In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court and ruled that a Texas water district could indeed petition the feds to opt out of Federal oversight of its local elections, something required by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act.
Ruling narrowly, the court did not rule on the basic constitutionality of Section 5, though several justices did hint that they found it dubious, with Clarence Thomas providing the single dissenting vote, saying that provision was unconstitutional.
The Roberts Court has sent a message to the Congress. The Chief Justice, by ensuring that some version of justice was meted out narrowly in this case, has let the legislative body know that a thorough review of the Civil Rights Act is required. Overturning Congressional statutes is not taken lightly by the Supremes, and it is always better for the political branch to do its job and decide matters politically than it is for the Court to decide political matters judicially.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Metro Accident Kills Nine in DC
The death toll from the Metro accident is now nine. What a horrible thing. Death and destruction occur all around the world every day, but for some (selfish) reason, this accident's got me a little more shaken than most. I ride the Metro all the time--some of the most important people in the world to me ride it every day...the utter randomness of it all is astounding. This is sad.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A Defense of Obama on Iran
I've been generally supportive of the President's approach to the situation in Iran. Here's another more articulate defense.
For me, the question is "what are we prepared to do to implement our policy goals?" If we make it our policy goal to support a bottom-up revolution, then what are we willing to do to support it? Will we fund it? Will we provide intelligence? Will we provide military support? Exactly what is it we are prepared to deliver to the Iranian people along with our exhortations to continue marching and resisting? Will we make promises? Will we keep them?
Our history shows us examples of where our cheap, idealistic cheerleading for freedom leads to the deaths of those we pushed (Hungary 1956, Southern Iraq 1991). You don't cheerlead unless you're willing to do the hard dirty work of helping the people you are emboldening.
For me, the question is "what are we prepared to do to implement our policy goals?" If we make it our policy goal to support a bottom-up revolution, then what are we willing to do to support it? Will we fund it? Will we provide intelligence? Will we provide military support? Exactly what is it we are prepared to deliver to the Iranian people along with our exhortations to continue marching and resisting? Will we make promises? Will we keep them?
Our history shows us examples of where our cheap, idealistic cheerleading for freedom leads to the deaths of those we pushed (Hungary 1956, Southern Iraq 1991). You don't cheerlead unless you're willing to do the hard dirty work of helping the people you are emboldening.
Jay Johnson Taking Over CEO of General Dynamics
There's a story here of the transition at the top of General Dynamics, the giant defense contractor. Of note, the new CEO will be my old boss, Jay Johnson.
Johnson, as many of you remember, was the Chief of Naval Operations from 1996-2000, taking over when ADM Boorda committed suicide. I served as Johnson's speechwriter for two years during that time, a tour that was often fascinating and sometimes just plain grinding.
What I always admired about Johnson was that when he left the Pentagon, he didn't put on a suit and then shill for some big defense firm. He went down to Richmond and took a VP of Strategic Planning job with the Dominion Corporation. Two years later he was the CEO of a business unit there, then he became CEO of an even bigger business unit. Point is, he left the military for something completely different, a move that took a lot of courage and confidence. He built a reputation for himself in business and is now back in the defense world, where I think we'll see him do a solid job at GD.
Johnson, as many of you remember, was the Chief of Naval Operations from 1996-2000, taking over when ADM Boorda committed suicide. I served as Johnson's speechwriter for two years during that time, a tour that was often fascinating and sometimes just plain grinding.
What I always admired about Johnson was that when he left the Pentagon, he didn't put on a suit and then shill for some big defense firm. He went down to Richmond and took a VP of Strategic Planning job with the Dominion Corporation. Two years later he was the CEO of a business unit there, then he became CEO of an even bigger business unit. Point is, he left the military for something completely different, a move that took a lot of courage and confidence. He built a reputation for himself in business and is now back in the defense world, where I think we'll see him do a solid job at GD.
Report from the Fascism Front
Here's yet another instance of the creeping fascism/statism underway in our economy. In order to convince skeptical lawmakers of its "devotion" to lowering medical costs, big Pharma is going to discount the price of medicare prescriptions (to the cheers of the Obama Administration) by $80B over the next decade. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) will join in the chorus of applause at a White House ceremony, all of it neat and tidy. This looks and sounds wonderful to many, but it is just the latest example of collusion between the government and industry that should be called by its proper name....fascism.
Jonah Goldberg and Amity Schlaes have both covered this ground wonderfully. All of this seemingly altruistic price cutting and corporate cooperation should more properly be viewed as craven conspiracy to protect market share and stifle competition. Who benefits? Government and business. Who suffers? Consumers.
Jonah Goldberg and Amity Schlaes have both covered this ground wonderfully. All of this seemingly altruistic price cutting and corporate cooperation should more properly be viewed as craven conspiracy to protect market share and stifle competition. Who benefits? Government and business. Who suffers? Consumers.
Unemployment Expected to Continue Rise
Here's a little story about the number the Obama Administration can't explain away...they told us they'd hold unemployment at 8% if the "stimulus" were passed, and it is now 9.4% and growing. My take? They never should have made the original claim...it was silly. Unemployment is always a lagging statistic, manifesting itself after a decline has started and turning around long after a recovery is underway.
That said, the administration isn't helping itself in this effort. American business...especially small and mid size business (you know, where jobs are created)...pays attention to the newspapers and the interwebs. They can read the tea leaves as well as anyone. The Administration is going to tax and spend in order to attain its policy goals, and it is going to be on the backs of business that this happens (health care sticks out here). Some may say that this is an acceptable sacrifice given the goals in mind (I of course, do not agree); what must be recognized is that the sacrifice consists of a business owner sitting back and weighing the consequences of hiring one more worker, then not doing so because he or she can't afford it. Extend this across the economy and......
That said, the administration isn't helping itself in this effort. American business...especially small and mid size business (you know, where jobs are created)...pays attention to the newspapers and the interwebs. They can read the tea leaves as well as anyone. The Administration is going to tax and spend in order to attain its policy goals, and it is going to be on the backs of business that this happens (health care sticks out here). Some may say that this is an acceptable sacrifice given the goals in mind (I of course, do not agree); what must be recognized is that the sacrifice consists of a business owner sitting back and weighing the consequences of hiring one more worker, then not doing so because he or she can't afford it. Extend this across the economy and......
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Rhee Freezes WaPost Reporter
So the Washington Post has an Ombudsman, someone whose job it is (or at least I thought so) to hold the spotlight up to the paper and raise issues where its reporting or objectivity might have been compromised. This morning's column though, calls out DC Public Schools Chief Michelle Rhee for the (apparently) unforgivable sin of not talking with the Post reporter assigned to cover the DC schools. Wrapped self-righteously in the mantle of the "public's need to know" and the "hometown" nature of the Post's coverage, little is made of exactly what it is that Rhee had objected to in the first place about reporter Bill Turque's coverage.
Putting aside for a moment that Rhee might be acting a bit pettily in this case, one has to wonder just who it was that died and made the Washington Post boss? If Michelle Rhee doesn't want to talk to a reporter, that is her CHOICE. She is under NO obligation to talk to the Post and especially to someone with whom she has a beef.
It appears as though Mr. Torque might have to resort to desperate measures in his quest for the "DC Schools" story. He's actually going to have to "report".
Putting aside for a moment that Rhee might be acting a bit pettily in this case, one has to wonder just who it was that died and made the Washington Post boss? If Michelle Rhee doesn't want to talk to a reporter, that is her CHOICE. She is under NO obligation to talk to the Post and especially to someone with whom she has a beef.
It appears as though Mr. Torque might have to resort to desperate measures in his quest for the "DC Schools" story. He's actually going to have to "report".
Reporter Held By Taliban Released
Howard Kurtz covers the story of the story of the release of a New York Times reporter held by the Taliban for eight months. It seems that the NYT and over 40 other news outlets "sat" on the story because of a fear that reporter David Rohde's life would be put in jeopardy if his kidnapping were widely reported.
I'm thankful David Rohde was released. But I am bemused by the Times' (and the rest of the media) circling the wagons around one of their own to "protect his life" while they routinely report on classified matters that could EASILY lead to far more catastrophic loss of life.
I'm thankful David Rohde was released. But I am bemused by the Times' (and the rest of the media) circling the wagons around one of their own to "protect his life" while they routinely report on classified matters that could EASILY lead to far more catastrophic loss of life.
Happy Father's Day...and What I Learned From My Dad
Father's Day seems late to me this year--so much so that I wrote and posted a Father's Day blog last week, only to have Sally quickly remind me that we weren't quite there yet.
I've written a bit about fatherhood here in this blog, which many of you may find odd given my lack of membership in the club (ever hear the expression "those who can't do, teach?"). And while my personal experience as a father is limited to those duties delegated to me by the Kitten (and Jimmy's mom), my credentials to comment upon the subject are in fact quite good, given that I learned about fatherhood from a master--my Dad. So in the spirit of the day, and in warm thanks and love to James A. (Jimmy Wires) McGrath, I'd like to spend a little time on "What I Learned From My Dad". Dad's very much alive, so where I use the past tense, it is only for style.
1. Balance. My Dad led an incredibly balanced life. He started a business from the ground up and built it into a going concern that fed, clothed and housed his own family and those of several other men. He had an active social life, with a huge circle of friends through the country club, his men's club (go Dad!), and the tavern where he ate his lunch. He was a father to six children and managed to be a big part of our very busy little lives. And he loved his wife, as I'll talk about in another entry. Point is, he had a lot of varied interests, and he indulged them all. Where I say I "learned" balance from my Dad--I'm actually fudging it. I watched balance, then failed to implement it in much of my own adult life. The older I grow, the more I admire the way he pulled it off, and the more I try to emulate him.
2. Love of wife. Even in a house of six frantic children, there was never any question of who came first in my Dad's life--his wife, my Mom. As I've said here before, when I asked him years ago how to be a good Dad, he said "love your wife". When I last wrote that, some correspondent wrote in to take issue with that, recounting wonderful walks he used to take with his Dad. I never responded to that entry, but it bothered me because I didn't write "love your wife, ignore your children". What I'm trying to get across here is that what he meant (and the lesson I've taken) is that if a man showers his children with love, affection, understanding and attention--yet fails to love and respect their mother--he will have failed in executing one of his most important jobs as a father. That is, providing an example to the next generation of how a loving couple works.
3. Be a man. Dad's a man's man and always has been. This fact was always on its most grand display on the golf course, which is where I got to see my Dad socialize up close with other men, talk smack with other men, and show deference and respect to older men. I spent countless mid-teen years carrying his golf bag around (for pay, mind you) listening to him and his buddies do their thing. Years later, when I was in a class for officers about to assume command of Navy ships, I remember sitting there one day listening to the chatter and realizing how much of it resembled the golf course banter I'd heard as a teenager. Pure smack talk. Loved it. But I also learned that it is OK to cry from my Dad. I'll never forget the first time I saw it--it was when HIS Dad died. I'd been carrying on manfully (or as manfully as a twelve year old can), but when Dad lost it, so did I. I was so sad, not necessarily for losing a Grandpa, but for my Dad. His tears came from his soul.
4. Face your demons. I led an alcohol fueled college life, then joined the biggest fraternity of them all in the US Navy, where my partying continued unabated. Along the way, I flamed out a marriage to a wonderful woman at least in part due to drinking. When I'd hit bottom and realized that I had to make a change, I went to talk to the guy I knew who had already given up drinking--my Dad. I told him that I wanted--no, I needed to stop drinking. I asked what I needed to do--should I go to AA? Do I need to see a doctor? Should I sign up for rehab? He just looked me in the eye and said, "just stop drinking". Now I realize that such advice might not work for everyone--but I think he knew it was all I needed. Sixteen years later, he was right.
There's a whole lot more, but I think you get the picture. So here's to you, Dad, on your special day! Enjoy it, and thank you.
I've written a bit about fatherhood here in this blog, which many of you may find odd given my lack of membership in the club (ever hear the expression "those who can't do, teach?"). And while my personal experience as a father is limited to those duties delegated to me by the Kitten (and Jimmy's mom), my credentials to comment upon the subject are in fact quite good, given that I learned about fatherhood from a master--my Dad. So in the spirit of the day, and in warm thanks and love to James A. (Jimmy Wires) McGrath, I'd like to spend a little time on "What I Learned From My Dad". Dad's very much alive, so where I use the past tense, it is only for style.
1. Balance. My Dad led an incredibly balanced life. He started a business from the ground up and built it into a going concern that fed, clothed and housed his own family and those of several other men. He had an active social life, with a huge circle of friends through the country club, his men's club (go Dad!), and the tavern where he ate his lunch. He was a father to six children and managed to be a big part of our very busy little lives. And he loved his wife, as I'll talk about in another entry. Point is, he had a lot of varied interests, and he indulged them all. Where I say I "learned" balance from my Dad--I'm actually fudging it. I watched balance, then failed to implement it in much of my own adult life. The older I grow, the more I admire the way he pulled it off, and the more I try to emulate him.
2. Love of wife. Even in a house of six frantic children, there was never any question of who came first in my Dad's life--his wife, my Mom. As I've said here before, when I asked him years ago how to be a good Dad, he said "love your wife". When I last wrote that, some correspondent wrote in to take issue with that, recounting wonderful walks he used to take with his Dad. I never responded to that entry, but it bothered me because I didn't write "love your wife, ignore your children". What I'm trying to get across here is that what he meant (and the lesson I've taken) is that if a man showers his children with love, affection, understanding and attention--yet fails to love and respect their mother--he will have failed in executing one of his most important jobs as a father. That is, providing an example to the next generation of how a loving couple works.
3. Be a man. Dad's a man's man and always has been. This fact was always on its most grand display on the golf course, which is where I got to see my Dad socialize up close with other men, talk smack with other men, and show deference and respect to older men. I spent countless mid-teen years carrying his golf bag around (for pay, mind you) listening to him and his buddies do their thing. Years later, when I was in a class for officers about to assume command of Navy ships, I remember sitting there one day listening to the chatter and realizing how much of it resembled the golf course banter I'd heard as a teenager. Pure smack talk. Loved it. But I also learned that it is OK to cry from my Dad. I'll never forget the first time I saw it--it was when HIS Dad died. I'd been carrying on manfully (or as manfully as a twelve year old can), but when Dad lost it, so did I. I was so sad, not necessarily for losing a Grandpa, but for my Dad. His tears came from his soul.
4. Face your demons. I led an alcohol fueled college life, then joined the biggest fraternity of them all in the US Navy, where my partying continued unabated. Along the way, I flamed out a marriage to a wonderful woman at least in part due to drinking. When I'd hit bottom and realized that I had to make a change, I went to talk to the guy I knew who had already given up drinking--my Dad. I told him that I wanted--no, I needed to stop drinking. I asked what I needed to do--should I go to AA? Do I need to see a doctor? Should I sign up for rehab? He just looked me in the eye and said, "just stop drinking". Now I realize that such advice might not work for everyone--but I think he knew it was all I needed. Sixteen years later, he was right.
There's a whole lot more, but I think you get the picture. So here's to you, Dad, on your special day! Enjoy it, and thank you.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
On the Doctor Shortage
Interesting story in the WaPost this morning on the shortage of primary care physicians, and the likelihood that the problem will worsen with any program designed to put more of the 46 million "uninsured" into the system.
Does anyone believe greater government play in the system is going to solve this problem? If anything, more government will likely move things the other way, and here's why.
Let's face it...being a doctor just ain't what it used to be. Doctors used to be independent contractors, independent owners/practitioners etc running a business as a partnership or LLC. Now, most work for corporations/hospital systems, and they abide by corporate pay-scales. That is, as these corporations have sought to control costs, they have sought to control compensation. Big government getting more involved will exert even more negative pressure on the compensation system. Lower wages (or the perception thereof) combined with what is still a grinding system of education and training for MD's will invariably result in an exacerbated shortage.
Does anyone believe greater government play in the system is going to solve this problem? If anything, more government will likely move things the other way, and here's why.
Let's face it...being a doctor just ain't what it used to be. Doctors used to be independent contractors, independent owners/practitioners etc running a business as a partnership or LLC. Now, most work for corporations/hospital systems, and they abide by corporate pay-scales. That is, as these corporations have sought to control costs, they have sought to control compensation. Big government getting more involved will exert even more negative pressure on the compensation system. Lower wages (or the perception thereof) combined with what is still a grinding system of education and training for MD's will invariably result in an exacerbated shortage.
Sotomayor Quits Women's Club
Shame on you, Judge Sotomayor. Stick to your guns and associate with whomever you wish, as is your right under the Constitution.
Friday, June 19, 2009
At The Automobile Service Center
Here I am for my every 7500 mile visit to the Acura Dealer to have my 9 year-old 150K mile 3.5RL serviced. A few thoughts....
1. Though I realize writing this will probably jinx me, I'm a believer in regular service. I spend a good bit of time fantasizing about what it is that will replace this car, but she's comfortable, reliable and in relatively good shape. I like to think the regular service contributed to this.
2. There are very few places on earth I feel more uncomfortable than an auto service center. You could drop me into a neurosurgery theater and I'd feel like I had more to offer than I do in a garage. They could walk into the posh waiting lounge and tell me that my car had to have its appendix removed and I'd nod knowingly.
3. My trips to the Acura dealer are always scheduled for the morning, and as I sit in the Gucci waiting area, the banality of morning television drones on in the background. We'll likely move straight from "Today" to "Regis and Cathy Lee". There are five men sitting in the waiting area and no women...it's usually like this. The TV channel selection is clearly made by the receptionist/cashier ladies. The "Jonas Brothers" are on Today this morning, and I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
1. Though I realize writing this will probably jinx me, I'm a believer in regular service. I spend a good bit of time fantasizing about what it is that will replace this car, but she's comfortable, reliable and in relatively good shape. I like to think the regular service contributed to this.
2. There are very few places on earth I feel more uncomfortable than an auto service center. You could drop me into a neurosurgery theater and I'd feel like I had more to offer than I do in a garage. They could walk into the posh waiting lounge and tell me that my car had to have its appendix removed and I'd nod knowingly.
3. My trips to the Acura dealer are always scheduled for the morning, and as I sit in the Gucci waiting area, the banality of morning television drones on in the background. We'll likely move straight from "Today" to "Regis and Cathy Lee". There are five men sitting in the waiting area and no women...it's usually like this. The TV channel selection is clearly made by the receptionist/cashier ladies. The "Jonas Brothers" are on Today this morning, and I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Climate Change Cannot Be Challenged
I spent Tuesday and Wednesday at the Naval War College Current Strategy Forum. It was two days of very interesting talk about the US, its role in the world, current economic problems and general international relations. At times it was downright fascinating.
One thing really began to get on my nerves after a while, and that was the extent to which speaker after speaker--irrespective of their ideology, party or background--talked about climate change as if it were a problem that we had created and a problem that we can--no, should--solve.
I realize that raising questions about climate change science and the like put one in the category of Holocaust Denier and Flat-earther, but here goes.
I am ready to acknowledge that man has and is changing the world's climate in some measurable way through his activities. I am ready to acknowledge that man can and in some cases should move toward activities that contribute less to this problem.
But I am not ready to concede that the change in our climate is MOSTLY or even SIGNIFICANTLY impacted by man's activities. The sea has claimed and revealed land for time immemorial--that is, climate change is the natural condition of our planet.
What I see at work here is a strain of do-gooderism that attempts to restrain the bad (read man, corporations, the West) in order to advance the good (Mother Earth, rain forests, primitive peoples, etc). By whipping the world into a frenzy of fear (remember AIDS?) proponents of radical climate change therapy hope to scare the rest of us into actions they desire. Their propaganda is so thoroughly ingrained in the academy and in certain political ideologies that it is seen now as irrational to doubt.
One thing really began to get on my nerves after a while, and that was the extent to which speaker after speaker--irrespective of their ideology, party or background--talked about climate change as if it were a problem that we had created and a problem that we can--no, should--solve.
I realize that raising questions about climate change science and the like put one in the category of Holocaust Denier and Flat-earther, but here goes.
I am ready to acknowledge that man has and is changing the world's climate in some measurable way through his activities. I am ready to acknowledge that man can and in some cases should move toward activities that contribute less to this problem.
But I am not ready to concede that the change in our climate is MOSTLY or even SIGNIFICANTLY impacted by man's activities. The sea has claimed and revealed land for time immemorial--that is, climate change is the natural condition of our planet.
What I see at work here is a strain of do-gooderism that attempts to restrain the bad (read man, corporations, the West) in order to advance the good (Mother Earth, rain forests, primitive peoples, etc). By whipping the world into a frenzy of fear (remember AIDS?) proponents of radical climate change therapy hope to scare the rest of us into actions they desire. Their propaganda is so thoroughly ingrained in the academy and in certain political ideologies that it is seen now as irrational to doubt.
Yet Another Question For The President
"Mr. President--you and others in your administration have for some time now, used the phrase "crisis that we inherited" to describe the economic situation in which we currently find ourselves. At what point will you and your administration own the economy to the extent that you will no longer be able to blame the previous administration? And since that administration's policies are in no small part responsible for the current upswing in the economy (given your administration's lack of ownership), are you ready to share credit with them?"
Cheap High Speed Internet Is A Human Right
This story was too good to let pass for two reasons. The first is that my techno-geek oldest brother Jim brought it to my attention. Jim's a true renaissance man, and his passions range widely.
Second, the member of Congress involved, Eric Massa, is a friend of mine. We served in the Navy together and I had a nice talk with him at a breakfast on the Hill just a few months ago.
A couple of things to note. My friendship with him notwithstanding, Massa is just plain wrong here. This is populist grandstanding and it represents a ridiculous intrusion in free markets.
Here's how brother Jim put it in an email:
Second, the member of Congress involved, Eric Massa, is a friend of mine. We served in the Navy together and I had a nice talk with him at a breakfast on the Hill just a few months ago.
A couple of things to note. My friendship with him notwithstanding, Massa is just plain wrong here. This is populist grandstanding and it represents a ridiculous intrusion in free markets.
Here's how brother Jim put it in an email:
"Boo friggin hoo! I’d like to see the NY Yankees play baseball and sit behind the Yankees dugout. But the tickets are minimum $285 (and much more against say the Red Sox). Can Rep. Eric Massa sponsor a bill to get me cheap tickets in this section? Yea, I know I can pay $34 for bleacher tickets, but it is my God-given right to pay $34 for a behind the dugout ticket isn’t it?
A Question For Our President on Health Care
"Mr. President, you've been very consistent about your desire to adopt pragmatic, tested ideas to solve problems without ideology.
On health care, many in the debate (on your side of the aisle) wish there to be a government provided health care option for healthy-working people. Many on the other side oppose it for varied reasons, not the least of which is the lack of evidence that the government can do so efficiently and effectively.
In the spirit of pragmatism, why not delay moving forward with the idea of a government sponsored health care plan for healthy working people until we have some evidence that the portion of the health care system ALREADY UNDER THE CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT can be run efficiently and effectively? Medicare and Medicaid are travesties of inefficiency and mismanagement. Why not fix them first, build some capital and believability on the subject, then show Americans that a government administered system can work?"
On health care, many in the debate (on your side of the aisle) wish there to be a government provided health care option for healthy-working people. Many on the other side oppose it for varied reasons, not the least of which is the lack of evidence that the government can do so efficiently and effectively.
In the spirit of pragmatism, why not delay moving forward with the idea of a government sponsored health care plan for healthy working people until we have some evidence that the portion of the health care system ALREADY UNDER THE CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT can be run efficiently and effectively? Medicare and Medicaid are travesties of inefficiency and mismanagement. Why not fix them first, build some capital and believability on the subject, then show Americans that a government administered system can work?"
No Boys Allowed
This is delicious....our Supreme Court nominee belongs to an all-woman club of movers and shakers...you know, the kind of thing that gets a white guy excoriated when he stands before the Senate. Michael Kinsley does a nice job of pointing out the hypocrisy at work here, but he really misses the larger point.
I support Judge Sotomayor's desire to hang out with women, there being no men present. I simply wish to have the same right (or its analog), without there being some hyperventilation about it being some kind of patriarchal conspiracy. This is known as a "First Amendment" right, that off peaceable assembly. Free association is a protected Constitutional right, and I would LOVE for her to take a principled stand on the issue should it come up.
But as we all know (and Kinsley points out nicely), we tolerate discrimination BY (perceived) oppressed groups, but do not tolerate discrimination against them.
I support Judge Sotomayor's desire to hang out with women, there being no men present. I simply wish to have the same right (or its analog), without there being some hyperventilation about it being some kind of patriarchal conspiracy. This is known as a "First Amendment" right, that off peaceable assembly. Free association is a protected Constitutional right, and I would LOVE for her to take a principled stand on the issue should it come up.
But as we all know (and Kinsley points out nicely), we tolerate discrimination BY (perceived) oppressed groups, but do not tolerate discrimination against them.
Obama and Iran
I think the Iran election presents a revealing look at the as yet un-defined and un-packaged foreign policy, and I find myself thinking that there is some logic and--dare I say it--Hope--to be found in it.
Here's why--I describe myself most often as a foreign policy "realist"; power politics continues to dominate the world scene, and nations continue to act in what they consider their "interests".
Obama and his team are taking a cold, hard look at what is going on in Iran. While they aren't terribly upset that the mullahs have a problem on their hands, they realize that what we are seeing is a "proto-movement", something that may have actual impact in ten or twenty years, but which for now is really not a serious threat to the authority of the regime--a regime with whom they have to contend. As long as Khamenei is in power, it doesn't matter who the civilian henchman is. The challenger in this election believes many if not all of the same things that the winner did. It may very well be in our interest for Ahmadinejad to stay in power--his rantings, his looniness--do a great deal of harm internationally to the reputation of Iran, and it is in that undermining that our long term opportunity exists.
Now--here comes what my conservative audience has been waiting for...the rest of the story. This kind of foreign policy realism makes sense to me if and only if it is practiced consistently. We act when necessary to defend and advance our interests. If the Obama Administration comes to settle into this paradigm, I'll be a happy camper. But it MUST be practiced consistently, and that's where the problems come up. A "realist" sees no national interest in intervening in ANY way in Darfur. A "realist" will look at many horrible tragedies across the world and recognize the inhumanity--but do nothing. A "realist" understands that our interests are limited and worth fighting for, and that much of what is left simply doesn't rise to that level.
Does a realist back away from the world? No. He encourages those with "dogs in the fight" to manage things. He catalyzes responses. He leads--but he doesn't always "do".
I simply don't have any faith that the Obama Administration will be able to follow through consistently with a realist foreign policy. Domestic pressures will drive them to selectively pick and choose, and it is in that inconsistency that mischief will arise.
Here's why--I describe myself most often as a foreign policy "realist"; power politics continues to dominate the world scene, and nations continue to act in what they consider their "interests".
Obama and his team are taking a cold, hard look at what is going on in Iran. While they aren't terribly upset that the mullahs have a problem on their hands, they realize that what we are seeing is a "proto-movement", something that may have actual impact in ten or twenty years, but which for now is really not a serious threat to the authority of the regime--a regime with whom they have to contend. As long as Khamenei is in power, it doesn't matter who the civilian henchman is. The challenger in this election believes many if not all of the same things that the winner did. It may very well be in our interest for Ahmadinejad to stay in power--his rantings, his looniness--do a great deal of harm internationally to the reputation of Iran, and it is in that undermining that our long term opportunity exists.
Now--here comes what my conservative audience has been waiting for...the rest of the story. This kind of foreign policy realism makes sense to me if and only if it is practiced consistently. We act when necessary to defend and advance our interests. If the Obama Administration comes to settle into this paradigm, I'll be a happy camper. But it MUST be practiced consistently, and that's where the problems come up. A "realist" sees no national interest in intervening in ANY way in Darfur. A "realist" will look at many horrible tragedies across the world and recognize the inhumanity--but do nothing. A "realist" understands that our interests are limited and worth fighting for, and that much of what is left simply doesn't rise to that level.
Does a realist back away from the world? No. He encourages those with "dogs in the fight" to manage things. He catalyzes responses. He leads--but he doesn't always "do".
I simply don't have any faith that the Obama Administration will be able to follow through consistently with a realist foreign policy. Domestic pressures will drive them to selectively pick and choose, and it is in that inconsistency that mischief will arise.
Obama and Regulation
President Obama and his team have come forward with a program designed to increase regulatory oversight of the financial markets, firms, and consumers. This is sweeping stuff, the likes of which we've not seen for decades. A couple of comments.
First, it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid the conclusion that the regulatory structure in place failed to do its job in this latest financial crisis. "Regulator Shopping", the cozy relationship between regulators, lobbyists, and Congress....lots of places where strengthening regulatory bodies makes sense.
Second, Conservatives must avoid the reflex reaction that increased regulation is BAD (in this case). The perception out there (for good or bad) is that the "free market" failed us. This is nonsense. A poorly regulated market in which there was a LACK OF FREEDOM failed us--and by a lack of freedom I mean the market was tilted in a manner in which people lost any sense of there being a "moral hazard" associated with investing. There was no perception of risk. This is not a free-market, this is a fantasy market. Regulation of financial markets must strive to create more freedom, and there is an excellent opportunity here with this package of proposals to make a freer, fairer market than that which failed us.
Conservatives MUST NOT abandon the playing field here...this is our turf, and we should work with the President to strengthen our markets by making them more free.
First, it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid the conclusion that the regulatory structure in place failed to do its job in this latest financial crisis. "Regulator Shopping", the cozy relationship between regulators, lobbyists, and Congress....lots of places where strengthening regulatory bodies makes sense.
Second, Conservatives must avoid the reflex reaction that increased regulation is BAD (in this case). The perception out there (for good or bad) is that the "free market" failed us. This is nonsense. A poorly regulated market in which there was a LACK OF FREEDOM failed us--and by a lack of freedom I mean the market was tilted in a manner in which people lost any sense of there being a "moral hazard" associated with investing. There was no perception of risk. This is not a free-market, this is a fantasy market. Regulation of financial markets must strive to create more freedom, and there is an excellent opportunity here with this package of proposals to make a freer, fairer market than that which failed us.
Conservatives MUST NOT abandon the playing field here...this is our turf, and we should work with the President to strengthen our markets by making them more free.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Building a Supercarrier
Found this on Instapundit....for those of you techies into the hows and whys of building a supercarrier, this article is a good read.
But, I've got an even better idea for a supercarrier...this would be a carrier built from the keel up to launch and recover Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV), and UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles). The model is the alien spaceship from the movie "Independence Day"--you remember that movie, don't you? It's the one where the aliens disgorge literally thousands of little fighter planes at a time to take on the forces of good (Will Smith et al).
Back in the day when I was plying the world's oceans, our carriers considered it a bang-up day if their embarked air wing could generate 200+ sorties a day--many of which weren't bomb droppers.
Imagine if we designed a carrier that served as an assembly line launch and recovery platform for UCAV/UAV's. Here's the concept--a UCAV returns from its mission and lands on the carrier. It is caught and guided to an assembly line that takes the plane below decks for refueling, re-arming, and re-programming (with the next mission). This same assembly line moves the UCAV to a ready position until the mission needs to be flown, at which point the UCAV is selected and launched. In full automatic, the UCAV's drop their bombs, return, refuel, rearm and reprogram, only to then relaunch and head out to the next target.
The weak point in high performance aircraft is the fact that we have to put a human being in it. If we took the human out, we could basically strap an engine on a bomb, a computer and a wing and send it out to do ridiculous maneuvers over target that would kill a human being (forces of gravity being what they are). These maneuvers would make it much more difficult to shoot down such a vehicle, making it even MORE survivable than a comparably armed manned aircraft. Satellites could provide for in flight re-programming and/or recall.
How many THOUSANDS of combat sorties a day could a carrier such as this one carry out? The possibilities are mind-blowing.
But, I've got an even better idea for a supercarrier...this would be a carrier built from the keel up to launch and recover Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV), and UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles). The model is the alien spaceship from the movie "Independence Day"--you remember that movie, don't you? It's the one where the aliens disgorge literally thousands of little fighter planes at a time to take on the forces of good (Will Smith et al).
Back in the day when I was plying the world's oceans, our carriers considered it a bang-up day if their embarked air wing could generate 200+ sorties a day--many of which weren't bomb droppers.
Imagine if we designed a carrier that served as an assembly line launch and recovery platform for UCAV/UAV's. Here's the concept--a UCAV returns from its mission and lands on the carrier. It is caught and guided to an assembly line that takes the plane below decks for refueling, re-arming, and re-programming (with the next mission). This same assembly line moves the UCAV to a ready position until the mission needs to be flown, at which point the UCAV is selected and launched. In full automatic, the UCAV's drop their bombs, return, refuel, rearm and reprogram, only to then relaunch and head out to the next target.
The weak point in high performance aircraft is the fact that we have to put a human being in it. If we took the human out, we could basically strap an engine on a bomb, a computer and a wing and send it out to do ridiculous maneuvers over target that would kill a human being (forces of gravity being what they are). These maneuvers would make it much more difficult to shoot down such a vehicle, making it even MORE survivable than a comparably armed manned aircraft. Satellites could provide for in flight re-programming and/or recall.
How many THOUSANDS of combat sorties a day could a carrier such as this one carry out? The possibilities are mind-blowing.
Meet Ambassador Mitchell Reiss
I had a very pleasant chat today with Ambassador Mitchell Reiss (here's a short bio). Ambassador Reiss was a panelist at the Current Strategy Forum here in Newport, RI today, and during one of the breaks I strolled up and chatted him up. Instantly engaging, very interesting, and quite witty, Reiss served as a senior foreign policy advisor to Mitt Romney during his recent Presidential primary run. We talked a bit about foreign policy, the current President (Reiss was very fair about giving the President his due where he deserved it) and Republican presidential prospects for 2012 (he was not sanguine).
Ambassador Reiss is now an official at William and Mary, so I couldn't resist asking why he'd take a job at the Commonwealth's second tier school....he laughed and said that UVA was too slow to offer a job.
I'm beginning to keep a mental note of the kinds of people who are ultimately going to be behind a Republican Renaissance someday....Ambassador Reiss is one of them.
Nevada Senator Has a Staffing Issue
I'm growing weary of stories like this...seems John Ensign (R-Nev) has come out and admitted to an extramarital affair. Lots of thoughts occur to me at a time like this.
First, the folks on the other side of the aisle will point to the hypocrisy here (Conservative, family values guy dipping his wick in the staff inkwell), and they'll be right.
Secondly, it is clear that lots of guys cheat on their wives. But MAN, why would you do it when you're in a place where you KNOW someone wants to rat you out? Clearly, Ensign did this(admission) to head off some embarrassing scandal that was sure to follow. He should have known better, much better.
First, the folks on the other side of the aisle will point to the hypocrisy here (Conservative, family values guy dipping his wick in the staff inkwell), and they'll be right.
Secondly, it is clear that lots of guys cheat on their wives. But MAN, why would you do it when you're in a place where you KNOW someone wants to rat you out? Clearly, Ensign did this(admission) to head off some embarrassing scandal that was sure to follow. He should have known better, much better.
Monday, June 15, 2009
On The Road Again...
I'm in Newport, RI for a couple of days attending the Naval War College's "Current Strategy Forum". I just accepted a new job, one in which I'll be diving back headlong into the idea/policy/strategy business (focused mainly on naval matters), and this forum is ground zero for a lot of important thinking about the future of the Navy. If you've never visited Newport, it is a great place. Quaint, a little touristy, and an interesting blend of faded wealth and blue collar grit...Newport's a place that Surface Warriors in the US Navy come back to several times in their career for ongoing education.
Rhode Island is as corrupt a state as there is....fifteen years ago while attending a training course in Newport, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Providence Journal decrying not only the corruption of this state, but the people's acceptance of it as a part of life. Got a death threat on my answering machine for that one....
Rhode Island is as corrupt a state as there is....fifteen years ago while attending a training course in Newport, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Providence Journal decrying not only the corruption of this state, but the people's acceptance of it as a part of life. Got a death threat on my answering machine for that one....
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The Weekly Standard on Obama Care
A nice read here on the dangers of Obama Care....but it is insufficient. Guys as smart as Bill Kristol and Yuval Levin shouldn't have written this without putting forward some Conservative ideas on health care reform.
David Ignatius With A Must-Read On Debt
From this morning's Post, a useful primer on how debt can and will hamper our economy.
White Roofs To Slow Global Warming?
This seems to be a fairly straightforward, common sense approach to addressing global warming. Sure would like a white roof out here on the Eastern Shore, say in early August....
MSM Beginning To Cover The Debt Problem
President Obama's got a creeping problem in his own party, and that is discomfort with mounting debt. I have a number of Democrat friends who are fiscally responsible, and I sense this same discomfort with them.
Obama's plan---whipsaw the economy into gear with HUGE spending--and worry about debt later when the economy is in a better position to withstand it--makes sense on some levels, most of them short-term political. But it is an incredibly risky plan, one that could drive the economy into deeper problems than we've seen if it fails to improve like he hopes. There are better ways, one of which includes NOT SPENDING huge amounts of money and allowing the economy to work through the problems it has over time (his stimulus has had NO IMPACT on recent signs of uptick--save psychological)
This "we inherited a huge problem" line is now simply ridiculous. The extent to which they've ballooned spending and piled on the debt in order to solve a debt problem defies credulity.
Obama's plan---whipsaw the economy into gear with HUGE spending--and worry about debt later when the economy is in a better position to withstand it--makes sense on some levels, most of them short-term political. But it is an incredibly risky plan, one that could drive the economy into deeper problems than we've seen if it fails to improve like he hopes. There are better ways, one of which includes NOT SPENDING huge amounts of money and allowing the economy to work through the problems it has over time (his stimulus has had NO IMPACT on recent signs of uptick--save psychological)
This "we inherited a huge problem" line is now simply ridiculous. The extent to which they've ballooned spending and piled on the debt in order to solve a debt problem defies credulity.
An Election In Iran
The Iranian People went to the polls and re-elected Ahmadinejad by a landslide. Ahmadinejad? Are you kidding me? The 12th Imam Nut? The "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" nut? The nut who continues to tweak the US's big nose?
Yes, that Ahmadinejad. You see, we continue to view him through our own Western lens, and increasingly through the lens that Barack Obama has inserted across our national view. What we fail to see in all this is the great national pride the people of Iran have in this little twerp--and the great pan-Islamic pride he generates by being the guy who stands up to the U.S.
We look at the rioting in the streets and it nicely coincides with our narrative....which goes something like "the people of Iran want to be closer to the US, President Obama is making that happen, Ahmadinejad is in the way, therefore, the Iranian people must therefore be rising up against a rigged election."
I don't see it that way. I see this as an "urban elite vs. rural peasant" kinda thing. Are they rioting in the streets of the major cities? Sure. That's happening. But these city dwellers are likely to be more urbane, more internationalist, more like us...whereas the folks out in the hinterlands (remember, Iran is a BIG country) don't give a crap about better relations with the U.S. ....they care about populist, local issues and that's where Ahmadinejad gets his mojo.
Iran's going to be a stick in the mud for years to come and we're just going to have to get used to it.
Yes, that Ahmadinejad. You see, we continue to view him through our own Western lens, and increasingly through the lens that Barack Obama has inserted across our national view. What we fail to see in all this is the great national pride the people of Iran have in this little twerp--and the great pan-Islamic pride he generates by being the guy who stands up to the U.S.
We look at the rioting in the streets and it nicely coincides with our narrative....which goes something like "the people of Iran want to be closer to the US, President Obama is making that happen, Ahmadinejad is in the way, therefore, the Iranian people must therefore be rising up against a rigged election."
I don't see it that way. I see this as an "urban elite vs. rural peasant" kinda thing. Are they rioting in the streets of the major cities? Sure. That's happening. But these city dwellers are likely to be more urbane, more internationalist, more like us...whereas the folks out in the hinterlands (remember, Iran is a BIG country) don't give a crap about better relations with the U.S. ....they care about populist, local issues and that's where Ahmadinejad gets his mojo.
Iran's going to be a stick in the mud for years to come and we're just going to have to get used to it.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
A Sad Day For Wahoos Everywhere
President John Casteen is retiring next summer. Here's his letter, a piece that I think finely encapsulates much of what UVA has meant to many of us:
Dear fellow members of our University community:
For several months, the Rector and Visitors and I have discussed how best to manage my retirement from the position of President. The issues are complex, both because I have served longer than most presidents do and because the Board will eventually need also to find successors for several of our senior administrators and managers who have worked with me, some since as early as the late 1960s.
As a result of these discussions, and with full support for the Board as it prepares for and conducts the search for my successor, Betsy and I have decided, and I have informed the Rector and Vice Rector, that I will stand down at the end of July 2010, somewhat more than a year from now. I am now 65. When the time comes for me to go, I will be 66, and I will have served as president here for fully 20 years, and previously at Connecticut for five years -- a quarter century, all told.
These 19, soon to be 20, years feel today like a very short time. My work and friendships with the University's faculty and staff, students (and their parents), alumni, and other supporters are as energizing today as when I took on these duties in August of 1990. These years have been magical times for me -- years of supporting and admiring excellence in faculty work, of rediscovering the University's original mission as we have come to understand it for our time, and perhaps also for the next generation, of hard and exciting work full of satisfactions that have come of observing the maturation and then the adult successes of well over 100,000 new Wahoos, young and old.
It has been our privilege as a family to live in and watch our children grow and reach adulthood in what I have come to see as the grandest and happiest of American homes in the most exciting and inspirational of all American villages -- this one conceived as America's center for learning. Relationships with women and men who believe in and sustain our students and their University have been at the center of my and our lives. And the greatest of all these privileges has been planning and building what I believe is one of the world's great universities, a university that was in its beginning and is now one of our Republic's cornerstones.
I came here as a student in 1961 filled with awe that this majestic place would accept and teach me. Despite adult occupations that showed me other places and other forms of the opportunities that learning opens up, my thoughts and aspirations always returned to the Rotunda, the Lawn, the Library, to the sounds of students singing and laughing and chattering while walking along the Corner, across the Grounds toward libraries and dorms and up and down Rugby Road, of crowds at football and basketball (and suddenly now baseball!) games, to the calming murmurs that one hears in the reading rooms and lounges where faculty members and students carry out the work of learning -- a special pleasure that belongs to persons who lead their lives within the University.
To come here as president, to work these 20 years in good times and bad, to be surrounded by family and friends and many generous colleagues, to have a part in making our University the global force that it now is, to share this work and place with Betsy and our children -- these have been the substance and privileges of my life here. Ending this chapter of our lives is not an easy thing, and yet a time to step aside to make way for others comes for all of us, and to me. I am profoundly grateful for these years.
I look forward to this next year of work with the University's women and men, and to exchanging greetings with all who come to the alumni, parent, and other events that have been such agreeable parts of my life since 1990. Thank you for your many kindnesses during the last two decades, for your generosity to the University and to my family and me, and for your commitment to the well-being of the young women and men who come here to "drink the cup of knowledge and fraternize with us."
With you, I look forward to applauding and greeting the University's eighth president when she or he is selected, and then I shall look forward also to returning to the life and work of a faculty member.
John Casteen
June 12, 2009
Was Holocaust Gunman "Right Wing"?
Eugene Robinson reflexively points to the right wing media this morning in fanning the flames of "lone wolf" acts like the one by the idiot at the Holocaust Museum.
Putting aside for a second the media's near silence on the identity/religion of the recruiting station killer recently (too busy with the abortion doc killer, who fit more neatly into the narrative), Robinson makes an tangential assertion in his column here....that von Brunn was a right winger. What evidence does he have?
Well, he hated Black people. And he wrote anti-government screeds.
But he also hated the Jews, and Israel--hardly right-wing positions these days, what?
Oh, and he also wrote anti-corporation screeds.
Why is it then that he fits so neatly into the "right" side of the spectrum. Truth is, he doesn't. He's simply a hateful, evil old man who defies political labeling. But that doesn't fit the narrative either.
UPDATE: Mudge, feast your eyes on THIS gun show! I happen to be sitting in GHP's dorm room.
Rising Interest Rates Threaten Economy
Wow....so if you borrow, borrow, borrow to fund your "stimulus", thereby creating a greater demand for borrowing (and simultaneously portraying the US as profligate, bloated, and unwilling to pay off debt), interest rates go up. Who'd a thunk it?
My Quiet Eastern Shore Town Spawns A Nut-Job
The fellow who tried to commit "suicide by COP" at the Holocaust Memorial (in the process murdering an innocent guard) was apparently well-known here in my little adopted Eastern Shore town. He appears to have been quite the loony, with local shopkeepers having had run-ins with him on occasion.
He and I were not acquainted.
He and I were not acquainted.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Cat-fight In The Intelligence World
President Obama brought some true heavyweights into his national security team....Clinton at State, Gates at Defense, Panetta at CIA, Blair at DNI, and Jones at NSC. Each of them is a power center in his or her own right, and that is as it should be.
David Ignatius lays out a dust-up in progress now between Panetta and Blair, over who will appoint the CIA Station Chiefs around the world. I've never been a fan of the Director of National Intelligence (Blair) position...the goal of bringing the intelligence agencies under unified management was a good one...but the role of DNI ought never be severed from the role of Director of the CIA.
This issue strikes me as a manhood issue more than anything else. Ignatius is right, this is Panetta's call.
David Ignatius lays out a dust-up in progress now between Panetta and Blair, over who will appoint the CIA Station Chiefs around the world. I've never been a fan of the Director of National Intelligence (Blair) position...the goal of bringing the intelligence agencies under unified management was a good one...but the role of DNI ought never be severed from the role of Director of the CIA.
This issue strikes me as a manhood issue more than anything else. Ignatius is right, this is Panetta's call.
Cuban Spy Couple
This hasn't been huge news, but it has been out there. A DC area man and his wife are charged with having been spies for Cuba for over 30 years....including time he spent with the State Department's intelligence directorate.
Word is they apparently didn't make much (or any) money for their work--it was strictly ideological. That said, their choice of potential escape (sailing on their yacht to the Caribbean) hardly seems fitting for people so enamored of Cuban life. Casting themselves adrift from Florida toward Cuba in an open boat would be so much more authentic.
Word is they apparently didn't make much (or any) money for their work--it was strictly ideological. That said, their choice of potential escape (sailing on their yacht to the Caribbean) hardly seems fitting for people so enamored of Cuban life. Casting themselves adrift from Florida toward Cuba in an open boat would be so much more authentic.
More From The Road To Serfdom
United States CEO Barack Obama now turns to government control of executive compensation.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Politics, Organization, "Scaling-Up"
In a post from earlier today, I wrote of hell freezing over as I lauded a Dana Milbank column. Well, today is one of those days, as I also have to tip my hat to Kathleen Parker, who appears generally to be the right of center answer to Maureen Dowd, and I don't mean that nicely.
In her column today, Parker dissects Sarah Palin's recent "scheduling" problems and kerfuffles with the national Republican Party. As we saw in November, Palin's just not ready for prime time, and much of that flows from the simple fact that she's the Governor of a small state whose national prominence is not supported by a rigorous, disciplined support structure back home in Anchorage. Whatever attraction she may hold to a slice of the electorate may ultimately come to be undone by the dual evils of her own traits and the enabling support structure that her staff has more than likely become. The simple truth is that Palin cannot "scale up" until she overcomes her own bad habits and presides over an organization that achieves ruthless efficiency....then and only then will her personality and message resonate.
I've worked very close to a few big cheeses in my day, and no matter how smooth and on the ball they look in public, there are always huge warts when one gets up close. A thorough and efficient staff helps smooth over those warts, but it does not remove them. If Palin wants to play ball on the national stage, she's going to have to develop better habits and turn up the heat on her staff.
In her column today, Parker dissects Sarah Palin's recent "scheduling" problems and kerfuffles with the national Republican Party. As we saw in November, Palin's just not ready for prime time, and much of that flows from the simple fact that she's the Governor of a small state whose national prominence is not supported by a rigorous, disciplined support structure back home in Anchorage. Whatever attraction she may hold to a slice of the electorate may ultimately come to be undone by the dual evils of her own traits and the enabling support structure that her staff has more than likely become. The simple truth is that Palin cannot "scale up" until she overcomes her own bad habits and presides over an organization that achieves ruthless efficiency....then and only then will her personality and message resonate.
I've worked very close to a few big cheeses in my day, and no matter how smooth and on the ball they look in public, there are always huge warts when one gets up close. A thorough and efficient staff helps smooth over those warts, but it does not remove them. If Palin wants to play ball on the national stage, she's going to have to develop better habits and turn up the heat on her staff.
Beware The Military Industrial Complex
Hell has clearly frozen over, as I actually both agreed with and enjoyed a Dana Milbank column this morning. Secretary of Defense Robert ("Bill") Gates has a long row to hoe with his desire to have Congress overcome the parochial interests of individual members in favor of systemic change that will benefit the nation. The ridiculous kabuki that are Congressional hearings is on full display here, with members asking loaded but seemingly reasonable questions about pet projects to pliant, sycophantic military leaders. I almost snarfed coffee through my nose when I read the exchange between Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) and ADM Mike Mullen (CJCS), in which Shelby leads Mullen through an old Baptist preacher call and response routine...ending with Mullen validating Shelby's assertion of the Littoral Combat Ship's "firepower". Firepower? You gotta be kidding me. We're not building these $220M whoops, $440M whoops, $600M ships because they are bristling with weapons. We're building them to prop up a declining force structure with grey hulls that can do SOMETHING. But the delivery of pain is not something LCS is going to do particularly well.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Return To The Golf Course
I played golf yesterday for the first time in probably two years; maybe the fifth time in ten years. Life and work seemed always to come ahead of golf, and though I enjoyed watching it on TV, I seem to have gotten away from actually doing it.
Man, was it a good time. I realize now how much I missed it, and that I need to work it back into the routine somehow.
I've attached a little video evidence of the rust on my swing.
Man, was it a good time. I realize now how much I missed it, and that I need to work it back into the routine somehow.
I've attached a little video evidence of the rust on my swing.
The Coosaw Encampment
UPDATE: I've posted a short video featuring Gov. Sanford and Frank Luntz; in it, Sanford gets to the heart of why we were there.
My apologies for dropping out of the scene without warning; I had intended to wake at my folks’ place in NC last Friday morning and write a few blog entries, including one saying I’d be out of pocket for a bit. When I woke, Dad’s internet was on the fritz, so I just got on my merry way to a weekend to remember.
I and what seemed like about 150 other committed Conservatives were invited down to Governor Mark Sanford’s (R-SC) farm near Beaufort, SC for a weekend of wonky policy discussions, bonhomie, great food and a ton of fun. Sanford’s desire was to bring together this group, share common hardship (mostly everyone camped out in tents, more on that later), and bond as a way of gathering strength in the Conservative movement for the important work we have ahead of us.
We all met at the Sanford place (a beautiful spot I was told Sanford’s father purchased) on Friday evening for cocktails and conversation, followed by dinner and some great music provided by some friends of the Governor. Pretty much just an icebreaker, Friday evening served as a chance for people to get to know one another, something vitally important for me, as the South Carolina contingent was strong and very well connected to each other.
Saturday morning was right up my alley---about five straight hours of serious policy discussion with some incredibly interesting speakers. We had Stephen Moore (formerly of the Club for Growth, now of the Wall Street Journal), Pollster Frank Luntz, Conservative Radio Personality (and former Georgia Senate Candidate) Herman Cain, an economist who did a fascinating study on the impediments to business in West Virginia (he was preparing to do the same for SC), another economist who has done exhaustive research that leads him to believe our worsening debt situation will lead to hyper-deflation, and a diet and fitness physician who did a great job describing EXACTLY why bad carbs are bad for us.
Saturday afternoon was filled with watersports, driving range, skeet shooting, reading, napping, jogging, bike riding and all around goofing off. We met again for dinner and entertainment Saturday night, and said our goodbyes after breakfast on Sunday.
In between the formal stuff and the fun, there were countless policy/political conversations with a group of very well-informed, very committed, and very concerned Conservatives. Most interesting (and gratifying) to me was the complete scarcity of discussion about “social issues” like abortion or gay marriage. People were here for one thing, and that was to focus on the economy. Sanford’s recent fight with the Obama Administration and the SC legislature over stimulus money is really only the tip of the iceberg as far as his commitment to eradicating crushing debt. His six and a half years (after six years in Congress) has been monument to TRYING to get his state to live within its means---but he’s been only partially successful. He’s now coming to be known as the voice crying in the wilderness that debt will be the albatross around this nation’s neck, and that we must get our spending under control. In my opinion, he is articulating the clearest philosophical and programmatic alternative to Barack Obama’s vision of the role of government available in the Republican Party today. Sanford is a libertarian conservative, and as such, I find myself very much aligned with a lot of what he has to say.
Some highlights: Frank Luntz was a SCREAM…very funny, lots of ethnic Jewish humor AND searing insight into the language Conservatives MUST use to move the agenda forward. Herman Cain—an Atlanta based talk show host—was inspiring. An older African-American fellow, he used to be the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. Stephen Moore and the economist who predicted deflation got into a bit of a (very civil) policy dust-up over whether we were headed for hyper-inflation (Moore’s view) or hyper-deflation. Governor Sanford stepped up and offered that whichever way things go, both views had at their heart the insidious evil of mounting debt.
All in all, it was a great weekend…oh—about the tents. Sanford made it very clear that one’s worth as a human was tied to weather you roughed it or stayed in a hotel. I arrived in Beaufort in the late afternoon in a monsoon. I naturally alighted to the “Sleep Inn” and got myself a room. Later, I headed over to the farm for check-in etc, and the skies cleared. Thinking this an excellent opportunity to try out my only once before tested camping skills, I set up my tent and enjoyed the evening’s events completely convinced that I would tame the elements in my Eddie Bauer tent. Around 10 PM, I went to my tent and began to read a bit (the Kitten having seen to it that I have all the gear I needed, including head-mounted reading light). Around 11, I put my book down to go to sleep, and these Philistines a few tents over lit off their generator, which provided the power to light their garish Christmas lights festooning their tent and nearby tree. Because the generator was making noise, they naturally began to talk very loud. I rolled up my pillow around my ears and tried to block the noise, but to no avail. So I headed down the road ten miles to my nice quiet hotel room. The weather was pretty sketchy most of the day Saturday, so I slept there again Saturday night.
Perhaps next year I’ll make it through a night in a tent.
My apologies for dropping out of the scene without warning; I had intended to wake at my folks’ place in NC last Friday morning and write a few blog entries, including one saying I’d be out of pocket for a bit. When I woke, Dad’s internet was on the fritz, so I just got on my merry way to a weekend to remember.
I and what seemed like about 150 other committed Conservatives were invited down to Governor Mark Sanford’s (R-SC) farm near Beaufort, SC for a weekend of wonky policy discussions, bonhomie, great food and a ton of fun. Sanford’s desire was to bring together this group, share common hardship (mostly everyone camped out in tents, more on that later), and bond as a way of gathering strength in the Conservative movement for the important work we have ahead of us.
We all met at the Sanford place (a beautiful spot I was told Sanford’s father purchased) on Friday evening for cocktails and conversation, followed by dinner and some great music provided by some friends of the Governor. Pretty much just an icebreaker, Friday evening served as a chance for people to get to know one another, something vitally important for me, as the South Carolina contingent was strong and very well connected to each other.
Saturday morning was right up my alley---about five straight hours of serious policy discussion with some incredibly interesting speakers. We had Stephen Moore (formerly of the Club for Growth, now of the Wall Street Journal), Pollster Frank Luntz, Conservative Radio Personality (and former Georgia Senate Candidate) Herman Cain, an economist who did a fascinating study on the impediments to business in West Virginia (he was preparing to do the same for SC), another economist who has done exhaustive research that leads him to believe our worsening debt situation will lead to hyper-deflation, and a diet and fitness physician who did a great job describing EXACTLY why bad carbs are bad for us.
Saturday afternoon was filled with watersports, driving range, skeet shooting, reading, napping, jogging, bike riding and all around goofing off. We met again for dinner and entertainment Saturday night, and said our goodbyes after breakfast on Sunday.
In between the formal stuff and the fun, there were countless policy/political conversations with a group of very well-informed, very committed, and very concerned Conservatives. Most interesting (and gratifying) to me was the complete scarcity of discussion about “social issues” like abortion or gay marriage. People were here for one thing, and that was to focus on the economy. Sanford’s recent fight with the Obama Administration and the SC legislature over stimulus money is really only the tip of the iceberg as far as his commitment to eradicating crushing debt. His six and a half years (after six years in Congress) has been monument to TRYING to get his state to live within its means---but he’s been only partially successful. He’s now coming to be known as the voice crying in the wilderness that debt will be the albatross around this nation’s neck, and that we must get our spending under control. In my opinion, he is articulating the clearest philosophical and programmatic alternative to Barack Obama’s vision of the role of government available in the Republican Party today. Sanford is a libertarian conservative, and as such, I find myself very much aligned with a lot of what he has to say.
Some highlights: Frank Luntz was a SCREAM…very funny, lots of ethnic Jewish humor AND searing insight into the language Conservatives MUST use to move the agenda forward. Herman Cain—an Atlanta based talk show host—was inspiring. An older African-American fellow, he used to be the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. Stephen Moore and the economist who predicted deflation got into a bit of a (very civil) policy dust-up over whether we were headed for hyper-inflation (Moore’s view) or hyper-deflation. Governor Sanford stepped up and offered that whichever way things go, both views had at their heart the insidious evil of mounting debt.
All in all, it was a great weekend…oh—about the tents. Sanford made it very clear that one’s worth as a human was tied to weather you roughed it or stayed in a hotel. I arrived in Beaufort in the late afternoon in a monsoon. I naturally alighted to the “Sleep Inn” and got myself a room. Later, I headed over to the farm for check-in etc, and the skies cleared. Thinking this an excellent opportunity to try out my only once before tested camping skills, I set up my tent and enjoyed the evening’s events completely convinced that I would tame the elements in my Eddie Bauer tent. Around 10 PM, I went to my tent and began to read a bit (the Kitten having seen to it that I have all the gear I needed, including head-mounted reading light). Around 11, I put my book down to go to sleep, and these Philistines a few tents over lit off their generator, which provided the power to light their garish Christmas lights festooning their tent and nearby tree. Because the generator was making noise, they naturally began to talk very loud. I rolled up my pillow around my ears and tried to block the noise, but to no avail. So I headed down the road ten miles to my nice quiet hotel room. The weather was pretty sketchy most of the day Saturday, so I slept there again Saturday night.
Perhaps next year I’ll make it through a night in a tent.
Monday, June 8, 2009
UVA Baseball in College World Series
The Hoos are headed to the CWS in Omaha for the very first time. Wa-hoo-wa!
Back From The Fishin' Hole
Thanks to GG and Sally for holding down the fort this weekend...I was off at a fascinating event I'll tell you about later. Playing golf today though....
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Green Shoots?
As Gordon Brown struggles to keep it together in Britain, other Left-leaning powerbases across Europe are experiencing a similar erosion of public support. Could this be a preview of 2010 stateside?
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Teddy’s Bucket List
In the grand Washington tradition of waiting until late Friday to release bad or potentially controversial news, Senator Ted Kennedy’s office has released a draft of legislation guaranteeing universal healthcare coverage by providing for, among other things, a government-sponsored healthcare plan to compete with private insurers.
Under the American Health Choice Act, insurers would be required to offer a basic level of care and may not turn anyone down for coverage because of preexisting conditions. A government-sponsored “affordable access” plan would also be created to compete with private insurers.
Two quick observations about AHCA – OK, maybe three. The first, I hope they come up with some snappy acronym or buzzword for this; something like Medichoice or FreedomPlan. Heck, I’d even settle for the Ted Kennedy Benefits and National Choice Required Universal Plan, or BANCRUP for short.
The second, the insurance industry is not likely to roll over on this one without a protracted fight. Exactly how are private insurers supposed to “compete” with a government-subsidized plan – will insurers have access to taxpayer funds as well? Oh, and there’s also a provision in the draft that would limit insurer profits. Doesn’t sound like there’ll be much competition in this competition.
And finally, while the bill is loaded with dessert, there’s not much in the way of spinach. That is to say, there is nothing in the bill that speaks to how all of this will be funded. Remember, "we're out of money."
Maybe BANCRUP is an apt name after all.
Under the American Health Choice Act, insurers would be required to offer a basic level of care and may not turn anyone down for coverage because of preexisting conditions. A government-sponsored “affordable access” plan would also be created to compete with private insurers.
Two quick observations about AHCA – OK, maybe three. The first, I hope they come up with some snappy acronym or buzzword for this; something like Medichoice or FreedomPlan. Heck, I’d even settle for the Ted Kennedy Benefits and National Choice Required Universal Plan, or BANCRUP for short.
The second, the insurance industry is not likely to roll over on this one without a protracted fight. Exactly how are private insurers supposed to “compete” with a government-subsidized plan – will insurers have access to taxpayer funds as well? Oh, and there’s also a provision in the draft that would limit insurer profits. Doesn’t sound like there’ll be much competition in this competition.
And finally, while the bill is loaded with dessert, there’s not much in the way of spinach. That is to say, there is nothing in the bill that speaks to how all of this will be funded. Remember, "we're out of money."
Maybe BANCRUP is an apt name after all.
Friday, June 5, 2009
My Own Personal Operation Chaos
The Virginia Democratic Primary is Tuesday, and as we don't register by party in this state, all voters are welcome to participate. My support for Bob McDonnell is unwavering, but I feel the need to vote on Tuesday, particularly since the last VA Dem Gubernatorial Primary brought out less than 4% of the voters; the votes of my household could matter.
So I need some advice. The candidates are essentially neck and neck in the polls. They are--
--Terry McAuliffe, who makes me throw up in my mouth whenever I see him on TV, but who has high negatives and could possibly be beaten. Such state Democratic Party icons as Douglas Wilder have suggested that McAuliffe's nomination could create a lot of McDonnell Democrats.
--Creigh Deeds, who is a little more tolerable, an earnest casper milquetoast who's big on education. Unlike McAuliffe, he doesn't have a lot of money for the general election. (And let's be honest, it would be kind of cool to have a governor named Mr. Deeds).
--The third is Brian Moran, who admittedly I don't know much about, but I don't like his brother. That's a good enough reason to vote against someone, isn't it?
So what should I do? Vote Deeds, because if McDonnell cannot win at least he is palatable as governor, or vote McAuliffe, because he's such a disgusting human being that if gets the nomination he will turn voters off and make it easier for Bob McDonnell? (Yes, I know the right answer is vote Deeds or not at all, but I'm torn). As an aside, all three Dem candidates poll anywhere from 8-13 points behind McDonnell. Thoughts?
So I need some advice. The candidates are essentially neck and neck in the polls. They are--
--Terry McAuliffe, who makes me throw up in my mouth whenever I see him on TV, but who has high negatives and could possibly be beaten. Such state Democratic Party icons as Douglas Wilder have suggested that McAuliffe's nomination could create a lot of McDonnell Democrats.
--Creigh Deeds, who is a little more tolerable, an earnest casper milquetoast who's big on education. Unlike McAuliffe, he doesn't have a lot of money for the general election. (And let's be honest, it would be kind of cool to have a governor named Mr. Deeds).
--The third is Brian Moran, who admittedly I don't know much about, but I don't like his brother. That's a good enough reason to vote against someone, isn't it?
So what should I do? Vote Deeds, because if McDonnell cannot win at least he is palatable as governor, or vote McAuliffe, because he's such a disgusting human being that if gets the nomination he will turn voters off and make it easier for Bob McDonnell? (Yes, I know the right answer is vote Deeds or not at all, but I'm torn). As an aside, all three Dem candidates poll anywhere from 8-13 points behind McDonnell. Thoughts?
Gone Fishing
Hello good citizens, Goldwaters Ghost here. The Conservative Wahoo asked me to inform you all that he will be "out of pocket" all weekend; but fret not, he'll be back on Monday.
Until then, consider this space a "Friday/Weekend Free for All"
Until then, consider this space a "Friday/Weekend Free for All"
Farewell, Grasshopper…
I arrived on the scene a little late to appreciate the nuances of “Kung Fu”, although I did admire a fellow kindergarten classmate’s KF-inspired lunchbox. But “Kill Bill vol. I" is one of my favorite movies, in large part because of the creepy effectiveness of David Carradine.
That suicide is unpleasant is self-evident; but that Carradine’s death may have also been an accident – the result of autoerotic asphyxiation as some reports on the internet suggest – is even more unfortunate for his family and friends.
UPDATE: In a conversation with CW on the matter, he put forth the "other side of the coin" argument to the autoerotic asphyxiation angle - that Mr. Carradine was able to enjoy such pursuits well into his 70's is a testement to the man's zest for life. My "other side of the other side of the coin" response is that if Mr. Carradine was indeed into such libidinous pursuits, why the need to hole himself in his hotel room...in Bangkok of all places?
That suicide is unpleasant is self-evident; but that Carradine’s death may have also been an accident – the result of autoerotic asphyxiation as some reports on the internet suggest – is even more unfortunate for his family and friends.
UPDATE: In a conversation with CW on the matter, he put forth the "other side of the coin" argument to the autoerotic asphyxiation angle - that Mr. Carradine was able to enjoy such pursuits well into his 70's is a testement to the man's zest for life. My "other side of the other side of the coin" response is that if Mr. Carradine was indeed into such libidinous pursuits, why the need to hole himself in his hotel room...in Bangkok of all places?
The Brawlla in Walla Walla*
In this corner, wearing the Lauren-designed stars and stripes trucks and weighing in at a svelte 175 lbs, the guy who has pledged to crack down on companies “that ship jobs overseas,” please welcome Barry “Don’t Call Me Hussein” Obama!
And in this corner, wearing the pinstripe trucks and weighing in at a hefty 800 lbs, the guy who has dared to throw down the gauntlet by suggesting his company would move employees offshore if taxes become prohibitive to business, give it up for Microsoft CEO Steven "Dr. Evil" Ballmer!
Let the games begin…
*Yes, I realize Microsoft is headquartered in Redmond, WA but nothing pugilistic-sounding rhymes with “Redmond”
And in this corner, wearing the pinstripe trucks and weighing in at a hefty 800 lbs, the guy who has dared to throw down the gauntlet by suggesting his company would move employees offshore if taxes become prohibitive to business, give it up for Microsoft CEO Steven "Dr. Evil" Ballmer!
Let the games begin…
*Yes, I realize Microsoft is headquartered in Redmond, WA but nothing pugilistic-sounding rhymes with “Redmond”
Can’t They Just Show The Highlights On Sportscenter?
With Father’s Day right around the corner and in light of CW’s continuing fascination with the evolution of the modern dad, I thought this nugget on childbirth from the Wall Street Journal timely and appropriate.
The money quote: “On the whole, it is not a show to watch.” You got that right, Doc.
The money quote: “On the whole, it is not a show to watch.” You got that right, Doc.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Inheriting a Recovery
With good news on unemployment figures peaking out from behind the clouds this morning, will the "still with the training wheels on" Obama Administration be as quick to claim that the recovery underway (since the second week of March, mind you) was inherited from the Bush Administration as it was to blame them for the recession?
The President in Cairo
Here is the text of the President's speech to the Islamic world from Cairo. I need some time to further digest it, but my first impression is positive.
Put Down the Crack Pipe, E.J.
I did it again, and my eyes are bleeding. I read an E.J. Dionne column in the Washington Post. In it, he informs us all of the media's conservative bias and how it is tilting the debate in Washington. Unreal.
Scandal in British Parliament May Bring Down Brown
I'm not sure how closely readers follow Euro-politics, but I imagine a good many of you keep a weather-eye on our friends in Britain. For those who don't, this article lays out Gordon Brown's ongoing difficulties compounded by a fantastically comical Parliamentary expense account scandal stretching across all the major parties there.
Never embraced with the fervor of his predecessor Tony Blair, Brown is sinking fast. I have a feeling that Britain will be the next big European government to move rightward (toward the center, that is), hopefully presaging the same thing here.
Never embraced with the fervor of his predecessor Tony Blair, Brown is sinking fast. I have a feeling that Britain will be the next big European government to move rightward (toward the center, that is), hopefully presaging the same thing here.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Salinger Awakes to Defend Caulfield
Ninety year old J.D. Salinger has taken a break from his duties as Chief New Hampshire Curmudgeon to issue a lawsuit charging copyright infringement. Apparently, some fellow decided to do a "Holden Caulfield" all grown up book, and JD is none to pleased with it.
As I've said in this blog before, I've read a lot of books, but I am not particularly well read. I only got around to "Catcher in the Rye" about two years ago, and there are a number of classics that an educated American man of nearly 44 summers should long ago have read.
But I am not at all disappointed at having put off "Catcher" as long as I did. It was unremarkable, except for the remarkable distaste I had for its main character. Perhaps this new fellow can put something into JD's boy worth reading.
As I've said in this blog before, I've read a lot of books, but I am not particularly well read. I only got around to "Catcher in the Rye" about two years ago, and there are a number of classics that an educated American man of nearly 44 summers should long ago have read.
But I am not at all disappointed at having put off "Catcher" as long as I did. It was unremarkable, except for the remarkable distaste I had for its main character. Perhaps this new fellow can put something into JD's boy worth reading.
VA and Amputees
Interesting story here on an advanced prosthetic arm--for two reasons. The first, is that it sounds like a real medical breakthrough.
Secondly, it reaffirms something I was recently told by a friend of mine who works for the VA. We were talking about the plight of service-members wounded in our ongoing wars and our obligation to help them. He then asked me if I knew how many "amputees" there were from Iraq and Afghanistan. I did some quick math, how many probably served, injury rates, news coverage, a sense of the situation.....and guessed 5000. Here's the answer, the same one he gave me:
"About 22 percent of the 820 American troops injured in Iraq or Afghanistan who have suffered major amputation have lost arms, while the comparable figure in Vietnam was only about 4 percent, according to Downs."
So, after almost eight years of this stuff, nearly constant combat, and more importantly, nearly constant news coverage of the rigors facing returned injured service members---THERE ARE ONLY 820 AMPUTEES! I'm glad of it, a true testament to the efforts of battlefield medics...but did any of you think the number was this low? I'm wondering if press coverage contributed a wee bit to my perception....
Secondly, it reaffirms something I was recently told by a friend of mine who works for the VA. We were talking about the plight of service-members wounded in our ongoing wars and our obligation to help them. He then asked me if I knew how many "amputees" there were from Iraq and Afghanistan. I did some quick math, how many probably served, injury rates, news coverage, a sense of the situation.....and guessed 5000. Here's the answer, the same one he gave me:
"About 22 percent of the 820 American troops injured in Iraq or Afghanistan who have suffered major amputation have lost arms, while the comparable figure in Vietnam was only about 4 percent, according to Downs."
So, after almost eight years of this stuff, nearly constant combat, and more importantly, nearly constant news coverage of the rigors facing returned injured service members---THERE ARE ONLY 820 AMPUTEES! I'm glad of it, a true testament to the efforts of battlefield medics...but did any of you think the number was this low? I'm wondering if press coverage contributed a wee bit to my perception....
Ruth Marcus on Sotomayor
Ruth Marcus tells us today how reasonable and moderate Judge Sotomayor is, so I suppose we all now should just accept it.
C'mon Ruth....she says in a written speech later turned into a law review article that she believes her ethnicity lends itself to better decision making. Add to this, a President who has convinced us all that empathic yearnings make up an important part of his philosophy on judicial nominations, and we're left with no recourse but to believe Sotomayor at her words, and believe the President at his.
There should be no suggestion that she is not qualified. There should however, be a rousing debate on her judicial philosophy and the role that intangibles such as her ethnicity play in it. Republicans should be pleasant, respectful, amiable, and then vote no.
C'mon Ruth....she says in a written speech later turned into a law review article that she believes her ethnicity lends itself to better decision making. Add to this, a President who has convinced us all that empathic yearnings make up an important part of his philosophy on judicial nominations, and we're left with no recourse but to believe Sotomayor at her words, and believe the President at his.
There should be no suggestion that she is not qualified. There should however, be a rousing debate on her judicial philosophy and the role that intangibles such as her ethnicity play in it. Republicans should be pleasant, respectful, amiable, and then vote no.
Debt Chickens Coming Home To Roost
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke sounded an alarum today about the dangers of the Obama Administration's planned debt for as far as the eye can see. I will not dispute the President's move to pump money into the economy to get it started again....but a stimulus of half the size with nothing but "shovel ready" projects and across the board tax cuts would have been the way to go. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and while I'd love to see some of the $800B lopped off as a way of controlling debt, I doubt we'll see that happen.
And you Dems who read this and who are about to say, "well, we're just inheriting it from Bush", that line doesn't work anymore. The President is choosing to deal with a debt problem by tripling it. Not a sound response.
And you Dems who read this and who are about to say, "well, we're just inheriting it from Bush", that line doesn't work anymore. The President is choosing to deal with a debt problem by tripling it. Not a sound response.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Dating and Personal Ads
Some of you with in-depth knowledge of my sordid pre-Kitten past know that I have been a connoisseur of on-line dating. Simply put, if you have single friends they are either 1) actively using on-line dating or 2) considering it. It really is a delightful marriage of technology and requirement--anyone with a busy life who wants to find amiable companionship should consider it. The Kitten and I met the old-fashioned way (introduced by friends), but both of us had been on Match.com and in analyzing the other's profile, we copped to being likely interested in the other one had we seen their profile (I had not seen hers as she was "geographically undesirable", she had not seen mine because she had specified "no trolls").
Along the way, I met, dated, and romanced some really wonderful women, including one with whom I spent four great years and now enjoy a special friendship.
But my experience was not all rosy--in the process, I came to become a minor expert in the field of analyzing women's profiles, at times thinking I could make some serious cash by producing a primer to navigate this sometimes strange world. Here's an interesting little blog entry from a guy who has put his thoughts down on some things women should avoid in their profiles. I'm not sure I agree with it all, but there is some common sense here.
In a public service to my female readers (all five of you) who may someday find yourselves in the dating market, I offer my own addendum to the linked to article above.
1. Do not use the word "sassy". Sassy does not mean opinionated, forthright, intelligent. It means pain in the ass.
2. Do not say "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual", unless you have a PhD in Divinity. Most people haven't a clue how to distinguish the two, and it makes you sound vapid.
3. If you're looking for a smart guy, don't cite "Women's Health", "People", or "In-Style" as the last thing you read. Don't say that you don't have time to read (make the time).
4. Use a current photo. Post a handful of current photos so that when you are met, you resemble in some way at least one of them. Another thing--post photos of you. No one cares about your dog, your cat, or the awesome sunrise over Moab. You're just wasting bandwidth. If every picture you post is a group shot, you are suggesting a lack of confidence. And if every photo you post is a drunken scene from Senor Frogs or some other adult fraternity party, you'll get exactly what you're looking for in a man.
5. Don't say "my kid(s) mean everything to me and come first". That is understood. At least give the guy the opportunity to think he isn't fighting for second place from the get-go.
6. If you are approaching an age in which you believe that you should have children with alacrity, say so. There are lots of guys out there who want to be fathers. Don't hide this, it will only cause trouble down the road.
7. Be positive.
Along the way, I met, dated, and romanced some really wonderful women, including one with whom I spent four great years and now enjoy a special friendship.
But my experience was not all rosy--in the process, I came to become a minor expert in the field of analyzing women's profiles, at times thinking I could make some serious cash by producing a primer to navigate this sometimes strange world. Here's an interesting little blog entry from a guy who has put his thoughts down on some things women should avoid in their profiles. I'm not sure I agree with it all, but there is some common sense here.
In a public service to my female readers (all five of you) who may someday find yourselves in the dating market, I offer my own addendum to the linked to article above.
1. Do not use the word "sassy". Sassy does not mean opinionated, forthright, intelligent. It means pain in the ass.
2. Do not say "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual", unless you have a PhD in Divinity. Most people haven't a clue how to distinguish the two, and it makes you sound vapid.
3. If you're looking for a smart guy, don't cite "Women's Health", "People", or "In-Style" as the last thing you read. Don't say that you don't have time to read (make the time).
4. Use a current photo. Post a handful of current photos so that when you are met, you resemble in some way at least one of them. Another thing--post photos of you. No one cares about your dog, your cat, or the awesome sunrise over Moab. You're just wasting bandwidth. If every picture you post is a group shot, you are suggesting a lack of confidence. And if every photo you post is a drunken scene from Senor Frogs or some other adult fraternity party, you'll get exactly what you're looking for in a man.
5. Don't say "my kid(s) mean everything to me and come first". That is understood. At least give the guy the opportunity to think he isn't fighting for second place from the get-go.
6. If you are approaching an age in which you believe that you should have children with alacrity, say so. There are lots of guys out there who want to be fathers. Don't hide this, it will only cause trouble down the road.
7. Be positive.
The President's Big Date
I've got mixed feelings on this one. First, the pro:
He's still human, he's President of the whole country (not just Washington), it's good for him to be out and about, I like the image of marital unity/bliss they portray, he didn't sign on to being a monk/prisoner of the White House.
Con:
Expensive, at taxpayer funded date. Huge carbon footprint for someone who wishes to tax all the rest of our carbon footprints. Sort of a "let them eat cake" act while the country's hurting.
What really kills me though is the utter irony of it. Here's a guy who was part of the chorus EXCORIATING the CEO of GM for taking a corporate jet to a Congressional hearing (presumably an official function of his job), while the new CEO of GM (Barack Obama) takes THREE jets so that he can take his lady on a date.
H/T--Big Brother Tom (who fancies himself my primary muse).
He's still human, he's President of the whole country (not just Washington), it's good for him to be out and about, I like the image of marital unity/bliss they portray, he didn't sign on to being a monk/prisoner of the White House.
Con:
Expensive, at taxpayer funded date. Huge carbon footprint for someone who wishes to tax all the rest of our carbon footprints. Sort of a "let them eat cake" act while the country's hurting.
What really kills me though is the utter irony of it. Here's a guy who was part of the chorus EXCORIATING the CEO of GM for taking a corporate jet to a Congressional hearing (presumably an official function of his job), while the new CEO of GM (Barack Obama) takes THREE jets so that he can take his lady on a date.
H/T--Big Brother Tom (who fancies himself my primary muse).
Cheney Supports Gay Marriage
The Prince of Darkness (a.k.a former Vice President Dick Cheney) made a speech at the National Press Club yesterday in which he voiced support for gay marriage and his stance that it be decided by the states. Reasonable position (except for when people move), but still not far enough for me--I don't think the states ought to have a role either. Existing contract law suffices, marriage should be a social/religious/cultural distinction.
But what an ideological curve ball for the Beating Heart of Evil to throw! How can He Who Has Supported Torture and He Who Served as GWB's String-Puller possibly be so EVOLVED as to support something as PROGRESSIVE as gay marriage. Across the country there are gay activists shaking their heads as they watch The View wondering what to think about this horrible irony.
But what an ideological curve ball for the Beating Heart of Evil to throw! How can He Who Has Supported Torture and He Who Served as GWB's String-Puller possibly be so EVOLVED as to support something as PROGRESSIVE as gay marriage. Across the country there are gay activists shaking their heads as they watch The View wondering what to think about this horrible irony.
Romney On The Move
Sally's new man Mitt Romney gets a nice mention in this morning's Post. He is setting himself up as an "anti-Obama" with speeches across the country in support of Republican candidates. This is a great strategy, both for Romney's personal political fortunes and for the party. We need to rebuild from the ground up, and winning state/local races is crucial.
Abortion Doctor Killing
There is no defense for the killing of Dr. Tiller. We are a nation of laws, and we don't dispense justice on our own. Every time some nutjob does something like this, the real dialogue on compromises necessary to move forward on abortion suffers another huge setback. But then again, I think that is one of the objectives of people who kill abortion doctors---they'd rather kill and stick to their ideological guns than enter into a real discussion.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Robert Samuelson Nails It On Press Bias
A great op-ed here...the numbers are simply astounding. The press is so in the bag for the President it isn't funny.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Obama's Cuba Opening--A Win For The President
Good news from the State Department today on the fruits of President Obama's recent openings to the Cuban government. We will be engaging in direct government to government talk on a number of issues, including anti-narcotics and immigration.
The Cuba policy of the US, a shared shame of both parties needlessly pandering to the South Florida vote, must change, and to his credit, the President is moving in that direction. We lost 58,000 Americans fighting Communism in Vietnam; they're still Communist and we have full diplomatic relations. That we have maintained this ridiculous isolation of Cuba for so long makes no sense.
I will legally smoke a fine Havana cigar in Havana before my 50th birthday.
The Cuba policy of the US, a shared shame of both parties needlessly pandering to the South Florida vote, must change, and to his credit, the President is moving in that direction. We lost 58,000 Americans fighting Communism in Vietnam; they're still Communist and we have full diplomatic relations. That we have maintained this ridiculous isolation of Cuba for so long makes no sense.
I will legally smoke a fine Havana cigar in Havana before my 50th birthday.
The President Warns Against Political Games--You Know, The Ones He Used To Play
During his radio address yesterday, the President warned against playing "political games" with his nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. He ought to know, after his no votes on both Roberts and Alito, and his support of a Democratic filibuster threat on Alito.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Niall Ferguson Gives Paul Krugman A Beat-Down
Fight! Fight! Niall Ferguson (Harvard, history) gives Paul Krugman (Princeton, Economics) a well-deserved beat down.
H/T Greg Mankiw
H/T Greg Mankiw
Woodward to Write Book on Obama Administration
Splendid news here. I know others don't like Woodward's writing, but I've always enjoyed it.
Gates Talks Tough On Nork
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates yesterday told our Asian allies that even tougher sanctions are needed atop of the tough sanctions already in place to finally curb the nuclear ambitions of North Korea.
Don’t these guys already subsist on grass and rock soup? How are tougher sanctions going to break them?
"They create a crisis and the rest of us pay the price to return to the status quo ante," Gates told the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual meeting of defense and security officials. "As the expression goes in the U.S., I'm tired of buying the same horse twice."
There’s another expression in the U.S. Bob, Bill or whatever your name is, that defines insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results each time.
Don’t these guys already subsist on grass and rock soup? How are tougher sanctions going to break them?
"They create a crisis and the rest of us pay the price to return to the status quo ante," Gates told the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual meeting of defense and security officials. "As the expression goes in the U.S., I'm tired of buying the same horse twice."
There’s another expression in the U.S. Bob, Bill or whatever your name is, that defines insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results each time.
Hugo’s Book-Of-The-Month Club
Did you ever get the feeling the rest of the world is in on the joke except you?
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has told state-run television that he has a new book for President Obama the next time the two leaders meet face-to-face. Chavez plans to present Obama with a copy of “What is to be Done?”, Vladimir Lenin’s tome on the role of intellectuals in promoting revolution.
Obama is said to have reacted favorably to the news, as his dog-eared copy is several years old with handwritten notes in the margins…
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has told state-run television that he has a new book for President Obama the next time the two leaders meet face-to-face. Chavez plans to present Obama with a copy of “What is to be Done?”, Vladimir Lenin’s tome on the role of intellectuals in promoting revolution.
Obama is said to have reacted favorably to the news, as his dog-eared copy is several years old with handwritten notes in the margins…
Wahoo Baseball
The ACC Champion Hoos got screwed in College World Series seeding, getting sent out west to play in the same bracket as the #1 team in the country, the defending world series champs, and a team with the best pitcher in college baseball.
The Hoos took it to that pitcher (and his team, San Diego State) last night 5-1, becoming the first team to defeat him this year.
The Hoos took it to that pitcher (and his team, San Diego State) last night 5-1, becoming the first team to defeat him this year.
Despicable Racism
Colbert King is a blatant racist, as one can plainly see from this column. Anticipating an upcoming voting rights case outcome before the Supreme Court, King basically says that Thomas must vote to uphold (ridiculously out of date) provisions of the voting rights legislation as an act of loyalty to his race. This is utter crap, obvious racism, and it won't get a peep of disapproval in the media.
GM a Buy?
GM closed yesterday at $.80 a share, giving the company a total market capitalization of about $550M---put in perspective, half the size of Toro Lawnmowers. With Barack Obama as CEO, the Federal Reserve acting as a pliant banker and the citizens of the US picking up the bill, is there any doubt that GM will recover? At least to a, say billion dollar company (doubling your money). How about a $10B company (1/4 of what it was)--20 times your money?
All of us should have diversified, balanced portfolios....which to me means you need to have a little bit of high end risk. This looks to me like a good place to take some risk.
All of us should have diversified, balanced portfolios....which to me means you need to have a little bit of high end risk. This looks to me like a good place to take some risk.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Andy McCarthy Asks A Good Sotomayor Question
McCarthy is one of the best minds on National Review's payroll. He asks a simple question here--would Sotomayor's own words be enough to disqualify her for jury duty?
FREE FOR ALL FRIDAY!!!!
Yes ladies and gentlemen, here it is, once again, a FREE FOR ALL FRIDAY! Post your thoughts on whatever you like. Ask a question that you want readers to answer. Pose a situation that you'd like a response to.
UPDATE/CORRECTION: Pose a situation to which you'd like a response. Hat tip to the fat man in New Hampshire.
UPDATE/CORRECTION: Pose a situation to which you'd like a response. Hat tip to the fat man in New Hampshire.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Dems Filibuster-Proof Majority in Jeopardy?
Assuming Al Franken eventually takes his seat in the Senate and that Arlen Specter votes with the rest of the caucus, the Democrats enjoy a 60-40 margin in the Senate and can effectively block any attempts by the minority at filibuster. Or maybe not.
Senator Burris of Illinois is clearly on the hot seat as news arises that he was much more, shall we say, interested in the Senate seat soon to be vacated by Barack Obama than he has previously let on.
Burris is at worst guilty of perjury, and at best guilty of obstruction of justice. Will the Senate do the right thing and expel him? Or will his vote prove to be too important to lose?
Senator Burris of Illinois is clearly on the hot seat as news arises that he was much more, shall we say, interested in the Senate seat soon to be vacated by Barack Obama than he has previously let on.
Burris is at worst guilty of perjury, and at best guilty of obstruction of justice. Will the Senate do the right thing and expel him? Or will his vote prove to be too important to lose?
Obama and Clean Energy
The President headed out west to do a little fund-raising the other day (for Nevada's Senator Reid, among others) and while at Nellis AFB in Nevada, he touted his administration's clean energy policies.
Justifiably complementing Nellis for its massive solar installation and the state for its growing geothermal capabilities, the President ignored the elephant in the room....the spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, into which the nation's nuclear waste is supposed to flow. Harry Reid is happy to take $800M a year in taxpayer money to keep building the site out, but just try to store a few neutrons there! Over his dead body!
The President is a farce on clean energy. He goes around the country touting capabilities that have at best a marginal impact on our nation's energy supplies. Wind, solar and geothermal are nice, and they have a place in the solution---but they do not scale up well at all. Nuclear power is here, now, and we can move forward with a method of producing electricity that scales up nicely and can actually meaningfully meet the coming demand for increased electrical power. But as long as Harry Reid bottles up Yucca Mountain, a nuclear renaissance is a pipe dream.
Justifiably complementing Nellis for its massive solar installation and the state for its growing geothermal capabilities, the President ignored the elephant in the room....the spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, into which the nation's nuclear waste is supposed to flow. Harry Reid is happy to take $800M a year in taxpayer money to keep building the site out, but just try to store a few neutrons there! Over his dead body!
The President is a farce on clean energy. He goes around the country touting capabilities that have at best a marginal impact on our nation's energy supplies. Wind, solar and geothermal are nice, and they have a place in the solution---but they do not scale up well at all. Nuclear power is here, now, and we can move forward with a method of producing electricity that scales up nicely and can actually meaningfully meet the coming demand for increased electrical power. But as long as Harry Reid bottles up Yucca Mountain, a nuclear renaissance is a pipe dream.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Sotomayor Nomination
Well, I've spent much of the last two days considering where to come down on this issue...and I have decided to recommend that the Republican Party punt on this one (unless they find that she's been funneling money to terrorists). She is 1) a woman 2) Hispanic 3) already twice confirmed for the federal bench. It would be hard to make a case that she's unqualified, and if we tried, we'd be painted as racists and sexists. OF COURSE we don't agree with her....but there's no upside to fighting them on this one. She won't change the balance of the court, and we don't have the votes to stop her. Let Rush, Hannity and Ann Coulter have their way with this---Michael Steele and Republican Senators should just put their weapons back in their holsters, be respectful, and vote no.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
New Video is Up--Subject Is General Powell
Here's the new CW TV video. Enjoy. The Youtube Version is here (has commentary), I highly recommend the Youtube version.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Books On War
Here's an interesting roundup of books of military history. I'm partial to THE GUNS OF AUGUST by Barbara Tuchman....which is probably not military history per se, but man, it clears up a lot of the mishmash that was the coming of World War I.
Samuelson on Social Security and Medicare
Robert Samuelson believes the only way the federal government will deal with the impeding crises of Social Security and Medicare is to let them go bankrupt, since the political will to do anything in the interim doesn't seem to exist.
Let the state of these massive, federal programs be a message to those who would add a federally-funded healthcare program for all Americans. Managing your healthcare is not something to trust the government with.
Let the state of these massive, federal programs be a message to those who would add a federally-funded healthcare program for all Americans. Managing your healthcare is not something to trust the government with.
For Those Who Like a Good Joust
Many of you have indicated a desire that the blog be more "interactive" and by that, that you get to have long running arguments with me. Not my desire, get your own blog if you want to do that. But I've been a little weak over the past few days, and "Anonymous" has made a few points worth responding to. The initial post was about Colin Powell's fitness to be considered a Republican Party spokesman/critic/reformer. I'm a HUGE Powell fan in almost every respect. Indeed, many of the things he says about the Republican Party I AGREE WITH (see my 10 Principles). That said, you don't get to be or be considered a Republican Party spokesman when you quite publicly endorse the candidate of the other Party. See what you think.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
I Love The Law Of Unintended Consequences
The President's plan to go after folks he thinks aren't paying enough taxes hits a little snag....
Leadership in the Land of 10,000 Lakes
Here's a great story on how a governor should manage things budget-wise, as opposed to, I don't know, the governator. Full disclosure-I have a preference for all things Minnesotan (save for that unfortunate Franken fellow), but I really dig this guy Pawlenty. He's not Obama when it comes to style and flash, but still he's an appealing guy, son of a milk truck driver, first in his family to go to college, and coiner of the term 'Sam's Club Republican.' Were he to make a national run in a few years, I'm not sure what the media would go after him over (though we can be confident it'll be SOMETHING). However, if you believe as many do that the Republican comeback will be in the governor's mansions, this man's lead is a good one to follow.
Pelosi Galore
Fantastic video here. One friend thinks it is over the top for the RNC to do this {the riff on "Pussy Galore" is evident). What do you think?
Update: A Republican with the vapors agrees with critics.
Update: A Republican with the vapors agrees with critics.
Obama Making "Tough Calls"; What Was Bush Doing?
I continue to be amazed by the tap-dancing performance of the President's supporters as they watch him validate and continue many of the policies of the Bush Administration's approach to the War on Ter..whoops Overseas Contingency Operations.
The favorite new line is "we got stuck with Bush's policies, and there really aren't any good alternatives." Just what makes these folks think the Bush folks had better alternatives? Obama and his team get to make their decisions after 7.5 years of no attacks underwritten by the courageous actions of the Bush team to husband national resources to fight an implacable foe. Bush made his while the reality of attack was still a daily story and the possibility of future attack loomed large.
The Obama team may think they have no good alternatives---but they should at least recognize others have reached the same conclusion.
The favorite new line is "we got stuck with Bush's policies, and there really aren't any good alternatives." Just what makes these folks think the Bush folks had better alternatives? Obama and his team get to make their decisions after 7.5 years of no attacks underwritten by the courageous actions of the Bush team to husband national resources to fight an implacable foe. Bush made his while the reality of attack was still a daily story and the possibility of future attack loomed large.
The Obama team may think they have no good alternatives---but they should at least recognize others have reached the same conclusion.
Obama Stimulus: Where It Is Working
Here's a very insightful article from this morning's Post, one that looks at a particular slice of the Obama Stimulus and follows the money down through the spend chain to the people who do the work--and the impact it has had and is having on their lives and their bottom-lines.
When I read this, I find myself remembering the stimulus debate--Republicans were outraged by the size of the outlay--but even more so that projects like this made up only about half of the total. Even the hardest core fiscal conservative could see that stimulative government spending in the near-term could provide a boost to the economy and aid in putting people back to work. What happened to that bill (if we take the time to remember) is that it had three parts--reasonably stimulative projects such as the one in this story; a poorly conceived tax cut (it didn't lower rates, it was a simple rebate) much of which went to those not paying income taxes already; and spending on items that amounted to no more than straight policy plays--the "we won, so we get to use the crisis to our advantage" stuff. Republicans agreed with the first part, wanted a different kind of tax cut for the second, and disagreed completely with the third.
So as I read this story this morning, I am grateful that the people interviewed are finding their lives on the upswing as a result of the project that got funded. And I give credit to the President who pushed for it. But I find myself thinking about the bucket with a hole in the bottom (Dear Liza) when I consider the policy tricks funded and the non-stimulative tax cut.
When I read this, I find myself remembering the stimulus debate--Republicans were outraged by the size of the outlay--but even more so that projects like this made up only about half of the total. Even the hardest core fiscal conservative could see that stimulative government spending in the near-term could provide a boost to the economy and aid in putting people back to work. What happened to that bill (if we take the time to remember) is that it had three parts--reasonably stimulative projects such as the one in this story; a poorly conceived tax cut (it didn't lower rates, it was a simple rebate) much of which went to those not paying income taxes already; and spending on items that amounted to no more than straight policy plays--the "we won, so we get to use the crisis to our advantage" stuff. Republicans agreed with the first part, wanted a different kind of tax cut for the second, and disagreed completely with the third.
So as I read this story this morning, I am grateful that the people interviewed are finding their lives on the upswing as a result of the project that got funded. And I give credit to the President who pushed for it. But I find myself thinking about the bucket with a hole in the bottom (Dear Liza) when I consider the policy tricks funded and the non-stimulative tax cut.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
General Powell and the Republican Party
Colin Powell has been in the news quite a bit lately, mostly responding to criticism from prominent Republicans (like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh). Powell has been dispensing advice about how the Republican Party must go in order to grow, saying mostly that the American people want MORE government in their lives rather than less.
A couple of things about Colin Powell.
First, he is a hero and an inspiration. I believe he may be one of the singularly gifted men left on the national scene.
Second, he's always been AT BEST a moderate Republican, more like a Lowell Weicker Liberal Republican of the past. He's always been a very APOLITICAL Republican...this is what we want out of our soldiers and statesmen. But he's never been seen as an ideologue, and he's never been seen as anyone with any kind of a coherent political philosophy. As such, he's like most Americans.
Third, he's in over his head. He has little or no political backing, he's had no political jobs, and he (as I said above) has no political philosophy. He's getting into it here over the future of a party littered with people who have actual political philosophies. For good or bad, if you re-read my Ten Principles, you'd see that there is a little bit of Colin Powell's view of the world in it. But that's all--a little bit. Powell's view of the world (pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-government) has NEVER been at home within the Republican Party. This isn't a case of the party moving away from an individual--it is the case of an individual beginning to seriously consider what he really is and realizing that he's not really part of the larger group. Let's all remember here....COLIN POWELL ENDORSED BARACK OBAMA. There's nothing wrong with this, it is a perfectly legitimate political act. But it is not the act of a man with the credentials to shape the future of the Republican Party.
He is interesting to the Press because he WAS a Republican at one point, and they love the internecine nature of this battle. But this is not a fight among Republicans. It is a newly empowered Democrat rationalizing to himself the mistake he made for all those years being a part of an organization he never agreed with.
A couple of things about Colin Powell.
First, he is a hero and an inspiration. I believe he may be one of the singularly gifted men left on the national scene.
Second, he's always been AT BEST a moderate Republican, more like a Lowell Weicker Liberal Republican of the past. He's always been a very APOLITICAL Republican...this is what we want out of our soldiers and statesmen. But he's never been seen as an ideologue, and he's never been seen as anyone with any kind of a coherent political philosophy. As such, he's like most Americans.
Third, he's in over his head. He has little or no political backing, he's had no political jobs, and he (as I said above) has no political philosophy. He's getting into it here over the future of a party littered with people who have actual political philosophies. For good or bad, if you re-read my Ten Principles, you'd see that there is a little bit of Colin Powell's view of the world in it. But that's all--a little bit. Powell's view of the world (pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-government) has NEVER been at home within the Republican Party. This isn't a case of the party moving away from an individual--it is the case of an individual beginning to seriously consider what he really is and realizing that he's not really part of the larger group. Let's all remember here....COLIN POWELL ENDORSED BARACK OBAMA. There's nothing wrong with this, it is a perfectly legitimate political act. But it is not the act of a man with the credentials to shape the future of the Republican Party.
He is interesting to the Press because he WAS a Republican at one point, and they love the internecine nature of this battle. But this is not a fight among Republicans. It is a newly empowered Democrat rationalizing to himself the mistake he made for all those years being a part of an organization he never agreed with.
Two Great Posts From Tigerhawk
Friday, May 22, 2009
They Just Don't Get It
I'm sorry--I did it again. I went and read another Dana Milbank column in the Washington Post, this time about the Obama/Cheney speech day.
After resorting to every tired cliche to describe the President ("smiling", "cerebral", "soothingly") he turned to his file of tired cliche's to describe the former VP ("scowling", "angry", "fear mongering").
Milbank gives us his handicapping on this bout as follows: "On paper, Obama should be an easy victor in his duel with Cheney; Obama is viewed favorably by about 60 percent of the public, Cheney by about 25 percent." It's not only the popularity of the two figures, it is...well....the goodness of their arguments for Pete's sake. After all, the President is making us more popular in the world, he is finally bringing justice to the issue, he is....well...smiling more.
But like the person who exclaimed after Nixon routed McGovern in 1972 ("how could Nixon have won...everyone I knew voted for McGovern"), Milbank reveals how stunningly out of touch he and many Democrats are with the way many Americans view 9-11 and the War on Terror: "And yet Cheney seems to be winning this fight. Senate Democrats, rebelling against the president, voted against funding his plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. President Obama himself backed down from his support for the release of photographs of prisoner abuse. And he's gone back and forth on whether to prosecute or investigate those accused of authorizing torture. For the moment, at least, President Obama's intellectual arguments can't match Cheney's visceral rage." So that's it then....Cheney (and by extension Bush) didn't lay out intellectual arguments for their policies...they simply acted with rage as they are now. If we only followed the smooth, intellectual approach of the President, we'd be in so much better shape.
Hogwash. Barack Obama and his team are beginning to understand what it was the Bush team was up against, and they are beginning to realize that the Democratic Party does not have a monopoly on smart people. The Bush Administration was populated by some very, very intelligent folks who pieced together a strategy that was successful in keeping us safe from another attack. Now governing, President Obama sees that the rhetoric of the campaign trail simply does not match the reality of the job--and so he not only clings to the the Bush methods, he gussies them up a bit and calls them his own.
Both speeches yesterday served as striking testimony to the effectiveness of the Bush approach to the war on terror, though the President was clearly not trying to make that case.
After resorting to every tired cliche to describe the President ("smiling", "cerebral", "soothingly") he turned to his file of tired cliche's to describe the former VP ("scowling", "angry", "fear mongering").
Milbank gives us his handicapping on this bout as follows: "On paper, Obama should be an easy victor in his duel with Cheney; Obama is viewed favorably by about 60 percent of the public, Cheney by about 25 percent." It's not only the popularity of the two figures, it is...well....the goodness of their arguments for Pete's sake. After all, the President is making us more popular in the world, he is finally bringing justice to the issue, he is....well...smiling more.
But like the person who exclaimed after Nixon routed McGovern in 1972 ("how could Nixon have won...everyone I knew voted for McGovern"), Milbank reveals how stunningly out of touch he and many Democrats are with the way many Americans view 9-11 and the War on Terror: "And yet Cheney seems to be winning this fight. Senate Democrats, rebelling against the president, voted against funding his plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. President Obama himself backed down from his support for the release of photographs of prisoner abuse. And he's gone back and forth on whether to prosecute or investigate those accused of authorizing torture. For the moment, at least, President Obama's intellectual arguments can't match Cheney's visceral rage." So that's it then....Cheney (and by extension Bush) didn't lay out intellectual arguments for their policies...they simply acted with rage as they are now. If we only followed the smooth, intellectual approach of the President, we'd be in so much better shape.
Hogwash. Barack Obama and his team are beginning to understand what it was the Bush team was up against, and they are beginning to realize that the Democratic Party does not have a monopoly on smart people. The Bush Administration was populated by some very, very intelligent folks who pieced together a strategy that was successful in keeping us safe from another attack. Now governing, President Obama sees that the rhetoric of the campaign trail simply does not match the reality of the job--and so he not only clings to the the Bush methods, he gussies them up a bit and calls them his own.
Both speeches yesterday served as striking testimony to the effectiveness of the Bush approach to the war on terror, though the President was clearly not trying to make that case.
GM to Join Chyrsler in Bankruptcy
News today that GM is about to be taken by its new management (the US Government) into bankruptcy. Weeks ago in this blog, I predicted that this (bankruptcy) would happen after a particularly strong speech by the President on the issue. Some thought I was being suckered (especially Goldwater's Ghost), and while it appears that I got the legal call right, I clearly blew every other part of the call. As things turn out, "structured bankruptcy" is another term for "government bailout" and the senior debt-holders are going to get screwed in favor of the unions.
This bankruptcy is not what I envisioned. The heavy hand of the government in this issue brings into question the validity of the entire bankruptcy process. This was not "creative destruction". This is taxpayer-funded redistribution of wealth.
This bankruptcy is not what I envisioned. The heavy hand of the government in this issue brings into question the validity of the entire bankruptcy process. This was not "creative destruction". This is taxpayer-funded redistribution of wealth.
Criticizing the New Guys is Bad, but Criticizing the Old Guys is Good
One of the more interesting things about the Obama/Cheney speech dance yesterday is this continuing fascination in the press with Cheney's open criticism of the Obama Administration. From this WaPost article comes this little gem: "I think it is unprecedented in the modern era," said Peniel Joseph, a historian at Brandeis University. "We've seen outgoing administrations that did not get along with the new administration, but we have never seen the vice president of an outgoing administration lambasting the new administration like this." Um, OK, let's suspend disbelief for a second and say "maybe you're right Professor Joseph".
But the question I don't hear being asked is why Bush, Cheney, Rove or any other figure from the Bush Administration should remain quiet while the present administration uses them as a daily punching bag on virtually every issue? You don't get to continue to whine about "inherited problems" and "we lost our way" and expect the other guys to just sit back and nod in agreement.
But the question I don't hear being asked is why Bush, Cheney, Rove or any other figure from the Bush Administration should remain quiet while the present administration uses them as a daily punching bag on virtually every issue? You don't get to continue to whine about "inherited problems" and "we lost our way" and expect the other guys to just sit back and nod in agreement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
