It's fun to play the "popular vote total" game even though it is hard to imagine that Hillary Clinton can win the Democratic nomination even if she ends up with the most votes (unless, that is, another Jeremiah-Wright-like scandal emerges in the next week or so). In playing the vote total game, reporters often ask whether the votes in Florida and Michigan should "count" given that their pledged delegates don't count. I guess that's a reasonable question, but it's also reasonable to count all votes and then total them in a way that is most favorable to Barack Obama (which means counting more than 200,000 votes for "uncommitted" in Michigan as votes for Obama).
According to RealClearPolitics, Clinton leads Obama by about 71,000 votes if you can all votes except the uncommitted votes in Michigan. If you give those to Obama (which seems reasonable to me), he leads her by about 140,000.
Pretty soon, Puerto Rico will vote. Their population is about the same as Kentucky's. Clinton beat Obama in Kentucky by about 250,000 votes. If the same happens in Puerto Rico, and if you count those votes, she'll lead him by about 100,000. That leaves the tiny sates of Montana and North Dakota. Those two states together don't have even half the population of Puerto Rico.
We'll see what happens, but by the time this is over, it may be possible for Clinton to argue that she received more votes than Barack Obama. She'll definitely be able to make that argument if she excludes the uncommitted votes in Michigan (as she is doing now). But there is some chance that she'll be able to make the argument even if she generously assigns every one of those votes to Obama. It probably will not earn her the nomination, but it would make for an intriguing political footnote.
May 21, 2008
May 17, 2008
A Late Thought on Al Gore's Peace Prize
I'm still unexpectedly swamped at work, which explains the light blogging of late. But I thought I'd bubble up for a moment to draw attention to what appears be a rather amazing story (which others have known about for some time but which came as news to me). Even if you experienced pangs of satisfaction when it happened, any reasonable person would have to ask how Al Gore is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. Peace? In what way did he contribute to that? If you read the citation, it turns out he contributed to peace in a theoretical way (i.e., if global warming is real and if mankind is the main contributor and if Al Gore's efforts help to correct that problem, then if uncontrolled global warming would have led to conflicts over scarce food and water, then Al Gore would have done something significant with respect to promoting peace). That's a little too theoretical for me.
Who did he beat out for the award? Irena Sendler:
By contrast, Al Gore heroically gave speeches and made documentaries exaggerating the potential problems associated with global warming. Let's see, should the peace prize go to Al Gore, who spends his cushy life promoting a left wing environmental agenda, or Irena Sendler, who saved 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazis in a Warsaw ghetto, was tortured for her efforts (and here I mean actual torture, not the rough treatment that sends many into fits of hysteria today), and then returned to saving innocent children, thereby risking further torture and death? Tough call.
This Wikipedia article about Sendler adds an interesting detail:
Nominations are secret. I did not realize that, but now I guess I can see why. If the goal is to stick it to conservatives, it is a lot easier to do so without everyone knowing about people like Irena Sendler.
Am I missing something here? If you cheered Al Gore's peace prize, does he seem to be obviously more deserving of the prize than Sendler? Does it even seem like a close call?
Who did he beat out for the award? Irena Sendler:
I am ashamed to admit that I had never heard of Irena Sendler, whose obituary appeared in this morning’s paper. Hers is an awesomely humbling story, even by the standards of her heroic generation.
A Polish Catholic, she spirited some 2,500 Jewish children out of the Warsaw ghetto, displaying casual and extraordinary courage. She kept a list of the children she had saved, hoping one day to reunite them with their parents – although, in the event, almost all lost their families in Treblinka. In 1943, she was arrested by the Gestapo and tortured. Her legs and feet were broken, but she refused to give up her list. She was sentenced to death, but rescued, whereupon – almost unbelievably – she went back to work.
By contrast, Al Gore heroically gave speeches and made documentaries exaggerating the potential problems associated with global warming. Let's see, should the peace prize go to Al Gore, who spends his cushy life promoting a left wing environmental agenda, or Irena Sendler, who saved 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazis in a Warsaw ghetto, was tortured for her efforts (and here I mean actual torture, not the rough treatment that sends many into fits of hysteria today), and then returned to saving innocent children, thereby risking further torture and death? Tough call.
This Wikipedia article about Sendler adds an interesting detail:
On 14 March 2007, Sendler was honoured by Poland's Senate. Polish President Lech Kaczynski stated that she "can be justly named for the Nobel Peace Prize" (nominations are supposed to be kept secret, though).
Nominations are secret. I did not realize that, but now I guess I can see why. If the goal is to stick it to conservatives, it is a lot easier to do so without everyone knowing about people like Irena Sendler.
Am I missing something here? If you cheered Al Gore's peace prize, does he seem to be obviously more deserving of the prize than Sendler? Does it even seem like a close call?
May 13, 2008
Separating the Church of Politics from the State of the University
This article came as an interesting surprise:
It was not that long ago that people actually disputed conservative claims that academia and the media both lean far to the left. It's amazing how much the world has changed in just the last few years. Now, most enlightened discussion of such issues concerns why the bias exists (not whether or not it does). That's progress.
I'm not sure that the approach taken by the University of Colorado is the way to go about dealing with the problem, but the fact that liberal indoctrination on college campuses is recognized as a problem is the first step towards improving the situation. No matter which way you lean politically, you must agree that professors working in a political echo chamber is unproductive for everyone (including them). Sure, everyone in the echo chamber will come to strongly believe that their political views are incontrovertibly correct, but that enjoyable state of mind comes at great cost of professors becomingly increasingly incurious about the more compelling arguments offered by those on the other side.
I used to favor liberal political activism on college campuses. After watching its actual effect over the years, I have now come to strongly believe that college campuses need to advocate a sharp separation between church and state (so to speak). That is, the "church" of liberalism (or conservatism) and the "state" of the university should get a divorce. It will never be possible to completely separate the two, but the goal of keeping them separate should nevertheless be a guiding principle. At the University of Colorado, by contrast, the goal seems to be to balance classes characterized by liberal indoctrination with classes based on conservative indoctrination. That's not how I'd approach the problem. The president of the university should instead announce that the University of Colorado will seek to avoid political indoctrination by (a) frowning on courses that clearly embrace current political ideology and (b) encouraging professors to keep their political activism away from campus. That is, instead of triumphantly intertwining politics and education (as happens too often on college campuses), administrators should adopt the goal of doing just the opposite. Is that a radical proposition?
The difficulties associated with my preferred approach are considerable. Should professors avoid teaching evolution? Should they avoid teaching about the climate science that suggests that CO2 emissions lead to global warming? Would I actually infringe on the academic freedom that professors enjoy? The answer to all three questions is "no." Despite the difficulties, college campuses should strive to keep the political views of college professors separate from their campus activities. Striving to achieve that goal would make the college campus a better place.
Help Wanted: Lefty College Seeks Right-Wing Prof
BOULDER, Colo. -- How liberal is the University of Colorado at Boulder?
The campus hot-dog stand sells tofu wieners. A recent pro-marijuana rally drew a crowd of 10,000, roughly a third the size of the student body. And according to one professor's analysis of voter registration, the 800-strong faculty includes just 32 Republicans.
Chancellor G.P. "Bud" Peterson surveys this landscape with unease. A college that champions diversity, he believes, must think beyond courses in gay literature, Chicano studies and feminist theory. "We should also talk about intellectual diversity," he says. So over the next year, Mr. Peterson plans to raise $9 million to create an endowed chair for what is thought to be the nation's first Professor of Conservative Thought and Policy.
It was not that long ago that people actually disputed conservative claims that academia and the media both lean far to the left. It's amazing how much the world has changed in just the last few years. Now, most enlightened discussion of such issues concerns why the bias exists (not whether or not it does). That's progress.
I'm not sure that the approach taken by the University of Colorado is the way to go about dealing with the problem, but the fact that liberal indoctrination on college campuses is recognized as a problem is the first step towards improving the situation. No matter which way you lean politically, you must agree that professors working in a political echo chamber is unproductive for everyone (including them). Sure, everyone in the echo chamber will come to strongly believe that their political views are incontrovertibly correct, but that enjoyable state of mind comes at great cost of professors becomingly increasingly incurious about the more compelling arguments offered by those on the other side.
I used to favor liberal political activism on college campuses. After watching its actual effect over the years, I have now come to strongly believe that college campuses need to advocate a sharp separation between church and state (so to speak). That is, the "church" of liberalism (or conservatism) and the "state" of the university should get a divorce. It will never be possible to completely separate the two, but the goal of keeping them separate should nevertheless be a guiding principle. At the University of Colorado, by contrast, the goal seems to be to balance classes characterized by liberal indoctrination with classes based on conservative indoctrination. That's not how I'd approach the problem. The president of the university should instead announce that the University of Colorado will seek to avoid political indoctrination by (a) frowning on courses that clearly embrace current political ideology and (b) encouraging professors to keep their political activism away from campus. That is, instead of triumphantly intertwining politics and education (as happens too often on college campuses), administrators should adopt the goal of doing just the opposite. Is that a radical proposition?
The difficulties associated with my preferred approach are considerable. Should professors avoid teaching evolution? Should they avoid teaching about the climate science that suggests that CO2 emissions lead to global warming? Would I actually infringe on the academic freedom that professors enjoy? The answer to all three questions is "no." Despite the difficulties, college campuses should strive to keep the political views of college professors separate from their campus activities. Striving to achieve that goal would make the college campus a better place.
May 12, 2008
The Effort in Basra Failed to Fail
One advantage of having newspapers that lean politically far to the left is that when they report news that goes against what they would like to be true (e.g., when they report any news that reflects well on our efforts in Iraq), it is believable. When the Iraqi army pushed into Basra, the New York Times reassured its readership that the effort was the predictable disaster it was supposed to be. Because such reporting coincides what most reporters there would like to be true, it was not clear what was actually happening. Now, to their great consternation, I presume, even the New York Times can't deny what actually happened there:
What makes this news even worse for those who are inclined to celebrate our failure in Iraq is the fact that the effort was largely an Iraqi affair:
A similar push is now happening in Sadr City. Time will tell if this operation was as successful as the one in Basra, but fear not. While it is underway, you can read all about how badly it is going (courtesy of the New York Times).
Drive in Basra by Iraqi Army Makes Gains
BASRA, Iraq — Three hundred miles south of Baghdad, the oil-saturated city of Basra has been transformed by its own surge, now seven weeks old.
In a rare success, forces loyal to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki have largely quieted the city, to the initial surprise and growing delight of many inhabitants who only a month ago shuddered under deadly clashes between Iraqi troops and Shiite militias.
What makes this news even worse for those who are inclined to celebrate our failure in Iraq is the fact that the effort was largely an Iraqi affair:
In addition to the 4,000 British troops in Basra, he said, the Americans sent 800 people, including surveillance experts and around 200 transition team “advisers” embedded with Iraqi troops.
An American military spokesman in Baghdad confirmed that one American had been killed and eight wounded in the Basra operation but said the United States had not had “conventional ground forces in direct support of combat operations.”
Iraqi commanders acknowledge that the American and British support helped them wrest control of Mahdi Army strongholds like Hayyaniyah — a slum that is Basra’s equivalent of Sadr City — and other poor districts that are fertile recruiting grounds for militias.
But a majority of the military presence on the streets is Iraqi.
A similar push is now happening in Sadr City. Time will tell if this operation was as successful as the one in Basra, but fear not. While it is underway, you can read all about how badly it is going (courtesy of the New York Times).
May 11, 2008
What to do about Iran?
I came across this political cartoon summarizing Democratic opposition to Theodore Roosevelt back in 1904. What's amazing is the similarity to some of the themes that we still see today coming from the more hysterical elements of the radical left:
There he is, trampling on "international law" as well as on the constitution. And "personal orders" are substituted for "acts of Congress." Forget the constitution because it's all about "imperialism" and "militarism." This sounds exactly like those who perceive Barack Obama as a "rock star," and I'm simply amazed at how long we have been having this debate.
On a semi-related note, Reuel Marc Gerecht has a typically incisive analysis of the situation with respect to Iran.
That's what Iran is doing today, and Barack Obama's plan consists of withdrawing our troops from Iraq and then chatting with (and offering unspecified "incentives" to) the Iranians in hopes that they'll stop building a nuclear bomb and drop their support of Hezbollah. That sounds promising, doesn't it? I suspect that it's not only Hamas that is hoping for a Barack Obama victory in November.
Meanwhile, there is the troop surge, which has devastated al Qaeda in Iraq, and is now causing some problems for Iran:
This part of the article will be simply incomprehensible to you if you lean far to the left (i.e., if Barack Obama is a rock star to you). First of all, al Qaeda is mentioned, and all adoring fans of Obama know that al Qaeda in Iraq is a neocon myth (or, if not that, it is just a "homegrown" resistance force that will wither on the vine once we leave). These paragraphs are also incomprehensible to the left because it makes note of the fact that Muqtada al Sadr's malicious anti-Sunni extermination campaign in Baghdad was designed to eradicate al Qaeda's suicide-bombing offensive against Shiite civilians (which, in turn, was designed to incite just that kind of reaction from the Shiite militia because it would destabilize Iraq and demoralize Americans). If you hail from the left, all of this is just neocon mythicism because everybody knows that the story is much, much simpler than that. According to the widely believed but incredibly superficial analysis that prevails on the left, Iraq predictably fell into a "civil war" because Bush eliminated a "strongman" that was needed to keep sectarian hostilities suppressed. Simple as that.
The article finishes with what appear to me to be words of wisdom about the course ahead in the days remaining to Bush:
In other words, we should highlight the same issue that has cost al Qaeda so dearly throughout the Muslim world. Very few people realize that al Qaeda made a huge gamble in Iraq that almost worked (and would have worked had Barack Obama managed to get our troops withdrawn at the height of violence in Iraq). The foreign suicide bombers came to Iraq to fight Americans, but al Qaeda sent them against Shiite civilians instead. Zaraqawi knew what a mess this make (which it did) and that the Americans would predictably leave the chaotic situation with their tails between their legs. But the plan was also hard for the Muslim world to swallow because so many fellow Muslims (Shiites) were being intentionally killed. Even the Sunnis of Iraq came to appreciate how bad al Qaeda was for them. As such, al Qaeda ruined its reputation throughout the Muslim world in an utterly failed attempt to evict U.S. forces from Iraq. Remember that the next time someone suggests that nothing good has come from our invasion.
Now Gerecht suggests that the same phenomenon (i.e., Muslim casualties) may be causing trouble for the Iranians. Perhaps, but the Iranians have not, for the most, been fomenting violence against civilians. Instead, they have been doing what most thought that al Qaeda would do (namely, fight American troops). Still, Iran's efforts in Iraq appear to be on the verge of failing. Their indirect control over Basra appears to have been eliminated, and their indirect control over events in Sadr City may be coming to an end as well. There is nothing like failure to damage the strategic objectives of terrorist organizations (just ask al Qaeda about that). Iran is a terrorist organization masquerading as a nation, and failure in Iraq may be in store for them.
As I noted a few days ago, some on the left openly crave our failure in Iraq, and such people are going to vote for Barack Obama (go figure). But if current trends continue, al Qaeda and Iran may have both have failed in Iraq before Obama has a chance to do anything about it.
There he is, trampling on "international law" as well as on the constitution. And "personal orders" are substituted for "acts of Congress." Forget the constitution because it's all about "imperialism" and "militarism." This sounds exactly like those who perceive Barack Obama as a "rock star," and I'm simply amazed at how long we have been having this debate.
On a semi-related note, Reuel Marc Gerecht has a typically incisive analysis of the situation with respect to Iran.
Tehran is on a roll. Its development of a nuclear weapon progresses. The European Union's attempts to cajole the mullahs to abandon uranium enrichment--the most demanding part of developing the bomb--has become ever-more plaintive; the Europeans promise incentives more than they threaten sanctions. Anxiety in Tehran about the possibility of an American military strike against the regime's nuclear facilities--produced by the president's and vice president's "saber-rattling" and helpfully amplified by French president Nicolas Sarkozy and his foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner--almost vanished in December with the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate, which incongruously asserted that Iran had stopped its quest for a bomb in 2003.
...
Spurred by its nuclear success against the Europeans and Americans, the clerical regime is causing trouble on the West Bank and in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, the Persian Gulf, and perhaps most of all, Iraq. Israel may soon be embroiled in an ugly war with Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist movement supported spiritually and militarily by Tehran. This could turn into a two-front confrontation, as Hezbollah, revolutionary Iran's most faithful offspring, is demonstrating its willingness to use force to become the dominant player in Lebanon. Rearmed massively by Tehran since the 2006 summer war against Israel, Hezbollah could again let the missiles fly against northern Israel, while Hamas attacks from Gaza.
...
Most important, Iran has pushed hard in Iraq, giving aid and military training to militant Shiites, whose targets have included Sunnis, Americans, and other Shiites. The mullahs and their Revolutionary Guards corps have become a small expeditionary force in Iraq and have clearly shown that they aren't peace-loving Persian uncles trying to bring stability and prosperity to their Shiite Arab nephews.
That's what Iran is doing today, and Barack Obama's plan consists of withdrawing our troops from Iraq and then chatting with (and offering unspecified "incentives" to) the Iranians in hopes that they'll stop building a nuclear bomb and drop their support of Hezbollah. That sounds promising, doesn't it? I suspect that it's not only Hamas that is hoping for a Barack Obama victory in November.
Meanwhile, there is the troop surge, which has devastated al Qaeda in Iraq, and is now causing some problems for Iran:
President Bush's surge caught the Iranians off-guard and turned what had been a winning situation for Iran in Iraq--multiple Shiite parties dependent upon Iranian aid and good will in a savage battle against Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda--into a potentially huge defeat for Tehran. Barring a strike by President Bush against Iran's nuclear sites before January 2009, Iraq is the only arena where the administration is capable of moving effectively against Tehran.
The Iranians have seriously overplayed their hand along the Tigris and Euphrates. In their love of the Hezbollah model, they have helped to build up Moktada al-Sadr, the scion of Iraq's most revered clerical family, who became a Shiite street hero for his defense of the Shia against Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda. Sadr's followers include the only Shiites willing and able to kill Americans--another hugely attractive factor to the leadership in Tehran, since wounding America in Iraq is as indispensable to the ruling elite's sense of purpose as raining Katyushas down on Israelis.
This part of the article will be simply incomprehensible to you if you lean far to the left (i.e., if Barack Obama is a rock star to you). First of all, al Qaeda is mentioned, and all adoring fans of Obama know that al Qaeda in Iraq is a neocon myth (or, if not that, it is just a "homegrown" resistance force that will wither on the vine once we leave). These paragraphs are also incomprehensible to the left because it makes note of the fact that Muqtada al Sadr's malicious anti-Sunni extermination campaign in Baghdad was designed to eradicate al Qaeda's suicide-bombing offensive against Shiite civilians (which, in turn, was designed to incite just that kind of reaction from the Shiite militia because it would destabilize Iraq and demoralize Americans). If you hail from the left, all of this is just neocon mythicism because everybody knows that the story is much, much simpler than that. According to the widely believed but incredibly superficial analysis that prevails on the left, Iraq predictably fell into a "civil war" because Bush eliminated a "strongman" that was needed to keep sectarian hostilities suppressed. Simple as that.
The article finishes with what appear to me to be words of wisdom about the course ahead in the days remaining to Bush:
It is a very good bet that Sistani and other prominent Iraqi clerics have remonstrated vociferously with their Iranian interlocutors in Qom against Iranian-fed violence among Iraqi Shiites. We can see the Iranian side of this in former president Mohammad Khatami's accusing Khamenei virtually by name of spilling Shiite blood in Iraq and turning Iran's Islamic revolutionary message into a call for violence and upheaval beyond its borders. Khatami's recent speech at Gilan University is an astonishing sermon from a man not known for boldness.
In the time remaining to it, the Bush administration should do all it can to reinforce this Shiite dissent and outrage. The surge aside, it is the most effective vehicle for checking Iran in Iraq and stabilizing Iraqi politics. The U.S. government should broadcast as loudly as possible any and all information showing Tehran's complicity in the death of Iraqi Shiites. If the United States can again arrest members of the Revolutionary Guards Corps inside Iraq, it should do so, interrogate them rigorously, and make the information public. The tide may have turned for good against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, with potentially huge ramifications for hearts and minds throughout the Sunni Arab world. The clerics in Tehran could be dealt out of the inner circles of Iraqi Shia politics. With continued progress in Iraq, the next administration would be in a position to turn its full attention to thwarting Iran elsewhere in the region--and to preventing the mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In other words, we should highlight the same issue that has cost al Qaeda so dearly throughout the Muslim world. Very few people realize that al Qaeda made a huge gamble in Iraq that almost worked (and would have worked had Barack Obama managed to get our troops withdrawn at the height of violence in Iraq). The foreign suicide bombers came to Iraq to fight Americans, but al Qaeda sent them against Shiite civilians instead. Zaraqawi knew what a mess this make (which it did) and that the Americans would predictably leave the chaotic situation with their tails between their legs. But the plan was also hard for the Muslim world to swallow because so many fellow Muslims (Shiites) were being intentionally killed. Even the Sunnis of Iraq came to appreciate how bad al Qaeda was for them. As such, al Qaeda ruined its reputation throughout the Muslim world in an utterly failed attempt to evict U.S. forces from Iraq. Remember that the next time someone suggests that nothing good has come from our invasion.
Now Gerecht suggests that the same phenomenon (i.e., Muslim casualties) may be causing trouble for the Iranians. Perhaps, but the Iranians have not, for the most, been fomenting violence against civilians. Instead, they have been doing what most thought that al Qaeda would do (namely, fight American troops). Still, Iran's efforts in Iraq appear to be on the verge of failing. Their indirect control over Basra appears to have been eliminated, and their indirect control over events in Sadr City may be coming to an end as well. There is nothing like failure to damage the strategic objectives of terrorist organizations (just ask al Qaeda about that). Iran is a terrorist organization masquerading as a nation, and failure in Iraq may be in store for them.
As I noted a few days ago, some on the left openly crave our failure in Iraq, and such people are going to vote for Barack Obama (go figure). But if current trends continue, al Qaeda and Iran may have both have failed in Iraq before Obama has a chance to do anything about it.
May 09, 2008
Portrait of an Instalanche
I've suddenly been swamped at work, which accounts for the sudden pause in blogging. I had thought that my daily posts were responsible for keeping this fragile world of ours from simply falling apart, but everyone seems to be doing just fine after several days of inactivity on my part. Very mysterious.
I checked my site meter to see if everyone had fled to one of a hundred million alternatives, but I found an instalanche instead. When that happens to other bloggers, they usually say "Instalanche!" But I took a brief moment to do what I always do (namely, research and quantify). Wikipedia explains what an instalanche is:
Because he just linked to my previous post, you might be able to detect the subtle effect on traffic to my site if you looked very carefully at the site meter chart from last 7 days:
Glenn Reynolds does this to web sites all day long every day, and, as you probably know, his site is more addictive than crack cocaine. However, after thinking it over, I have come to the conclusion that what he does is not humanly possible. No human being could be that informed and make that many pithy comments and observations over such a long period of time without occasionally coming up for air (so to speak). And have you noticed that, through it all, he remains cool as a cucumber? An actual human being who blogs like that would have gone stark raving mad years ago. That's just a scientific fact. Since no human being could possibly do what he appears to do, the inescapable conclusion is that we must be reading the automated output of a highly advanced, next-generation supercomputer. Oh sure, they send out some obscure law professor from time to time for pictures and to appear on the Hugh Hewitt Show and that sort of thing. But I'm not fooled.
I checked my site meter to see if everyone had fled to one of a hundred million alternatives, but I found an instalanche instead. When that happens to other bloggers, they usually say "Instalanche!" But I took a brief moment to do what I always do (namely, research and quantify). Wikipedia explains what an instalanche is:
Instapundit is a United States political blog produced by Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee. It is one of the most widely read political blogs.[1] The blog, started in August 2001, began as an experiment and a part of Reynolds' class on Internet law.
Because of his long-standing prominence in the political blogosphere and his efforts to encourage new bloggers, Reynolds is sometimes called the BlogFather.[2] A 2007 memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee described him as one of the five "best-read national conservative bloggers."[3]
...
Because of its popularity, an Instapundit link to another site can cause the traffic of that site to spike. Such an increase is often referred to as an instalanche[6], a portmanteau for "Instapundit avalanche".
Because he just linked to my previous post, you might be able to detect the subtle effect on traffic to my site if you looked very carefully at the site meter chart from last 7 days:
Glenn Reynolds does this to web sites all day long every day, and, as you probably know, his site is more addictive than crack cocaine. However, after thinking it over, I have come to the conclusion that what he does is not humanly possible. No human being could be that informed and make that many pithy comments and observations over such a long period of time without occasionally coming up for air (so to speak). And have you noticed that, through it all, he remains cool as a cucumber? An actual human being who blogs like that would have gone stark raving mad years ago. That's just a scientific fact. Since no human being could possibly do what he appears to do, the inescapable conclusion is that we must be reading the automated output of a highly advanced, next-generation supercomputer. Oh sure, they send out some obscure law professor from time to time for pictures and to appear on the Hugh Hewitt Show and that sort of thing. But I'm not fooled.
May 05, 2008
Craving America's Defeat in Iraq
Back in November of 2006 -- back when al Qaeda had successfully plunged Iraq into sectarian chaos and the Iraqi people needed us the most -- James Carroll (a columnist for the Boston Globe) was excited about the possibility of America's apparent defeat. In fact, he thought that America's defeat at the hands of the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11 would be downright educational:
Here again in my chart showing civilian casualties in Iraq, and you should consider the state of Iraq at the end of 2006 (back when Carroll -- like Barack Obama -- thought it would be just an excellent idea to accept defeat):
Has the dramatic reduction in civilian casualties changed how Carroll thinks about the war in Iraq? No. His new column today suggests that, despite all that has happened, America's defeat is still the primary goal that should be pursued:
This from a man who thought that U.S. troops should be withdrawn when Iraqi blood was being spilled at three times the rate it is today. Thus, he has it exactly backwards. He craves America's defeat, so much so that he is willing to purchase that defeat with the blood of the Iraqi people. At least that's how seems to me given his preference for withdrawal at a time when virtually everyone agreed that our abrupt departure would precipitate genocidal chaos on a horrific scale.
I wondered who James Carroll might support for president of the United States. Gee, that's a tough one. John McCain, perhaps? Probably not. Hillary Clinton? She's a Democrat, but her pro-defeat bona fides are somewhat questionable despite the rhetoric she has been forced to adopt during the primary season. No, this man who can hardly wait to see America defeated in Iraq knows a kindred spirit when he sees one. Here is how he covered Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama earlier this year:
Two years ago, Carroll asked "This time, can we accept defeat?" He knows perfectly well that if we elect Barack Obama, the answer is "Yes, we can."
No, we can't.
What it will take to end war
By James Carroll | November 6, 2006
...
It is one thing to feel uneasy about your nation's war, or even to move to a position of outright opposition. It is another to face the harsh fact that the only way out of the war is to accept defeat.
...
For all of the anguish felt over the loss of American lives, can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted? Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it? This time, can we accept defeat?
Here again in my chart showing civilian casualties in Iraq, and you should consider the state of Iraq at the end of 2006 (back when Carroll -- like Barack Obama -- thought it would be just an excellent idea to accept defeat):
Has the dramatic reduction in civilian casualties changed how Carroll thinks about the war in Iraq? No. His new column today suggests that, despite all that has happened, America's defeat is still the primary goal that should be pursued:
The new immorality of Iraq war
By James Carroll
May 5, 2008
INSANITY is defined as repeating one mistaken action again and again, each time expecting a better result that never comes. Prime example: the United States in Iraq.
...
Let's call this repeated insanity the mistake of "supermilitarism," choosing war over diplomacy, and expecting order to follow, instead of chaos. The mistake was made at the beginning, in the middle, and is being repeated now, in what should be the end. The mistake is so deeply rooted in American structures of imagination, economy, and government that it isn't even perceived as a mistake by those in power. And it threatens the future as much as it burdens the past.
...
The healing of Iraq would be far more readily achieved by an American acknowledgment of failure, and by the engagement of other nations that such an acknowledgment would immediately invite. But insanely holding on in Iraq until Washington can claim something like "victory" means that this globally oriented geo-political ambition - America's standing in the world - is being bought at the price of Iraqi blood.
This from a man who thought that U.S. troops should be withdrawn when Iraqi blood was being spilled at three times the rate it is today. Thus, he has it exactly backwards. He craves America's defeat, so much so that he is willing to purchase that defeat with the blood of the Iraqi people. At least that's how seems to me given his preference for withdrawal at a time when virtually everyone agreed that our abrupt departure would precipitate genocidal chaos on a horrific scale.
I wondered who James Carroll might support for president of the United States. Gee, that's a tough one. John McCain, perhaps? Probably not. Hillary Clinton? She's a Democrat, but her pro-defeat bona fides are somewhat questionable despite the rhetoric she has been forced to adopt during the primary season. No, this man who can hardly wait to see America defeated in Iraq knows a kindred spirit when he sees one. Here is how he covered Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama earlier this year:
JFK’s Torch for Obama
by James Carroll
To rekindle the flame of the American University speech would be to restore a preference of negotiation over confrontation, to build self-criticism into policy making, and to affirm the utter realism of idealistic hope. Ted Kennedy sees the possibility in Barack Obama of the realization of his brother’s greatest vision.
That vision, conceived negatively, boils down to this: If humans do not change the way we resolve international conflicts, the planet is ultimately doomed to nuclear devastation. The abolition of all nuclear weapons, starting with our own, must be at the top of the new president’s agenda.
Conceived positively, the American University vision means that humans are poised, by necessity, for a great leap into a new and better world. Yes, we can.
Two years ago, Carroll asked "This time, can we accept defeat?" He knows perfectly well that if we elect Barack Obama, the answer is "Yes, we can."
No, we can't.
May 03, 2008
Democrats are on the Horns of a Dilemma
When even the New York Times says that Obama's glow is dimming, you can assume that it is true:
The summary of polls at RealClearPolitics shows the difficult situation that Democrats find themselves in:
At the bottom (highlighted by a green box), you can see that Clinton is doing better against McCain than Obama is according to national polls. She also does much better against McCain in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. The situation is reversed in Wisconsin, but we now know that Wisconsin is an unusual state that happens to be oddly infatuated with Barack Obama. In all other large states, demographics pretty much dictate who votes for whom.
The dilemma for the superdelegates is that the candidate with the insurmountable lead in pledged delegates is the very candidate who will be the weaker of the two against John McCain in the fall. That was not supposed to be a problem. The whole idea of the superdelegates is that they are empowered to straighten things out should the Democrats find themselves in this position. That is, the superdelegates are there to pick the stronger candidate should the voters pick the weaker candidate. If Barack Obama were a white male, the choice would be crystal clear (i.e., he'd be gone in a nanosecond). But because he is a black male, if the superdelegates choose the stronger of the two candidates, then they risk alienating their black base. I don't how this will play out, but it is a fascinating show to watch.
RALEIGH, N.C. — Just days before the North Carolina primary, the Democratic presidential contest in this state is suddenly alive with a fresh air of competition, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks to capitalize on a controversy that polls suggest has whittled away some of Senator Barack Obama’s support among white voters.
...
Many voters in the state were just beginning to turn their attention to the Democratic primary at the very moment Mr. Obama’s glow was dimming. Tuning in to their televisions, they saw a candidate who bristled his way through a debate last month in Pennsylvania and, more recently, an incessant repetition of incendiary statements by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., with whom Mr. Obama has now broken.
The summary of polls at RealClearPolitics shows the difficult situation that Democrats find themselves in:
At the bottom (highlighted by a green box), you can see that Clinton is doing better against McCain than Obama is according to national polls. She also does much better against McCain in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. The situation is reversed in Wisconsin, but we now know that Wisconsin is an unusual state that happens to be oddly infatuated with Barack Obama. In all other large states, demographics pretty much dictate who votes for whom.
The dilemma for the superdelegates is that the candidate with the insurmountable lead in pledged delegates is the very candidate who will be the weaker of the two against John McCain in the fall. That was not supposed to be a problem. The whole idea of the superdelegates is that they are empowered to straighten things out should the Democrats find themselves in this position. That is, the superdelegates are there to pick the stronger candidate should the voters pick the weaker candidate. If Barack Obama were a white male, the choice would be crystal clear (i.e., he'd be gone in a nanosecond). But because he is a black male, if the superdelegates choose the stronger of the two candidates, then they risk alienating their black base. I don't how this will play out, but it is a fascinating show to watch.
May 02, 2008
The Economy Continues its Unstoppable Implosion
Or so you might think if you read the news.
Americans are usually a sensible lot, but they are simply off their collective rockers when it comes to evaluating the strength of their own economy. All economic indicators prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the U.S. economy has been in great shape -- easily the best in the world -- throughout the Bush administration, but Americans have overwhelmingly disapproved of Bush's performance in that regard anyway.
My defense of the Bush economy is not a partisan stance, but your mistaken belief that the economy has been in terrible shape for years is. If you examine the relevant numbers, as I have done many times, you'll find that the economy was in similarly great shape during the Clinton years. Got that? The economy was in great shape under Democrat Bill Clinton and under Republican George Bush. There is nothing partisan about taking a look at GDP growth, unemployment, inflation, productivity, etc. and seeing that this is factually the case. But you (if you are like most Americans) are content to let the media do your thinking for you. When you do that, you are forced to make absurd arguments to try to defend the idea that the economy has been selectively terrible under Bush (but not under Clinton). The most absurd argument that I have encountered over the years is the idea that all of the basic economic indicators used to be meaningful (back when Clinton was president), but now they are "cooked statistics" that are designed to cover up the horrible state of the economy under George Bush. Right.
In any case, polls show that Americans are particularly down on the economy now that it has been momentarily shocked by the subprime mortgage crisis:
Whereas 66% say that we are already in a recession, only 27% say that we are not.
The most common definition of a recession is this:
The official definition is much more nebulous, but recessions are generally understood to mean a shrinking GDP (not a growing GDP). A point that I have made repeatedly is that we might very well be headed into a recession, but we should wait for the facts to support that dire prediction before we jump to the hasty conclusion that a recession is already upon us. Here are the quarterly GDP figures from the last few years:
As you can see, the first quarter of 2008 came in at the same level of growth as the first quarter (and the last quarter) of 2007, namely, +0.6%. Thus, as of now, we haven't even had a single quarter of negative GDP, much less two. The first quarter figure for this year is a preliminary figure that will be revised in a month or so. Perhaps that revision will show that the economy actually shrank during the first quarter, but let's wait and see, shall we?
The BEA page also shows inflation-adjusted personal income and consumer spending on a monthly basis over the last year. Let's take a look at that:
The last three months show two months in which incomes increased (blue bars) and one month in which it was flat. The same story applies to inflation-adjusted consumer spending (yellow bars). These values did not increase by all that much, but they did not decrease at all. It just doesn't look like the end of the line to me, so I guess I'm not quite ready to repent my sins and jump off a tall building.
I know that you think the numbers don't matter (because "people are hurting"), but if you base your opinions on facts and evidence instead of emotional impressions, this might seem like relevant information as well:
Do you know the last time France or Germany or Italy had an unemployment rate as low as 5%? It was a long, long time ago.
I'm not saying that we are not heading into a recession. Instead, I'm saying that you are quite wrong to think that we are already there. You can't predict the future, and your intuitions about the current state of the economy today are simply not informative. Those predictions and intuitions tell us more about your personal psychology than they do about the state of the economy. The relevant numbers tell us about the state of the economy, and they don't yet show the catastrophic implosion that mainstream media reporters have trained your gullible mind to uncritically accept as a given.
Americans are usually a sensible lot, but they are simply off their collective rockers when it comes to evaluating the strength of their own economy. All economic indicators prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the U.S. economy has been in great shape -- easily the best in the world -- throughout the Bush administration, but Americans have overwhelmingly disapproved of Bush's performance in that regard anyway.
My defense of the Bush economy is not a partisan stance, but your mistaken belief that the economy has been in terrible shape for years is. If you examine the relevant numbers, as I have done many times, you'll find that the economy was in similarly great shape during the Clinton years. Got that? The economy was in great shape under Democrat Bill Clinton and under Republican George Bush. There is nothing partisan about taking a look at GDP growth, unemployment, inflation, productivity, etc. and seeing that this is factually the case. But you (if you are like most Americans) are content to let the media do your thinking for you. When you do that, you are forced to make absurd arguments to try to defend the idea that the economy has been selectively terrible under Bush (but not under Clinton). The most absurd argument that I have encountered over the years is the idea that all of the basic economic indicators used to be meaningful (back when Clinton was president), but now they are "cooked statistics" that are designed to cover up the horrible state of the economy under George Bush. Right.
In any case, polls show that Americans are particularly down on the economy now that it has been momentarily shocked by the subprime mortgage crisis:
More grim news greeted the country yesterday when it was announced 80,000 jobs had been lost in March, the third consecutive month of rising unemployment, and a another stark sign that the country is now mired in recession.
The US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke admitted in testimony on Wednesday that a recession is now possible. He too is behind the curve of public opinion and market sentiment. Some 66 per cent of those polled say the US is already in a recession. The sputtering economy and insecure job market remains the top concern for Americans – 37 per cent, while the war in Iraq most concerns 15 per cent of those polled. This is a complete reversal of earlier surveys, and reflects confidence that violence in Iraq is finally waning, giving the US the opportunity so many are hoping for to finally bring the troops home.
Whereas 66% say that we are already in a recession, only 27% say that we are not.
The most common definition of a recession is this:
A period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.
The official definition is much more nebulous, but recessions are generally understood to mean a shrinking GDP (not a growing GDP). A point that I have made repeatedly is that we might very well be headed into a recession, but we should wait for the facts to support that dire prediction before we jump to the hasty conclusion that a recession is already upon us. Here are the quarterly GDP figures from the last few years:
As you can see, the first quarter of 2008 came in at the same level of growth as the first quarter (and the last quarter) of 2007, namely, +0.6%. Thus, as of now, we haven't even had a single quarter of negative GDP, much less two. The first quarter figure for this year is a preliminary figure that will be revised in a month or so. Perhaps that revision will show that the economy actually shrank during the first quarter, but let's wait and see, shall we?
The BEA page also shows inflation-adjusted personal income and consumer spending on a monthly basis over the last year. Let's take a look at that:
The last three months show two months in which incomes increased (blue bars) and one month in which it was flat. The same story applies to inflation-adjusted consumer spending (yellow bars). These values did not increase by all that much, but they did not decrease at all. It just doesn't look like the end of the line to me, so I guess I'm not quite ready to repent my sins and jump off a tall building.
I know that you think the numbers don't matter (because "people are hurting"), but if you base your opinions on facts and evidence instead of emotional impressions, this might seem like relevant information as well:
Employers cut payrolls less than expected
U.S. jobs fell by 20,000 in April, unemployment rate dips to 5 percent
WASHINGTON - Employers cut far fewer jobs in April than in recent months and the unemployment rate dropped to 5 percent, a better-than-expected showing that nonetheless still revealed strains in the nation’s crucial labor market.
Do you know the last time France or Germany or Italy had an unemployment rate as low as 5%? It was a long, long time ago.
I'm not saying that we are not heading into a recession. Instead, I'm saying that you are quite wrong to think that we are already there. You can't predict the future, and your intuitions about the current state of the economy today are simply not informative. Those predictions and intuitions tell us more about your personal psychology than they do about the state of the economy. The relevant numbers tell us about the state of the economy, and they don't yet show the catastrophic implosion that mainstream media reporters have trained your gullible mind to uncritically accept as a given.
May 01, 2008
Casualties in Iraq, April 2008
Despite the recent fighting against Shiite Militias, civilian casualties in Iraq remain comparatively low according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (with standard corrections to the data described here):
In addition to other corrections I have made to the data, I removed 100 casualties from the March total because those bodies were recovered from a grave that had been there for a long time. More mass graves were found in April, but I left those counts in the total for this month because I don't have any information about how old they were. I saw two other stories that I had expected to inflate the casualty count for this month as well. One was yet another mass grave that held 100 bodies, and another was a report from some Iraqi official claiming that nearly 1000 people had been killed in Sadr City alone in the month of April. That report did not distinguish between Shiite militant casualties and civilian casualties, though (and I don't if the claim was based on credible information or wild speculation). Neither report is reflected in the numbers provided by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, and my point is just that the April total may spike higher than it is right now. For the moment, though, the April civilian casualty count remains low by Iraqi standards. U.S. military deaths increased somewhat last month, though they, too, remain well below the pre-surge average:
I found the number of deaths due to hostile fire here (there were also 10 deaths that were not the result of hostile fire).
In my monthly civilian casualty chart that I presented above, I like to show the point in time when Barack Obama thought it would be just a grand idea to withdraw our troops. I like to show this because people think the man showed good judgment by opposing the war in 2002. That either reflected good judgment (according to one reasonable perspective that I do not share) or it reflected nothing more than the typical left wing anti-war reflex. The fact that he wanted to withdraw our troops when violence was at its peak and al Qaeda was on the verge of achieving its clearly stated objectives in Iraq shows that it was the latter, not the former. Of course, the fact that he is reflexively left wing in his thinking fits with everything else we have learned about the man in recent months, which is why it strikes me as odd that people still occasionally say that he is the one candidate who can "bring us together." To me, he seems like the one candidate who will bring together the center left and the far left.
I keep worrying that al Qaeda is going to make a comeback in Iraq, but another month just went by without that happening. And some of their successful suicide bombings that did occur were again carried out by female suicide bombers. The relatively low suicide casualty statistics (which nevertheless remain vastly higher than the suicide bombing casualties in Afghanistan, which is where Democrats weirdly want to go fight al Qaeda) coupled with the continuing use of female suicide bombers shows that al Qaeda in Iraq remains severely stressed.
Now that al Qaeda is less of a concern, the U.S. military and Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army no longer have a common foe. In fact, with al Qaeda suppressed, the Iraqi government decided to take the next logical step of disarming the Shiite militia. The Mahdi Army is resisting that move, which means one thing: Muqtada al Sadr's fighting force is going to suffer massive casualties (as it always does when it resists armed combatants). The decision by the Iraqi government to crack down on the Mahdi Army has led to this Code-Pink anti-war nightmare:
Casualties are down, political reconciliation is up, and al Qaeda in Iraq is on the ropes. A year ago, I would not have thought this possible. Had the Democrats gotten their way at the height of violence, casualties would be up, political reconciliation would be nonexistent, and al Qaeda's reputation would be skyrocketing throughout the Muslim world because of its glorious victory over American in Iraq. That outcome corresponds to Barack Obama's vision of Iraq, and although you might think that this reflects his good judgment, I think it reflects the exact opposite.
UPDATE: That was fast. Just when I start to think al Qaeda is down for the count, they prove that they are not dead yet:
Of course, if you are a Democrat, this is of no concern. This is not the work of al Qaeda (they are in Afghanistan because Bush "took his eye off the ball" there). Instead, it's just a "civil war." The idea that al Qaeda is in Iraq is obviously just another neocon myth designed to prolong this endless war.
If you are a Democrat, instead of denying the role of al Qaeda in Iraq (which is the usual stance), I think it would be better to angrily blame Bush for al Qaeda's presence while also acknowledging the need to defeat them there. Why are there no Democrats like that? I should add that any Democrat who takes that stance in a believable way would first have to acknowledge who the suicide bombers of Iraq are. As hard as you look, you won't find any leading figure on the left who is interested in that subject (and that's because it simply doesn't fit the narrative).
In addition to other corrections I have made to the data, I removed 100 casualties from the March total because those bodies were recovered from a grave that had been there for a long time. More mass graves were found in April, but I left those counts in the total for this month because I don't have any information about how old they were. I saw two other stories that I had expected to inflate the casualty count for this month as well. One was yet another mass grave that held 100 bodies, and another was a report from some Iraqi official claiming that nearly 1000 people had been killed in Sadr City alone in the month of April. That report did not distinguish between Shiite militant casualties and civilian casualties, though (and I don't if the claim was based on credible information or wild speculation). Neither report is reflected in the numbers provided by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, and my point is just that the April total may spike higher than it is right now. For the moment, though, the April civilian casualty count remains low by Iraqi standards. U.S. military deaths increased somewhat last month, though they, too, remain well below the pre-surge average:
I found the number of deaths due to hostile fire here (there were also 10 deaths that were not the result of hostile fire).
In my monthly civilian casualty chart that I presented above, I like to show the point in time when Barack Obama thought it would be just a grand idea to withdraw our troops. I like to show this because people think the man showed good judgment by opposing the war in 2002. That either reflected good judgment (according to one reasonable perspective that I do not share) or it reflected nothing more than the typical left wing anti-war reflex. The fact that he wanted to withdraw our troops when violence was at its peak and al Qaeda was on the verge of achieving its clearly stated objectives in Iraq shows that it was the latter, not the former. Of course, the fact that he is reflexively left wing in his thinking fits with everything else we have learned about the man in recent months, which is why it strikes me as odd that people still occasionally say that he is the one candidate who can "bring us together." To me, he seems like the one candidate who will bring together the center left and the far left.
I keep worrying that al Qaeda is going to make a comeback in Iraq, but another month just went by without that happening. And some of their successful suicide bombings that did occur were again carried out by female suicide bombers. The relatively low suicide casualty statistics (which nevertheless remain vastly higher than the suicide bombing casualties in Afghanistan, which is where Democrats weirdly want to go fight al Qaeda) coupled with the continuing use of female suicide bombers shows that al Qaeda in Iraq remains severely stressed.
Now that al Qaeda is less of a concern, the U.S. military and Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army no longer have a common foe. In fact, with al Qaeda suppressed, the Iraqi government decided to take the next logical step of disarming the Shiite militia. The Mahdi Army is resisting that move, which means one thing: Muqtada al Sadr's fighting force is going to suffer massive casualties (as it always does when it resists armed combatants). The decision by the Iraqi government to crack down on the Mahdi Army has led to this Code-Pink anti-war nightmare:
Sunni bloc to return to Iraq government
The move is expected to boost Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government, especially as it continues a crackdown on Shiite militants.
BAGHDAD -- Iraq's main Sunni Arab political bloc announced Thursday that it was ready to rejoin the Cabinet, a step that could boost reconciliation efforts and help shore up Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government.
Casualties are down, political reconciliation is up, and al Qaeda in Iraq is on the ropes. A year ago, I would not have thought this possible. Had the Democrats gotten their way at the height of violence, casualties would be up, political reconciliation would be nonexistent, and al Qaeda's reputation would be skyrocketing throughout the Muslim world because of its glorious victory over American in Iraq. That outcome corresponds to Barack Obama's vision of Iraq, and although you might think that this reflects his good judgment, I think it reflects the exact opposite.
UPDATE: That was fast. Just when I start to think al Qaeda is down for the count, they prove that they are not dead yet:
Iraqi police: Double suicide attack kills 30, wounds 65
BAGHDAD - Iraqi police say a double suicide bombing has struck a wedding convoy, killing at least 30 people and wounding 65 others.
Police say Thursday's attacks occurred in the town of Balad Ruz northeast of Baghdad.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility but the attack bore the hallmarks of al-Qaida in Iraq.
Of course, if you are a Democrat, this is of no concern. This is not the work of al Qaeda (they are in Afghanistan because Bush "took his eye off the ball" there). Instead, it's just a "civil war." The idea that al Qaeda is in Iraq is obviously just another neocon myth designed to prolong this endless war.
If you are a Democrat, instead of denying the role of al Qaeda in Iraq (which is the usual stance), I think it would be better to angrily blame Bush for al Qaeda's presence while also acknowledging the need to defeat them there. Why are there no Democrats like that? I should add that any Democrat who takes that stance in a believable way would first have to acknowledge who the suicide bombers of Iraq are. As hard as you look, you won't find any leading figure on the left who is interested in that subject (and that's because it simply doesn't fit the narrative).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
