« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
October 31, 2005
The Myth Of The Nuclear Suitcase Bomb
Richard Miniter has an enlightening (and calming) piece up that punctures the myth of the "suitcase" nuke. Of course the image of a suicide bomber packing a Hiroshima-sized nuke in a backpack is an extremely potent image, but Miniter brings Occam's razor and the hammer of real physics to bear on the horrific myth. Maintenence problems combined with the physics of small bombs and the unreliability of the sources of the scare stories all contribute to the conclusion that a nuclear attack by Bin Laden's al Qaeda is very unlikely.
This long and informative piece is well worth your time.
Posted at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)October 30, 2005
Iraqi Armed Forces: Changing The Balance Of Power
There's a great article at Strategy Page on the tipping point occurring in the composition of the new Iraqi military and police forces--and the subsequent effect on the balance of power (via Instapundit).
The author explores the way in which the Iraqi Shia Arabs and Kurds have rapidly stepped in to fill officer and NCO positions, stepped in much more rapidly than anyone expected. These are the critical leadership positions that require lots of experience and guidance, and they were formerly held almost exclusively by Sunnis. With the help of small US teams of advisors attached to each Iraqi battalion the Shias and Kurds are learning the arts of leadership, organiziation and logisitcs. The auther also says this is a very bad development for Sunnis who hoped to run the Americans out of Iraq and then resume their familiar dictatorial ways.
Here's what I think is a key point--the Kurds and Shias now have a very vested interest in learning and performing well:
The American have brought in a radically new way to deal with these problems, and it has taken the Iraqis some time to get used to it. But the Kurds and Shia Arabs want to succeed, because they know that if the Sunni Arabs regain control, many, many Kurds and Shia Arabs will die, particularly those who are now commanding army and police units.
Emphasis mine. We've all read stories that question whether the Iraqis will show the motivation to defend their own country. I think the evidence is mounting that the answer is "yes".
Posted at 07:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)October 29, 2005
Time To Race
No blogging for me today--I'm going up to Smithville, Texas for my first cyclocross race of the season. It's time to see if all that summer training will pay off.
Posted at 07:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)October 28, 2005
Dishonesty In Education Reporting
Here's some more bad education news from Paul Peterson over at Frontpage Magazine.
Among the "talented tenth," those in the top 10 percent of test takers, reading scores have dropped four points since 1971 and math scores have not budged since first measured in 1978. So say the latest (2004) results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the nation's report card.
At the other end of the scale, dropout rates have actually increased since 1990, rising to 30 percent of all seventeen-year-olds. Among African Americans the dropout rate is running somewhere between 50 and 60 percent, a sad fact that remains one of the best-kept secrets in American education.
Peterson goes on to explain how a dropout rate of over 50 percent can be manipulated to look much lower. Most school districts base their dropout rates on the number of seniors who don't finish the year, while ignoring all those who quit as freshmen, sophomores, or juniors.
There's your hard working teachers unions and school administrations, doing what they do best.
Posted at 09:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)October 27, 2005
Declaring After The Fact
It's all moot now, but overnight I had decided I could not support Miers. What clinched it for me was Captain Ed's devastating post in which he highlighted the truly awful speech Miers gave in 1993 to the Executive Women of Dallas. Ed claims that Miers speech was very troublesome in content as well as execution, and he provides quotes from the speech that give ample support to his point. Here's one such excerpt from the speech:
"The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual woman's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion."
Now, I'm in no way claiming my writing is perfect, or that I'm a grammar expert, or that I reason with the precision of Ramesh Ponnuru. But in this statement by Miers on abortion rights the basic sentence is "Debate continues." An astute grasp of the obvious was almost concealed by the Mobius strip sentence structure.
And I don't buy the arguments that a) the speech was written twelve years ago; or b) it wasn't written for verbatim delivery or publication. First, as Ed points out, twelve years ago she was 48 and head of Texas State bar; and second, the kinds of errors and clumsiness displayed by the speech are indicative of a problem more fundamental than those caused by haste or informal note taking. The fact that a person is writing notes for a speech doesn't mean that the nature of that person's thinking should be obscured; in fact, the closer one gets to outline format the more clear the reasoning ought to get. After all, shouldn't you be paring down to key ideas and thought processes?
Anyway, now it's time for Bush to be a "uniter"--of his own party. He is presented with yet another opportunity to galvanize the base of people that worked so hard to put him in office. (And no, I'm not saying that Bush is required to submit his choice to the editors of National Review for approval. I just hope he acknowledges there are conservative principals that are more important than personal loyalty.) I still trust and believe in this president, but I also still reserve the right to disagree with or even oppose his policies. An emailer to Jonah Goldberg decried the Republicans' lack of "party discipline", but Jonah would have none of that and neither will I. I did trust Bush on Miers, until the evidence clearly indicated he had made a mistake. I'm not going to follow him off a cliff.
As I told my wife this morning, one of Ronald Reagan's great strengths was the ability to separate the issues he dealt with into those on which he would bend a little or even retreat, and those he would never compromise on. In light of that, I think Bush's next choice will be very revealing.
Posted at 09:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)October 26, 2005
Random Thought On Plamegate
I can't say I have any sort of mastery over the byzantine chronology of the Plame/Wilson affair. With bloggers like AJStrata providing meticulous and comprehensive coverage of the story, I have been content to sit back and see what develops.
A couple of things I've read recently have stuck in my head, though. Given the doubtful (to put it kindly) nature of Joe Wilson's integrity, the mere possibility of indictments against Rove/Cheney has raised my suspicions of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's motivations. Then I saw the following post by Andrew McCarthy in The Corner:
I've gotten a lot of questions about [whether Fitzgerald is a tool of the Left] from people who say some conservatives are hitting the airwaves with preemptive suggestions that my friend Pat Fitzgerald may not be as apolitical as his press clippings indicate. [...]
Let me just say this. Pat is at least as apolitical as his press clippings suggest. [...]
Pat Fitzgerald is the best prosecutor I have ever seen. By a mile. He is also the straightest shooter I have ever seen – by at least that much. And most importantly, he is a good man.
If Pat were political – or, worse, if he somehow had it in for the Bush administration – it was fully within his power to return indictments in the weeks before the November elections, which would almost certainly have cinched things for Senator Kerry. It is something, I am quite certain, it would never even have occurred to him to do. The only thing the guy I know would do is bring charges or close the case without charges when the facts of the investigation warranted doing so.
McCarthy is one of the contributors to The Corner that I admire the most; of course I could be wrong about him, or he could be wrong about Fitzgerald. And this has no bearing on whether or not Rove might actually be indicted. But it would be easier to take for me if I had a sense this wasn't a partisan witch hunt.
Moving from the general to the specific, speculation-wise, I noticed an interesting point Tom Maguire made about Rove's testimony (thanks AJStrata). Maguire notes that there's some delicious anticipation by his enemies that Rove will get caught up in a "false statements" charge, based on Rove's forgetting about a conversation he had with Matt Cooper of Time magazine.
With Rove, as best we know, we have Karl failing to recall his conversation with Matt Cooper when asked by Federal investigators in 2003; the defense will have fun with the fact that the Department of Justice failed to ask about contacts with Matt Cooper in their original document request, so let's not underestimate Mike Copper Matt Cooper's forgettability.
Eventually, in response to a second set of subpoenas, the relevant email between Rove and Hadley was found, Rove's attorney notified the Special Counsel, and Rove corrected his testimony. As Jeralyn notes, and as MacRanger pointed out to me a few days back, if a person corrects their testimony during the term of a grand jury before discovery was imminent, they are in good shape.
I've copied a couple of the important links, but the whole post is well worth reading. And it actually ties in to the more general post McCarthy made about Fitzgerald's character, because if McCarthy's right then Fitzgerald will follow the law as it's written.
Of course, everyone's speculation hinges on the what's been leaked, either inadvertently or otherwise. ( Who would have thought Harriet Miers would emerge from the info storm of speculation preceding her nomination.) The range of moods in the conservative blogosphere has ranged from pessimistic fatalism to whistling-past-the-graveyard sunniness. I'm cautiously optimistic--I hope Andy McCarthy is right about his friend.
Posted at 09:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)October 25, 2005
MSM vs Iraqi Constitution: Stuck On Stupid, Stuck On Blind
The mainstream media handles good news from Iraq in the same manner your telephone caller ID works: you get a brief couple of lines, then after a few days it disappears from the bottom of the list, pushed off by the news of the latest truck bomb.
The Iraqi Constitution has officially been declared approved, by a free and fair vote of the Iraqi people. Captain Ed has a good post up:
More Iraqis voted in this second election since the fall of Saddam than did so in the first, and thanks to the controversial nature of the election, the electorate was more diverse -- and yet almost 80% of Iraqis approved the final version of their new constitution. In the end, only three provinces rejected it, with only two of them reaching the required two-thirds vote for official repudiation.
Emphasis mine. Only one of the four predominately Sunni provinces voted "no", but as late as yesterday Reuters was reporting that the outcome was in doubt:
Two Sunni provinces have returned resounding "No" votes on the charter, and its fate could rest with voters in a volatile region in the north. [...]
Nineveh, with Iraq's third largest city Mosul as its capital, is seen as a swing province that could determine the fate of the charter, which has deepened sectarian divisions. [...]
Although violence eased considerable [sic] during the October 15 referendum and the opening of the trial of Saddam four days later, the results of the poll threaten to boost sectarian tensions that have raised fears of civil war. [...]
Well, that bad analysis is old news now, innit? Don't hold your breath waiting for the correction.
And they're nothing if not consistent: Consider their use of the old standby: "Although [substitute good news here], disaster is really quite imminent." These people are stuck on blind as well as stuck on stupid.
Truck Bombs In Baghdad
The gym where I work out has a TV in the locker room which is usually tuned to something tolerable: one of the ESPN channels, or sometimes even Fox News. Yesterday however, someone left it on a local station, and after a while Tyra Banks' talk show came on and instantly drove me up the wall. I'm a fairly sensitive guy and all, but this relentless inanity was too much--it was the men's locker room after all. After almost killing myself trying to reach the channel buttons (the TV was on top of the lockers), I finally had to settle for CNN--just in time to catch their breaking news coverage of the latest Baghdad truck bomb attack. Since I very seldom watch CNN, I can't identify the woman anchor who was questioning a Baghdad correspondent live.
Although it was wearily predictable, the anchor's sensationalistic-yet-clueless manner was still breathtaking: the desperate search for an intelligent question and the affected gravitas almost made me wish I had left the channel on Tyra. Of course there was no background given, nothing to inform me of any trends in the frequency of the attacks, no comparison to this time last year; just another spectacular show of flame and smoke. At least the correspondent was able to summon up enough of his journalistic manhood to point out the jihadists had chosen the Palestine Hotel as their target so as to maximize the world media attention. CNN was certainly doing its part.
In direct contrast to CNN's coverage, Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail has a typically excellent analysis of what really happened.
al Qaeda must attempt project its relevance on the Iraqi scene after it failed to thwart the constitutional referendum. This attack was well planned in advance and used significant resources to execute. [... But i]t is a measure of desperation when al Qaeda attacks the media, as al Qaeda depends on their promotion of jihadi violence for their survival and recruitment. [...]
No doubt al Qaeda had its own propaganda crews taping the event. The media’s reaction to viewing al Qaeda’s purposeful attack on their own is unlikely to match their fury over the accidental deaths of journalists during Operation Iraqi Freedom by U.S. forces at the very same hotel. Such is the war we fight.
Indeed. It just occurred to me that although the Left's attempts to equate Iraq and Vietnam are groundless and trivial, there is one comparison that is true: We are again fighting a two-front war, against our enemy in the field and their tacit allies in the MSM.
Posted at 09:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)October 24, 2005
Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings
One of my main topics for venting on this blog is the increasing scarcity of logical thinking in our society. Sharon Begley writing in the Wall Street Journal gives a perfect example of what I mean. In an essay that focuses on a new book by Dr. Susan Clancy entitled "Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens," Begley relates that all sorts of people, who function quite well in society otherwise, are firmly convinced they were taken and returned by "aliens", and the cause is not mental illness but rather an inability to thinks scientifically--that is, to think in terms of observable evidence that supports valid premises. Begley:
Numerous studies have found that abductees are not suffering from mental illness. They are unusually prone to false memories, she and colleagues found in a 2002 study, and tend to be unusually creative, fantasy-prone and imaginative, but so are lots of people who have never met a little green man.
Even the smartest abductees fall short, however, when it comes to scientific thinking. Dr. Clancy asked if they realize that memories elicited by hypnosis are unreliable. Yes, the abductees said, but they are really, really careful with hypnosis, so their recovered memories must be real. Do they understand that sleep paralysis, in which waking up during a dream causes the dream to leak into consciousness even while you remain unable to move, can mimic the weird visions and helplessness that abductees describe? Of course, they say, but that doesn't apply to them. [...]
The principle of parsimony that underpins all of science -- the simplest explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be right -- is, well, alien to abductees. So is the notion that "it feels right" doesn't make it so, and that exceptions to rules are, indeed, exceptions.
Feelings are king these days. Feelings rule our election cycles and shape our reaction to policy proposals. And a ratings-driven, supersaturated media environment provides the perfect growing medium for the feelings virus.
I wish the aliens had just kept them.
Posted at 07:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)October 22, 2005
International Justice: A Chimera
Curzon at Coming Anarchy notes yet another sterling example of why supporting the International Criminal Court is a terrible idea for the United States.
Posted at 02:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Mehlis Day In Beirut
Michael J. Totten blogs on the reaction of the Lebanese to the U.N. Mehlis Report, which focused the blame for former Lebanese P.M. Hariri's assassination squarely on the Assad regime (via Instapundit). Totten's got lots of great photos along with first-person accounts of the anti-Syrian rallies that took place--real must-see blogging.
Those evil neocons are at it again, God help us.
Posted at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)October 21, 2005
Former NC State Prof Calls For The Extermination Of White People
A former visiting professor at North Carolina State University has called for the exermination of white people. Blogger Jon Sanders of the John Locke Foundation has the details here and here (hat tip to Mike Adams).
Kamau Kambon taught classes at NC State in the fall of 2004 and spring of 2005. On October 14, he was a speaker at the "Black Media Forum on Image of Black Americans in Mainstream Media" at Howard University. From the C-SPAN archives of the forum here are Kambron's closing remarks:
Now how do I know that the white people know that we are going to come up with a solution to the problem. I know it because they have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. *tepid applause* Now I don’t care whether you clap or not, but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to just set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people.
As Mike Adams pointed out, this was a guy whose salary while at NC State was paid by taxpayers. Wonderful.
Posted at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Is Ben Barnes The Kiss Of Death For Miers?
My wait-and-see neutrality on Harriet Miers is slowly eroding. I've been willing to trust the President and give her a chance to make a favorable impression--which should be easy for her to do if she is as qualified as GWB says she is.
Then there were reports that she was failing to make that favorable impression in her courtesy call meetings with Senators. The White House has put the kibosh any more such meetings. Worrisome.
Now Captain Ed examines John Fund's reporting on some dealings the Texas Lottery Commission had with none other than Ben Barnes--a name familiar to any Texan over forty as a professional sleazebag from way back (not to mention his much more recent involvement in the SwiftVets story). Harriet Miers was chair of the Lottery Commission when Barnes was employed as a very highly paid lottery lobbyist. Captain Ed also reports that Bush ran up a huge bill for Miers's legal services during the same period. Much more worrisome.
This is getting to point at which Miers's future performance becomes irrelevant. To a big chunk of the electorate, appearances are everything, and the appearances say that the administration is disorganized, stubborn, and wants to reward old friends rather than adhere to a principled vision. Apperances may be right in this case. With skeletons like these hanging around the question shifts to asking why didn't Bush's vetting process do a better job. These questionable actions weren't exactly drug up from ancient history.
Ben Barnes. Ben Barnes! There is no way in hell that guy's name should ever be mentioned in the same breathe as a Supreme Court nominee offered by George W. Bush.
The Disfunctional CIA
Voice of the Taciturn has an exceedingly illuminating post on DCI Goss's attempt to reform the CIA. Here's a juicy bit:
The bottom line is that we lose nothing by cleaning house. The exodus of the old guard (in every agency) should be encouraged, not questioned. There have been enough reports issued recently that point out that the IC isn’t all it is cracked up to be; so what exactly is the down-side of getting rid of those who let you down? Experience? Experience at what? Stonewalling? Lying? Obfuscating? Leaking? . . . and I’m not talking about actions being taken against foreign adversaries here . . .That people are leaving is probably a sign that Goss is actually making headway (or at least fighting them to a draw). As the affronted clear their desks, it opens up opportunities for those who are willing to accept the risks [...].
Goss isn’t getting another government job [...]. If he fails he gave it a shot, but if he succeeds, he may very well have pushed a snowball down a large hill.
The way the liberal/Left carries on about the CIA, you'd think the agency was the Republican version of the Gestapo, with Karl Rove playing Himmler. But in the past year it's become apparent that the CIA is perhaps even more left-leaning than the State Department. A stiff broom for both departments is long overdue.
Posted at 12:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)October 20, 2005
A Leaky Raft Of Ignorance
Larry Elder had an experience that was familiar to me. A fellow dinner party guest, who did not know that Elder was a conservative radio host, trotted out the worn-out liberal canard that Republicans care only about tax cuts for the "rich". First the woman actually tried to argue that GWB claims that "people shouldn't pay taxes." After Elder carefully lead her to the realization of the impossibility of funding a two-and-a-half trillion dollar budget without people paying taxes, she changed her approach:
"Oh," she said, "I see what you're saying. Let me clarify. Bush says, 'Rich people should not pay taxes.'""Oh, really? And when did he say that?"
"Well, he implies it -- he's always seeking to cut taxes on the rich."
Elder pointed out that he was a member of the so-called "rich", and his tax bill was most definitely not zero.
"Well, it's obvious," she said. "We see things differently.""We most certainly do, and I think it's pretty much fruitless for us to continue the conversation. But, if you don't mind, I have a brief question for you."
"OK," she said.
"Of the top 1 percent of taxpayers, what percentage do they pay of federal income tax revenues?"
"What do you mean?"
"Assume this is a pie," I said, cupping my hands in a circle. "The top 1 percent contributes what size slice -- by percentage -- of that pie?"
"Oh, I see," she said. "Virtually nothing."
"Nothing?"
"Maybe 1 percent, maybe 2 percent."
This is a normal, articulate, presumably well-educated American--and she's a participant in the same kind of "ignorant herd" mentality that I wrote about yesterday. The leaders of the Democratic party know the truth about who really funds the government, but they willfully continue to spread the lie that the wealthy pay no taxes. Their power base depends upon the ignorance of people like Elder's dinner acquaintance. Elder gives the facts:
For the record, since my table companion doesn't know or doesn't care, the top 1 percent -- the taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) over $295,495 -- paid, for 2003, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues. The top 10 percent (with an AGI over $94,891) paid 65.84 percent, the top half (AGI over $29,019) paid 96.54 percent. The bottom half? They paid 3.46 percent.
I never cease to be amazed at the extent of liberal/Leftist ignorance on this topic. A dear friend of mine who is highly intelligent, observant, and thoughtful also happens sit rather far to the left of the political spectrum. During the pre-election madness of last fall, we debated through email the merits of John Eisenhower's endorsement of John Kerry. In refuting Eisenhower's claim that present-day Republicans want to "cut taxes for the rich", I cited the same evidence that Elder quotes. My friend expressed amazement and vowed to look into it--but I could tell he remained skeptical of my claim (after all, he'd never heard anything about it from his side of the fence).
I do hope he did some further investigation. Radical excising of long-held personal beliefs is a process that must come from self-realization. It's a lot more likely that he will discover the truth for himself than it is that he will hear it from Democratic party.
Posted at 09:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)October 19, 2005
Finally...
My Houston Astros are in the World Series. I can't quite believe it, even after seeing it in print.
I wish my dad was here to see it. He was a baseball fan from forever ago, and I grew up with the game. He took me to my first pee-wee league tryout; there was a shortage of managers, so Dad agreed to act as a temporary manager for the tryout day. That one day turned into seven years of coaching--strictly seat-of-the-pants, have-fun-at-all-costs stuff. Those days are gone, unfortunately.
I hope you're watching, Dad.
Herd Mentality And Bases Of Power
News of Louis Farrakhan's latest Million Man March filtered into my consciousness over the weekend. I found myself dwelling on Farrakhan's claim that the New Orleans levee breach was caused by explosives planted by the U.S. government "to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry."
This is a good example of a standard modus operandi of a lot of (usually Leftist) political celebrities: the targeted outrageous pronouncement. The pronouncement can be a claim of abuse ("State troopers blocked us from voting!"), or a ridiculous demand ("End the occupation of New Orleans!") or an intricate conspiracy theory ("Karl Rove engineering the 9/11 attacks!"). It's targeted because I believe that more often than not the statement is known to be false by the speaker--the idea is not to promulgate truth or justice. Rather the idea is to throw out a grenade that will explode and resonate within the group of those supporters who will take the statement on its face, regardless of its lack of reason and logic. It's simply building and maintaining one's power base through rumor and misinformation. Farrakhan doesn't care in the least if he is forced to back off from his statement--his crawfishing will get a mention (maybe) in the media--but a lot of Farrakhan's supporters do not read the New York Times, or Powerline.
So the bogus meme grows in the masses and takes on a life of its own. Star Parker at Townhall.com has more thoughts on the intellectual herd mentality that is stock-in-trade for people like Farrakhan and Michael Moore.
Despite Farrakhan's supposed objective to "empower" poor folks, he should understand, as more and more blacks are beginning to understand, that he, and other long-standing traditional black leaders, really promote quite the opposite. [...]
It may be news to Farrakhan, and perhaps to other black leaders, that blacks are unique and individual human beings. It's the racists who look at us otherwise. It does not empower black citizens when they hear from their leaders that they are not unique individuals but racial objects.
That's why education reform is really the primary issue of importance with me: A person who can't follow a logical argument is will believe anything. Of course it's not just poor minorities who have trouble reasoning, but the dirty secret of our public education disaster is that it affects poor inner city African-Americans the most--and leaves them vulnerable to being manipulated by the Farrakhans of the world.
October 18, 2005
Focus On The Sunni Vote
There have been reports of irregularities in some of the vote tallies for the Iraq constitution. Strategy Page (via Free Republic) has a sensible take:
Old customs die hard in Iraq, as they do everywhere. The final tally for the October 15 vote is being held up in several Kurdish and Shia districts because the numbers look suspicious. These areas are reporting 99 percent in favor of the constitution. Although these areas were expected (by opinion polls) to be solidly in favor of the new constitution, nothing, in a free vote, is ever 99 percent. [...] But ever since elections were introduced to this area about 80 years ago, ancient attitudes towards tribal unity have encouraged the manipulation of results so that near unanimity was presented as the outcome. So here, even in a situation where the locals were voting in the direction many tribal leaders wanted, officials apparently felt compelled to doctor the results to show near total agreement. So the government is conducting a public investigation. It's unlikely anyone will go to jail, but offenders will be publicly lectured, and wrists will be slapped.
Emphasis mine. This is not a big deal except to the selective-vision utopian left; of course the MSM will attempt to use the irregularities to cast doubt on the entire election process.
Of much greater importance is the breakdown of the Sunni vote. Again, the MSM has tried to emphasiz the "no" side of the Sunni vote, and indeed the constitution was rejected in the Sunni-majority provinces of Salah al-Din and al-Anbar. (Although of course this confirms, rather than negates, the validity of the voting process.) But in the other two Sunni provinces, the constitution was by solid majorities: Ninevah province voted 76.6% yes and Diyala province voted 55% yes.
It's obvious that a significant number of Sunnis voted "yes" to the constitution--and that should be headline news.
Posted at 09:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)October 17, 2005
Some Clear Thinking On The Avian Flu Scare
There's been a lot of speculation about a possible outbreak of avian flu. Charles Krauthammer recently wrote:
We are essentially in a life-and-death race with the bird flu. Can we figure out how to pre-empt it before it figures out how to evolve into a transmittable form with 1918 lethality that will decimate humanity?...One batch of 1918 flu has the capacity for mass destruction that no Bond villain could ever dream of.
I think the world of Charles, but his and other writers' warnings had begun to seem a little over the top. I know flu can be a killer, especially for the young and the elderly; and I knew the 1918 outbreak had killed millions. But still, I thought, it's the flu, not the bubonic plague.
Today Glenn Reyolds printed an email from a correspondent who put some science behind my misgivings:
As a medical researcher, I want to make a gentle but sincere plea to the blogosphere to calm down this flu hysteria just a bit. The main way that flu kills is by predisposing its victims to "superinfection" by bacterial illnesses - in 1918, we had no antibiotics for these superimposed infections, but now we have plenty. Such superinfections, and the transmittal of flu itself, were aided tremendously by the crowded conditions and poor sanitation of the early 20th century - these are currently vastly improved as well. Flu hits the elderly the hardest, but the "elderly" today are healthier, stronger, and better nourished than ever before. Our medical infrastructure is vastly better off, ranging from simple things like oxygen and sterile i.v. fluids, not readily available in 1918, to complex technologies such as respirators and dialysis. Should we be concerned? Sure, better safe than sorry, and concerns about publishing the sequence are worth discussing. Should we panic? No - my apologies to the fearmongers, but we will never see another 1918.Patrick Cunningham M.D.
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Section of Nephrology
University of Chicago
I think all these points are well worth remembering.
Posted at 06:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Was The Iwo Jima Flag Raising "Faked"?
Transterrestrial Musings dispatches the jabbering idiots who are hysterical over GWB's "staged" interviews with troops in Iraq (hat tip to The Corner):
March 3rd, 1945
IWO JIMA (Routers) Controversy has erupted among the press corps in the last few days as news has spread that the now-famous picture of the "victorious" flag raising over Iwo Jima a couple weeks ago was staged. Many believe that, as the huge number of casualties mounted in the ill-fated and pointless invasion of this tiny island, the Roosevelt administration, desperate for a bit of pro-war propaganda, arranged to have the photo taken for dissemination to the world's news services.
It has been revealed that the picture was actually of a "recreation" of an earlier flag raising of a much smaller flag, though even that event has now been cast into doubt by the apparent attempt to mislead the press.
On a not wholly unrelated point, I should probably repeat Jonah Goldberg's warning: The above snip is satire.
October 14, 2005
MRC Documents War News Bias At ABC, NBC And CBS
The Media Research Center has released a detailed study of the broadcast networks' coverage of the Iraq war so far this year. (Link via The Corner). The report, written by MRC research director Rich Noyes, gives solid confirmation to what any intellectually honest observer already suspected: that the war coverage provided by ABC, NBC and CBS 1) places disproportionate emphasis on the graphic results of the jihadists' violent acts; 2) is relentlessly pessimistic about the potential for development of a healthy political culture in Iraq; and 3) consistently fails to report the operational successes of and exemplary individual performances of the U.S. military.
Ever since the United States and an international coalition toppled Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in the spring of 2003, the Iraq war has dominated network newscasts. Since then, there’s been a lot of undeniably bad news, as terrorists have launched a savage campaign to thwart efforts to establish democracy in a major Arab state. But are network reporters giving the public an inordinately gloomy portrait of the situation, as some critics charge? Are the positive accomplishments of U.S. soldiers and Iraq’s new democratic leaders being lost in a news agenda dominated by assassinations, car bombings and casualty reports?
The answer to both questions is: Yes.
Among the key findings:
■ Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).
■ News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.
Here's more from the detailed report:
Terrorist attacks are designed to attract attention and spread fear. The networks’ daily coverage relayed the terrorists’ deeds in gruesome detail. On February 28, ABC’s Nick Watt gave viewers a graphic account of a suicide bombing targeting a medical clinic in the city of Hillah: “Pools of water turned red with blood; buildings scarred by shrapnel and body parts.” Ten days later, Watt told how terrorists had bombed a funeral in Mosul, a city in northern Iraq: “Survivors carried out the bodies of the dead and wept. One of them described a ball of fire and a huge explosion, then, scattered blood and human flesh.”
“It’s been another terrible day in Iraq,” CBS anchor Bob Schieffer typically began as he introduced a May 24 story on a series of car bombings aimed at civilians. From Baghdad, correspondent Mark Strassmann amplified Schieffer’s grimness: “The carnage has been shocking: nearly 600 Iraqis killed in less than a month, attacks that have left this country tilting toward civil war.”
And my overall favorite:
Earlier this year, on NBC’s Today show, co-host Matt Lauer interviewed a group of American soldiers in Iraq. When they all reported that morale among the troops was high, Lauer was incredulous.
“Don’t get me wrong here,” Lauer told the soldiers. “I think you are probably telling me the truth, but a lot of people at home [are] wondering how that could be possible with the conditions you’re facing and with the attacks you’re facing. What would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale can be that high?”
“Sir, if I got my news from the newspapers also, I’d be pretty depressed as well,” replied Captain Sherman Powell.
“We are confident that if we’re allowed to finish the job we started, we’ll be very proud of it and our country will be proud of us for doing it.”
The MRC report does make note of the times when the networks did report good news, and likewise acknowledges the obvious: that there is plenty of bad news to report, too. But any fair-minded observer knows this is not the point--the problem is not that the bad news is reported, but the suppression of the progress in reconstruction and of the heroism of both Americans and Iraqis.
The entire report is a must read.
When Free Market Success Funds "Progressive" Activism
I use Paypal and Google on a regular basis--they have become internet giants in terms of usage and business success. But it looks like both companies harbor a strain of the dreaded "progressive" fascination with do-goodism.
The example concerning Paypal has an even more unpleasant facet, one of knee-jerk censorship. Legal Redux has a detailed examination of Paypal's Acceptable Use Policy, which includes the following:
You many not use PayPal in the purchase or sale of items or support of organizations that promote hate, violence, or racial intolerance.
The usual "progressive" buzzwords, and harmless enough--until they are acted upon. Legal Redux goes on to document the strong-arm tactics Paypal used against Bill Quick and his Daily Pundit blog. Paypal evidently thought Quick was promulgating hate by linking to video clips of the beheading of some Iraq hostages. Those clips are extremely unpleasant, but necessary to an informed discussion of the war. I chose not to view them in their entirety, but I don't need anyone else making that determination for me.
Google's case is not as disturbing; they're just following the muddle-headed Ben and Jerry's business model. From a New York Times article on Google's plans for social-consciousness spending (hat tip to The View From the Nest):
"We aspire to make Google an institution that makes the world a better place," the founders wrote in the prospectus. They promised to create a Google Foundation and give it about 1 percent of the company's equity and 1 percent of its profits "in some form."
After the offering, Google had 277 million shares. The company says it rounds up the 1 percent figure to an even three million shares, which were worth $918 million yesterday. But the company has decided not to donate all of those shares to the Google Foundation.
In Google's annual report, filed in April, Mr. Brin and Mr. Page said they had decided to put the money into a broader range of initiatives including investments in "socially progressive corporations" and "influencing public policy."
And how exactly did Google wind up with hundreds of millions to make the world "a better place" by supporting "socially progressive corporations" and "influencing public policy."? Free market capitalism, that's how.
God, I hate utopians.
Posted at 09:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)October 13, 2005
Michael Yon And The Imbedded Journalist
Michael Yon has a new entry up (thanks Instapundit). This time he gives a detailed and fascinating view of the process involved in becoming an embedded journalist in Iraq.
So there were two tired Danish TV2 journalists, the American TV man, and me, all sleeping on cots in the CPIC office. It's easy to take shots at "the media" in Iraq—literally, as well as for the quality of their coverage. Forget for a moment the lopsided expense versus returns ratio. The bullet holes in the hotel rooms and the picnic tables in the desert tell a back story about why so few journalists make the journey. All this, while knowing that insurgents have specifically targeted members of the media.
Apparently the terrorists like it better when fewer reporters are around to peel back the layers of their insurgent press machine and reveal its rotten core. The Americans may think they get bad press, but apparently the terrorists think they get worse. Everybody, it seems, is a victim of bad press, including (ironically) the professionals who print it, because they get shot by everybody, with words and bullets.
If Yon was a baseball player, he'd be on a 30-game hitting streak. He continues to write post after post that captures the essence of our mission in Iraq. And it's not sugarcoated, either.
Yon is truly a treasure. Everyone who has an opinion about the Iraq war should read his blog from front to back. Good luck and Godspeed to him.
Posted at 11:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)Toxic Hysteria Revisited
Much to the chagrin of Hugh Kaufman, senior policy analyst at the EPA, New Orleans (still) is not a candidate for superfund status. Kaufman is the hysteric who, in the aftermath of Katrina, declared
"There is not enough money in the Gross National Product of the United States to dispose of the amount of hazardous material in the area [around New Orleans]."
Today Captain Ed points to a new article in the Washington Post that confirms an earlier report that there was nothing unusual about the composition of the floodwaters.
I'm sure the water quality was helped by the fact that there weren't 10,000 corpses floating around.
As I pointed out previously, Kaufman is the same gasbag who accused the EPA of lying about the air quality at the Ground Zero cleanup.
Posted at 09:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)October 12, 2005
Cynical Pacifism, Or Why All War Is Evil
AcademicElephant reviews a review of a book she hasn't yet read--and makes some very interesting observations. The book is A War Like No Other : How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War by Victor Davis Hanson; the review was written by William Grimes and appeared in the New York Times (registration required).
AE takes issue with the tone of Grimes's review; she keys on some phrases that cause her mental alarm bells to ring. AcademicElephant notes that
[...]from the conclusion: "[t]he war like no other, Mr. Hanson writes, "introduced into Western philosophy the comprehensive idea that war was not always noble or patriotic but often nonsensical, suicidal and perhaps intrinsically wrong, especially when it lasted 27 years, not a few hours on a summer day.""
Am I paranoid, or is Grimes suggesting that this is an anti-war book? Not in a general sense, as no thinking person considers war as anything but a dirty, violent necessity, but in terms of the current war in Iraq? The suggestion is insidious, but it seems to me it's there--the actions of a "superpower" are a "colossal absurdity."
This put me in mind of a point tangential to AE's. I'm quite sure I've said this before, but it bears repeating: supporting the war in Iraq (or any war that is well-justified) does not mean the supporter is a sadistic, unfeeling robot who delights in sending other peoples' children off to die.
I can hear the protests already--"You're making a blanket assumption!"; "How dare you put words in my mouth!"; "You're overly simplifying the problem!".
Maybe my assertion is somewhat exaggerated--but only to the same order of magnitude of the number of Muslims worldwide who speak out against Zarqawi's head choppers. In fact, I would wager that the supporters of the Iraq war have more, not less, of a true idea of the horrors of war than the peaceniks and appeasers.
I, too, have not read the book Grimes is reviewing, and AcademicElephant and I could be wrong, but when Grimes writes
The Athenians, relying on local populations under Spartan rule to greet them as liberators, never encountered quite the enthusiasm they anticipated, and the imperial assumptions behind "Athenianism," which Mr. Hanson calls "the Western world's first example of globalization," suggest uncomfortable comparisons.
it seems hard to deny that he is making a point that Hanson had no intention of making.
By the last episode of the TV series M*A*S*H, any viewer would have had trouble figuring out who started the Korean war--never mind the naked Communist aggression, all war was evil. And more currently there's the ludicrous U.N. antiwar ad campaign featuring a Smurfs-in-Guernica motif. Again, the idea is that "all war must be avoided at all costs".
I want no part of this cynical pacifism.
Miers: Today's Deep Thoughts
I'm still maintaining a grudging and precarious support of GWB and his SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers--it may be more accurate to describe my mood as a positive-tinged neutrality.
But I find I've maintained a fairly constant level of aggravation, and I think I've figured out the source. I feel, in a way, that GWB has taken advantage of my support: he's nominated someone who is clearly not "the strongest candidate" out there (and I'm not saying she's not a good lawyer, or even that she's not qualified for the SC--that's begging the question); and now I'm trapped into supporting his nomination. To oppose it is to contribute to a damaging schism and give a victory to the Dems (the minority party, remember?). And I cannot wholeheartedly endorse the choice--as Fred Barnes said today on Brit Hume's show, it was George Bush himself who worked so hard to install the great judges that now sit on the federal appeals courts. Why is he bypassing those judges for an unknown quantity? And make no mistake: she is absolutely an unknown quantity.
I realize I'm not GWB. This is not about my feelings. And there's nothing that says the federal courts are the only source of SC nominees. It's just that my faith in GWB's judgement (and that's all there is to go on at this point) is leveraged upon a very small fulcrum, and I'm starting to feel the strain.
October 09, 2005
MADD's Neo-Prohibitionist Agenda
Radley Balko highlights Mothers Against Drunk Driving's neo-prohibitionist agenda (via Instapundit and The Corner). Twenty-five years old as of this fall, MADD enjoyed significant initial success in helping to reduce drunk driving fatalities. But by the mid nineties, those fatality rates began to level off: Balko notes that the problem has been reduced to one of dealing with a hardcore group of repeat offenders.
MADD also seemed to expand its mission to one of discouraging the consumption of alcohol in general — what critics call "neo-prohibition."
MADD's biggest victory on this front was a nationwide blood-alcohol threshold of .08, down from .10. But when two-thirds of alcohol-related traffic fatalities involve blood-alcohol levels of .14 and above, and the average fatal accident occurs at .17, this move doesn't make much sense. It's like lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 to catch people who drive 100 miles per hour. In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reviewed all the statistical data and concluded "the evidence does not conclusively establish that .08 BAC laws by themselves result in reductions in the number and severity of crashes involving alcohol."
For several years I've been performing my own informal and completely undocumented research on this; I make a mental note of the BAC of drivers involved in local accidents resulting in a fatality. The vast majority are over 0.15, which is approaching twice the legal limit. This tendency is very rarely remarked upon by the media; it's ignored by MADD. Balko goes on to document more MADD maneuvers in its prohibitionist campaign:
The organization is also pushing the widespread use of ignition interlock devices, in which a driver must blow into a tube to start his car, then blow again every 20 minutes or so while driving. Washington state recently passed a law allowing judges to mandate the devices in the cars of people merely accused of drunk driving, not convicted. And the states of New Mexico and New York have both considered legislation that would require the devices in every car sold in-state. The New Mexico bill is stalled in the state senate after being passed by the house. The New York bill was initially killed, but it gains more votes each time its determined sponsors reintroduce it.
MADD is also pushing its agenda onto family laws, including a zero tolerance policy for divorced parents. Under the bills MADD is trying to push through state legislatures, a parent caught consuming one beer or glass of wine before driving could face penalties that, according to MADD, "should include, but are not limited to" — "incarceration," "change of primary custody," or "termination of parental rights." This means that if you take your kid to the game, have a beer in the third inning, then drive home, you could very well lose your rights as a father.
Emphases mine. This is utterly preposterous and unacceptable. It's yet another example of an organization with a multi-million dollar budget that is not about to commit suicide-by-success.
More Evidence That We're Doomed
We take our son over to my mom's every Sunday--we all have lunch and then my wife and I go out shopping, or whatever, while the kiddo gets some grandma time.
So, today we're eating, and Mom's chatting about church. (I was brought up in a strong Catholic household and went to the local parish elementary school. Mom still attends every Sunday, but I am what I guess you'd call "lapsed".) Mom relates that Father So-and-so is going to revise the dress code, and my ears perked up. I don't believe a man should feel compelled to wear a suit and tie to church, but I abhor the shorts and sandals look. Even more, I hate the lack of respect behind the action.
"Well, good for him," I say.
Mom: "You know, a lot of people don't him for like that...Father Bob really hates it when people go to communion with chewing gum in their mouths."
"What!"
"Yeah, chewing gum. I think they do it just to make him mad."
I held my tongue, assuming it wouldn't be appropriate to vent the blasphemous thoughts roiling around in my head--especially given the subject. But what kind of person would go to communion with gum in their mouths?
We really are doomed.
Posted at 03:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)October 08, 2005
There's A Chill In The Air...Can't Say The Same About Me
Okay, I'm still nominally chillin' with the Miers appointment, with the emphasis on nominally. But I'm starting to lose my cool. Since I didn't have the forebearance to hold off on my pronouncements, I guess I will continue to document my mood swings in real time. And my mood right now is neutral: a pessimistic, wary and weary neutral.
Firstly, Karl Maher gives a very interesting recap of the political history of some other SCOTUS justices (hat tip to Decision '08). He also writes:
I don't know what kind of justice Harriet Miers will be, or even if she'll win confirmation. I've heard a few disturbing things about her in the last couple of days that make me hope she won't make it -- that she's partly responsible for the administration's positions on affirmative action, Title IX and McCain-Feingold.
I've read a few disturbing things lately too. David Frum has been against the nominee from the start, and this entry of his has got me very worried indeed:
So if I don't dislike Miers and want the president to succeed, why am I speaking out? Aside from all the substantial reasons I have cited to date, I am speaking out because there are so many others who want to speak but cannot. I have spent hours over the past three days listening to conservative jurists on this topic - people who have devoted their lives to fighting battles for constitutionalism, for tort reform, for color-blind justice, people who fought the good fight to get Bork, Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts onto the high Court.
Their reaction to the nomination has been almost perfectly unanimous: Disappointment at best, dismay and anger at worst. Here's the tough truth, and it will become more and more important as the debate continues: There is scarcely a single knowledgeable legal conservative in Washington who supports this nomination. There are many who are prepared to accept her, reluctantly, as the president's choice. Some still hope that maybe it won't turn out as bad as it looks. But ask them: "Well what if the president had consulted you on this choice," and the answer is almost always some version of: "I would have thought he was joking."[...]
Frum goes on to cite reports that Miers opposed taking a hard line against eliminating racial preferences in education, in opposition ot others in the administration. I was disappointed when this decision came down. Was Miers instrumental in the administration's defeat?
Frum reports other sources' observations on Miers conduct as a key member of the White House staff--observations that cast some doubt on Miers ability to see the strategic picture.
If Miers is confirmed, I doubt it will be a disaster. But I find myself paying more and more attention to the potentialities of a withdrawal of the nomination.
UPDATE: This commenter to Frum's blog really nailed the source of the background frustration with the pick:
Simple - we are asked to "trust me," once again. In fact, we've believed too many times. We believed in school vouchers; we got the Kennedy education bill. We believed in tax cuts, now under permanent threat of going back up again. We believed "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists;" Iran and Syria continue their silent invasion of Iraq. We believed in WMD; they're still buried somewhere in Syria. We believed in limited government; we got outrageous farm subsidies, steel tariffs, an unneeded prescription drug benefit, and a bloated transportation bill. We believed his commitment to homeland security; we got ever more porous borders. We trusted his appointments; we got George Tenet, Norm Mineta and Michael Brown. Come on; are we stupid?Posted at 12:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
October 06, 2005
Ronnie "Boss Tweed" Earle: "What Are You Going To Do About It?"
How ridiculous can this get? Now it turns out that the latest money laundering indictment against Tom Delay was returned by the third grand jury to hear the case. Travis county DA Ronnie Earle had pedaled the case to a previously unannounced second panel, which refused to return an indictment. Powerline highlights this article from the Austin American-Statesman (all emphases are mine):
Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict Delay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.[...]
This information was conveyed in a written statement released by Ronnie Earle late Tuesday.
In his statement, Earle said he would have no further comment because grand jury proceedings are secret.
I guess there really is no God, because if anyone ever deserved to be struck dead by a lightning bolt for their hypocrisy, Earle does. A man who allowed a documentary film crew to follow him around for months is pontificating about the "secrecy" of grand jury proceedings? It looks like Ronnie Earle's hero is Boss Tweed. (When confronted with evidence of massive long-term corruption in Tweed's Tammany Hall political machine--the machine that ran New York City for 80 years--Tweed replied, "What are you going to do about it?")
And the stench level emanating from this story just continues to rise. Today on our Houston conservative radio station KSEV-AM, I heard a clip of an interview with the foreman of the grand jury that returned the first (now discredited) indictment. The gist of the interview was that the foreman had made up his mind to go after Delay before hearing the evidence to be presented. This man had evidently been offended by political ads run by the Texas Association of Business. Rush has the transcript of the interview with Mark Caesar from KLBJ in Austin and ex-grand jury foreman William Gibson:
GIBSON: And all this came out way before I was ever on the grand jury, these mailers were in your paper, in the Austin papers, everybody else's paper. They were flooding the market around here. That those were way before I ever went on the grand jury, my decision was based upon those, not based upon what might have happened in the grand jury room.
CAESAR: Oh, okay. So your mind was made up after you learned about the ads.
GIBSON: Right, those ads way back, telling people how, their so called freedom of speech deal. I looked at it as they're just telling people, "Go vote for that person, go vote for that person."
CAESAR: So they didn't have the persuade you in the grand jury with any evidence, you already –
GIBSON: That was already public knowledge there. That way back (unintelligible) that is what I based my information on. They stated their positions, and I could state my position by saying, "Hey, I don't like that."
Here's another opportunity for "progressives" to demonstrate their adherence to their own principles. There can't be more a clear danger to civil liberties than an out-of-control, unethical prosecutor--if all of these Leftists cherish the idea of confronting oppressive authority, they should rise up now and demand Earle's resignation.
October 05, 2005
Too Much Conservative Elitism?
I saw Ann Coulter on O'Reilly's show tonight, and I was fairly seriously bugged by her sneering condescention at O'Reilly's mention that Miers graduated from the SMU law school. Her reaction immediately reminded me of AJStrata's blast against the rather elitist snits thrown by some of the more famous conservative pundits.
Then this evening I saw Senator John Cornyn's defense of the nominee in the WSJ OpinionJournal. Cornyn notes that of the 109 justices who have sat on the court, 41 of them had no judicial background--including William Rehnquist.
Furthermore, Harriet Miers's background as a legal practitioner is an asset, not a detriment. She has spent her career representing real people in courtrooms across America. This is precisely the type of experience that the Supreme Court needs. The court is full of justices who served as academics and court of appeals judges before they were nominated to the bench. What the court is missing is someone who understands the consequences of its decisions on the American people.[...]
Harriet Miers [...] has a long and successful career as a lawyer representing corporate and individual clients in a variety of state and federal courts. I am confident that this background provides her with an understanding of the burdens of modern litigation, a recognition of the problems with frivolous lawsuits and an appreciation for tort reform.
I can't find anything faulty in this reasoning. Maybe we should consider Roberts and Miers together: one bringing brilliant academic and judicial experience, the other contributing a balancing view of the practice of law in the real world of everyday Americans.
Posted at 08:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)Miers, O'Connor and Sweating Harry
I've got no interest in gambling, but I've listened to enough radio sportstalk to know there's a bet called an "over/under", in which you wager on whether a given number will be over, or under, the actual results.
I wonder what the over/under is on whether Miers will be more conservative or less conservative than O'Connor?
One sure bet: Harry Reid is sweating bullets. If Miers turns out to be a real conservative and it's apparent from the get-go, the Kossacks gang will rip him to shreds for coming out in support of her.
Posted at 01:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)October 04, 2005
Chillin' On Miers
My thinking today on the Miers nomination has settled into two broad conclusions:
1) The nomination is a fait accompli. Really, all rending of garments about what might have been is now just wasting energy and causing ulcers both literal and figurative. As far as conservative reactions go, this is an almost exact replay of the filibuster compromise. I wrote back on May 26th about the compromise:
Right now there are passionate arguments being made that cover the spectrum: good deal vs. bad, left vs. right. The correlation factor is low, randomness of viewpoint is high. At some point in the future all these opinions will converge to a common consensus on whether the deal was good for Republicans, or good for Democrats.[...]
I think it's important to separate the analyses into at least two groups: arguments about what should have happened; and arguments about, given the fait accompli of the compromise, how we should evaluate the deal that was made.
Unless something drastic happens to derail Miers beforehand, she will be the one who will have to withstand the Left's pre-scripted attacks, and she will be the one who takes her seat on the court. Forget Brown, forget Luttig, forget McConnell.
2) I've been persuaded by the argument (made by Hugh Hewitt and others) that Miers is no David Souter. It's been an easy, knee-jerk association to make, but I think the evidence is strong against that being a valid comparison. The fact that Bush has known Miers for a long time has traction with me. And as I believe Fred Barnes pointed out yesterday, George was certainly there to witness his father's mistake in nominating a man he didn't know well.
The real question is not whether or not Miers will be a Souter; rather it's whether Miers will be a more reliable conservative than the woman she's replacing: Sandra Day O'Connor.
I'm going to "trust" that she will be.
Posted at 09:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)