kerry's assertion that Bush was acting unilaterally, without alliances.
Also, on the more general issue of persistently piping up a little too quickly when it's about to be your turn, well, that's nothing compared to the total lack of respect that Al Gore showed in 2000. I hope I didn't imply otherwise.
Thu Oct 07, 2004
The Angry Economist
I've been reading this infrequently-updated blog ever since Den Beste put it on his "Rising stars" list a year or so ago. It's pretty good at debunking widely-held economic myths. But the most recent post was surprising in its recognition of the rights of children, making it worthy of a mention here. Excerpt:
Wed Oct 06, 2004
Iraq and 9/11
I'm really getting tired of the oft-repeated falsehood that Dick Cheney has suggested Iraqi involvement in 9/11. He never has. John Edwards accused him of it again tonight:
And in fact the CIA is now about to report that the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best.
And, in fact, the secretary of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection.
We need to be straight with the American people.
Then later on he said:
We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a decision to divert attention from that and instead began to plan for the invasion of Iraq.
And these connections -- I want the American people to hear this very clearly. Listen carefully to what the vice president is saying. Because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th -- period.
The 9/11 Commission has said that's true. Colin Powell has said it's true. But the vice president keeps suggesting that there is. There is not. And, in fact, any connection with al Qaeda is tenuous at best.
Cheney's very clear response:
And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years.
After the debate, every single MSNBC talking head accepted the notion that Dick Cheney was wrong on this issue, and that he had in fact linked Iraq to 9/11. They even had Brian Williams do a small bit about it, with footage of this supposedly damning Meet the Press statement:
Now, that statement alone is enough to clarify exactly what Dick Cheney meant here. He never said that Iraq perpetrated 9/11, but simply that Iraq constituted part of the geographical base for the terror network (consisting of more than just Al Qaeda) which has been responsible for many acts, including 9/11. But they also omitted the very next question and Dick Cheney's answer, which starts:
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. ...
I really don't get it. As far as I'm concerned, this is a total abdication of responsibility on the part of the news media, worse in my opinion than Rathergate, since, after all, the issue of Iraq's connection to terrorism matters to what's going on today.
Now, in fact, Dick Cheney has said that he believes there to have been links between Iraq and Al Qaeda (but not 9/11). This issue itself is not a closed book, and there's room for reasonable disagreement. Contrary to popular belief, the 9/11 Commission has not said that there were no ties, but rather they have said that to the best they can determine, there were no operational ties in the sense that they actively collaborated on terrorist operations. Even here, though, the media A) conflates ties to Al Qaeda with ties to 9/11, and B) assumes that the issue of Iraqi/Al Qaeda ties is a closed book simply because some prominent New York Times headlines quoted one sentence from the 9/11 Commission Report in a misleading way.
Furthermore, sometimes an administration official will simply claim that Iraq had ties to terrorism (which is undeniable!), and media figures will jump on this as a claim that Iraq had ties to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, as if 9/11 is the only terrorist action and Al Qaeda the only terrorist organization!
It's damned frustrating, I tell you.
Tue Oct 05, 2004
VP debate prognosis
Clear edge by Cheney, particularly on foreign policy. Good point about Iraqi troop sacrifices.
I thought the way he handled the gay marriage question was commendable. He didn't betray his own beliefs, but merely outlined Bush's position and left it at that. When asked to respond to Edwards, he simply thanked him for the compliment of his family, and did not disagree with him on the issue.
The question where they couldn't mention their running mates' name was pretty dumb. It's like: "Please answer this question while wiggling your ear and touching your nose."
UPDATE: Oh yeah. I liked what Edwards said about Israel's right to self-defense. He was believable, and it was refreshing to hear.
Reality
We should remember going into tonight's vice presidential debate that, while Kerry put on a better theatrical performance last week, his proposals for dealing with Iran and North Korea are empty.
What's John Kerry's backup plan?
Fri Oct 01, 2004
Debate prognosis
Both performed well. Was a very well-moderated debate, and touched on a lot of substance. I'd say it was very worthwhile. Have to say, unfortunately, that Kerry had a slight edge in terms of technical debating performance. One question I have:
He kind of lost me here. When was preemption the U.S. policy in the Cold War?
