Terror Alert High
Fox News channel is showing the terror alert as high, but the Fox News web site is totally silent on the issue. Nothing on the home page, nothing on top stories. There is a story on hightened security for New Year's celebrations: "As cities and states across the country prepare to ring in the New Year while the country is on high alert, some homeland security actions are more visible than others." This story mentions the high alert incidentally. The story goes on to explain various security measures in place at various celebrations, but there is no explanation of why the alert level has climbed.
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
School Graduation Rates Fudged
The Daily Southerner in Tarboro, N.C. tell us that graduation rates in N.C. are fudged. The national graduation rate, estimated at 74% in 1998 was revised down to 71% when re-examined by Jay P. Greene at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Earlier today, the Daily Southerner reported that estimates are grossly off base in N.C. "North Carolina's high school graduation rate of more than 90 percent is misleading because the state doesn't include dropouts in its tally." This is an old trick and one that boosted N.C. numbers from 63% to 90%. It works like this. 90% of high school students who stayed in school passed enough classes to graduate. But the real question is how many entering Freshman graduate. That number is 63% for North Carolina. Given that the national numbers are in the low 70%'s, this isn't all that bad. What shocks me is that so many people opt out of an education at all. Some places will tend to provide alternatives to a liberal education in a small town world view and local, rural employment. Some families just don't support education because they don't see any value to it. But a 71% graduation rate?
Someone needs to tell students (apparently as freshman, and maybe earlier) that there are three forces that make the abandonment of education a dangerous path. They include mechanization, globalization, and customer self service. When I shop at a local grocery store I can ring up my own groceries. I have been paying at the pump for years now. This is customer self-service enabled by new technology. Sometimes new technology occurs right at the workplace and reduces the number of workers required to produce a desired quantity of goods. Sometimes the work is done by foreign workers who get the opportunity to work in factories or offices doing work that used to be done by Americans rather than collecting bits of garbage for cash. I think its cruel and foolish to deny people around the world the opportunity to move out of subsistence economies because we are too shortsighted to educate ourselves and prepare our children for a modern work environment.
Since students who drop out often did not get productive use of the years of school prior to their abandonment of the school, we are talking about people who usually squeak past basic literacy. The purpose of school is not primarily to produce good workers, its to produce a free people capable of governing themselves and pursuing the good life. [ed. for those who didn't catch it, I mean this in an Aristotelian sense] The virtue of such an education is that everything else takes care of itself. When any kind of education isn't completed the problems that result are serious.
Fudging the data to make everthing look peachy is an attempt to pretend the problem isn't there.
The Daily Southerner in Tarboro, N.C. tell us that graduation rates in N.C. are fudged. The national graduation rate, estimated at 74% in 1998 was revised down to 71% when re-examined by Jay P. Greene at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Earlier today, the Daily Southerner reported that estimates are grossly off base in N.C. "North Carolina's high school graduation rate of more than 90 percent is misleading because the state doesn't include dropouts in its tally." This is an old trick and one that boosted N.C. numbers from 63% to 90%. It works like this. 90% of high school students who stayed in school passed enough classes to graduate. But the real question is how many entering Freshman graduate. That number is 63% for North Carolina. Given that the national numbers are in the low 70%'s, this isn't all that bad. What shocks me is that so many people opt out of an education at all. Some places will tend to provide alternatives to a liberal education in a small town world view and local, rural employment. Some families just don't support education because they don't see any value to it. But a 71% graduation rate?
Someone needs to tell students (apparently as freshman, and maybe earlier) that there are three forces that make the abandonment of education a dangerous path. They include mechanization, globalization, and customer self service. When I shop at a local grocery store I can ring up my own groceries. I have been paying at the pump for years now. This is customer self-service enabled by new technology. Sometimes new technology occurs right at the workplace and reduces the number of workers required to produce a desired quantity of goods. Sometimes the work is done by foreign workers who get the opportunity to work in factories or offices doing work that used to be done by Americans rather than collecting bits of garbage for cash. I think its cruel and foolish to deny people around the world the opportunity to move out of subsistence economies because we are too shortsighted to educate ourselves and prepare our children for a modern work environment.
Since students who drop out often did not get productive use of the years of school prior to their abandonment of the school, we are talking about people who usually squeak past basic literacy. The purpose of school is not primarily to produce good workers, its to produce a free people capable of governing themselves and pursuing the good life. [ed. for those who didn't catch it, I mean this in an Aristotelian sense] The virtue of such an education is that everything else takes care of itself. When any kind of education isn't completed the problems that result are serious.
Fudging the data to make everthing look peachy is an attempt to pretend the problem isn't there.
Sunday, December 21, 2003
New-Liberalism moves Britain toward Entrepreneurialism
Neo-Liberalism, the rejection of the state as problem solver in favor of free markets and free chocies is on the move in Britain. Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer , gives us a hint of his upcomming report in the Telegraph. It looks good. Take a look.
Neo-Liberalism, the rejection of the state as problem solver in favor of free markets and free chocies is on the move in Britain. Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer , gives us a hint of his upcomming report in the Telegraph. It looks good. Take a look.
Dollars vs. Testing
The NYT magazine has a good article on the No Child Left Behind act by James Traub. He contends that debates over the act, abbreviated NCLB, have broken down into a question of which panacea is the more authentic: more money, or testing. He describes this as a false dichotomy. Ultimately, the schools need both. More money is the only way to induce highly qualified teachers (meaning academically qualified, not pedagogcally qualified) into the schools that need them most. Tests are neccesary to shine a light on those willing to accept academic failure either because their theory of education is mostly custodial, or because their theory is anti-academic.
The NYT magazine has a good article on the No Child Left Behind act by James Traub. He contends that debates over the act, abbreviated NCLB, have broken down into a question of which panacea is the more authentic: more money, or testing. He describes this as a false dichotomy. Ultimately, the schools need both. More money is the only way to induce highly qualified teachers (meaning academically qualified, not pedagogcally qualified) into the schools that need them most. Tests are neccesary to shine a light on those willing to accept academic failure either because their theory of education is mostly custodial, or because their theory is anti-academic.
Intellectual history update
Two posts down I say a few words on how success begets success, what Austin Bay is calling the Cascade Effect. It dawns on me that this is the Domino Theory, or rather the Domino Theory is a specific manifestation of the Cascade Effect, refering to communist success begeting communist success. Its nice to see we are using it to our advantage rather than just trying to contain its use by rivals.
Two posts down I say a few words on how success begets success, what Austin Bay is calling the Cascade Effect. It dawns on me that this is the Domino Theory, or rather the Domino Theory is a specific manifestation of the Cascade Effect, refering to communist success begeting communist success. Its nice to see we are using it to our advantage rather than just trying to contain its use by rivals.
Friday, December 19, 2003
Military Wit
The military has its own style of wit. It is a cultural cocoon, so this makes sense. Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers recently said, "When you take this leader ...and find him in a hole in the ground, that is a powerful signal that you maybe on the wrong team and maybe should be thinking about some other line of work." This kind of wit is behind the success of R. Lee Ermey's show Mail Call which is full of military attitude, slang, and wit. It doesn't hurt that Ermey is a bit of a showman, willing to laugh at himself while remaining respectful of the military and the people he covers on the show. During the fighting last March, Fox News had some ananlysts who where full of this kind of wit, and it made it much more fun to watch the coverage.
The military has its own style of wit. It is a cultural cocoon, so this makes sense. Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers recently said, "When you take this leader ...and find him in a hole in the ground, that is a powerful signal that you maybe on the wrong team and maybe should be thinking about some other line of work." This kind of wit is behind the success of R. Lee Ermey's show Mail Call which is full of military attitude, slang, and wit. It doesn't hurt that Ermey is a bit of a showman, willing to laugh at himself while remaining respectful of the military and the people he covers on the show. During the fighting last March, Fox News had some ananlysts who where full of this kind of wit, and it made it much more fun to watch the coverage.
How Success begets Success
On Thursday on Hugh Hewitt, TNR editor Peter Beinart (whose work I respect greatly) made a point of arguing that Libya remained the kind of rogue state with an interest in W'sMD that Iraq appeared not to have been. Oops. The very next day we discover Libya is giving up the whole deal. Hewitt argued that Libya's dictator had been humbled by Reagan during a series of encounters a decade and a half ago, and was now much less of a threat than Iraq. Ultimately, I think this kind of thing suggests that the Neocons were on to something when they spoke of changing the dynamic of the region by changing the regime in Iraq (something that Afghanistan wasn't going to do - too peripheral). Austin Bay of Strategy Page wrote about this change in terms of "cascading effects". He also had a few things to say on NPR on the subject.
On Thursday on Hugh Hewitt, TNR editor Peter Beinart (whose work I respect greatly) made a point of arguing that Libya remained the kind of rogue state with an interest in W'sMD that Iraq appeared not to have been. Oops. The very next day we discover Libya is giving up the whole deal. Hewitt argued that Libya's dictator had been humbled by Reagan during a series of encounters a decade and a half ago, and was now much less of a threat than Iraq. Ultimately, I think this kind of thing suggests that the Neocons were on to something when they spoke of changing the dynamic of the region by changing the regime in Iraq (something that Afghanistan wasn't going to do - too peripheral). Austin Bay of Strategy Page wrote about this change in terms of "cascading effects". He also had a few things to say on NPR on the subject.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Four days ago, I suggested that Dean's suggestion that we internationalize the Iraqi deployment was based on a phantom military capacity in the rest of the world.
Andrew Sullivan has written a piece for the New Republic covering Dean as well as the idea of internationalization. The point that strikes me most in his article is that Russia blocked the kinds of internationalization (mostly through the UN) that we seek in Iraq today. They supported their "little brother" Serbia (a policy that worked really well for them in 1914) and so America fought a war in Yugoslavia (now a geographical term) with the support of some of its NATO allies. Germany, it can be argued adopted an irresponsible policy of early recognition of Slovenia and Croatia, which I think precipitated the early (Croatian) phase of the war of Yugoslav disintegration. Sullivan doesn't mention German in this regard, but does note that she is refusing to cooperate in Iraq, as well as pointing out that any contribution she could make to the force structure is small.
Bringing back the UN requires safety, and no one can provide that except the United States and the forces that are there now. Any additional forces in the world are either A) not capable of operations in a hostile enviroment B) not able to leave hostiles who are nearby (say, India who can't leave Pakistan), or C) we don't wan't them (no Chinese paratroops, thanks). The same is true for internationalizing the military there. Units that may know how to fire their weapons aren't neccesarily capable of offensive action against a determined foe. They can offer some deterance, but only some. US forces, with their battle proven capability, offensive action training, and laser guided bombs offer substantially more deterance and ability to back it up. Once things get quieter in Iraq, the number of troops that could be brought in grows substantially.
Andrew Sullivan states this observation as follows: "But in their vague and convenient allusions to an "internationalization" option that simply doesn't exist, they are mistaking fantasy for reality." He then follows it up with this conclusion:
"Worse, they may be coming up with an option that they themselves know is unfeasible--merely in order to keep a distance between themselves and the coalition's fate in Iraq. That's putting short-term partisan gain over serious grappling with national security. Which is what many of us suspected of the Democrats in the first place. "
Its worth a read.
Andrew Sullivan has written a piece for the New Republic covering Dean as well as the idea of internationalization. The point that strikes me most in his article is that Russia blocked the kinds of internationalization (mostly through the UN) that we seek in Iraq today. They supported their "little brother" Serbia (a policy that worked really well for them in 1914) and so America fought a war in Yugoslavia (now a geographical term) with the support of some of its NATO allies. Germany, it can be argued adopted an irresponsible policy of early recognition of Slovenia and Croatia, which I think precipitated the early (Croatian) phase of the war of Yugoslav disintegration. Sullivan doesn't mention German in this regard, but does note that she is refusing to cooperate in Iraq, as well as pointing out that any contribution she could make to the force structure is small.
Bringing back the UN requires safety, and no one can provide that except the United States and the forces that are there now. Any additional forces in the world are either A) not capable of operations in a hostile enviroment B) not able to leave hostiles who are nearby (say, India who can't leave Pakistan), or C) we don't wan't them (no Chinese paratroops, thanks). The same is true for internationalizing the military there. Units that may know how to fire their weapons aren't neccesarily capable of offensive action against a determined foe. They can offer some deterance, but only some. US forces, with their battle proven capability, offensive action training, and laser guided bombs offer substantially more deterance and ability to back it up. Once things get quieter in Iraq, the number of troops that could be brought in grows substantially.
Andrew Sullivan states this observation as follows: "But in their vague and convenient allusions to an "internationalization" option that simply doesn't exist, they are mistaking fantasy for reality." He then follows it up with this conclusion:
"Worse, they may be coming up with an option that they themselves know is unfeasible--merely in order to keep a distance between themselves and the coalition's fate in Iraq. That's putting short-term partisan gain over serious grappling with national security. Which is what many of us suspected of the Democrats in the first place. "
Its worth a read.
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Ethics Quiz advances
In mid October I saw the ethical philosophy selector quiz on National Review and took the quiz. Here are my results. It now appears that the Elder at Fraters Libertas has posted his results. Note the familiar results: 100% Aquinas. Another Classical Realist. I think its interesting that he scores so high in Aquinas and a 70% Epicureans, but no reference to Aristotle. I think the Elder owes it to other Classical Realists to come clean on his Aristotle score.
The Frozen Monkey posted his results as did R.B. post his at Infinite Monkeys.
Evangelical Outpost took the quiz, results here.
The word is that all of this started is second round with Professor Baimbridge. He posts results to this and other fun quizes. Again, no description of Aristotle results.
And as noted previously, now we just need to get Hugh Hewitt to take the quiz.
In mid October I saw the ethical philosophy selector quiz on National Review and took the quiz. Here are my results. It now appears that the Elder at Fraters Libertas has posted his results. Note the familiar results: 100% Aquinas. Another Classical Realist. I think its interesting that he scores so high in Aquinas and a 70% Epicureans, but no reference to Aristotle. I think the Elder owes it to other Classical Realists to come clean on his Aristotle score.
The Frozen Monkey posted his results as did R.B. post his at Infinite Monkeys.
Evangelical Outpost took the quiz, results here.
The word is that all of this started is second round with Professor Baimbridge. He posts results to this and other fun quizes. Again, no description of Aristotle results.
And as noted previously, now we just need to get Hugh Hewitt to take the quiz.
Monday, December 15, 2003
Again, three choices
Dean, Lieberman, Gephardt. Dean claims the world is no safer with Hussein captured. Lieberman balks, Dean is climbing into his own spider hole. Gephardt asserts his own moral courage in supporting the war. Dean is a viable candidate who has the progressive wing of his party (the suburban socialists who read Utne Reader) behind him. Lieberman is the centerist with a program similar to a good number of party leaders, but no solid base (the problem with all centrists is that too many potential voters are cross-over, not the mainstay of primary voters), and Gephardt is probabaly the toughest Dem in the national election, because its easiest to see all the Dems uniting behind him, but he represents the past, union labor, hawkish dems, a Missouri democrat who might claim the mantle of Harry Truman, if given the chance. But alas for Dick Gephardt, no one is looking for Harry Truman just now. As rural and industrial Iowa, Missouri, and other Gephardt strongholds give way to suburbs, they are becoming Dean-friendly. While Gephardt might be the strongest in the national election, he is clearly not the frontrunner in the primary.
Dean, Lieberman, Gephardt. Dean claims the world is no safer with Hussein captured. Lieberman balks, Dean is climbing into his own spider hole. Gephardt asserts his own moral courage in supporting the war. Dean is a viable candidate who has the progressive wing of his party (the suburban socialists who read Utne Reader) behind him. Lieberman is the centerist with a program similar to a good number of party leaders, but no solid base (the problem with all centrists is that too many potential voters are cross-over, not the mainstay of primary voters), and Gephardt is probabaly the toughest Dem in the national election, because its easiest to see all the Dems uniting behind him, but he represents the past, union labor, hawkish dems, a Missouri democrat who might claim the mantle of Harry Truman, if given the chance. But alas for Dick Gephardt, no one is looking for Harry Truman just now. As rural and industrial Iowa, Missouri, and other Gephardt strongholds give way to suburbs, they are becoming Dean-friendly. While Gephardt might be the strongest in the national election, he is clearly not the frontrunner in the primary.
Sunday, December 14, 2003
Comments on the BBC site
The BBC puts this comment in its own box:
"What a phony staged event between the US and our ex-CIA stooge Hussein trotted out 10 days before Christmas to garner support for a phony pointless war and a worthless president" Barbara Bowie, Redlands, USA
Ms. Bowie's wag the dog sentiment is a self-fulfiling analysis of events, as well as an example of the alternate worlds that Mark Steyn was refering to in his article mentioned in my previous post.
Another: "I have a message for the Iraqi people: You will now have to fear the rule of George W Bush and his kind forever more. Your dictator was just replaced by another. Sorry. " Mathew Goad, Ojai, CA , USA
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? Hmm, we have 400,000 to kill, and only 4 years to do it, we'd better get a move on. Maybe if we can't kill enough Iraqis we can count American dissidents? I would hate for Mr Goad's analysis to appear to contradict the evidence or appear cynical in any way.
"It sounds more fantastic than one may think for a person of Saddam Hussein's military strength to be arrested in a simple way like that expressed by Paul Bremer. It is not my intention to negate the news but one has to approach it with caution."
Angelo J, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania
That might have made sense for explaining why it was neccesary to send in three divisions in the first place, but since we have, the military strength that remained available to Saddam Hussein appears to have been a pistol, which he chose not to employ.
The BBC puts this comment in its own box:
"What a phony staged event between the US and our ex-CIA stooge Hussein trotted out 10 days before Christmas to garner support for a phony pointless war and a worthless president" Barbara Bowie, Redlands, USA
Ms. Bowie's wag the dog sentiment is a self-fulfiling analysis of events, as well as an example of the alternate worlds that Mark Steyn was refering to in his article mentioned in my previous post.
Another: "I have a message for the Iraqi people: You will now have to fear the rule of George W Bush and his kind forever more. Your dictator was just replaced by another. Sorry. " Mathew Goad, Ojai, CA , USA
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? Hmm, we have 400,000 to kill, and only 4 years to do it, we'd better get a move on. Maybe if we can't kill enough Iraqis we can count American dissidents? I would hate for Mr Goad's analysis to appear to contradict the evidence or appear cynical in any way.
"It sounds more fantastic than one may think for a person of Saddam Hussein's military strength to be arrested in a simple way like that expressed by Paul Bremer. It is not my intention to negate the news but one has to approach it with caution."
Angelo J, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania
That might have made sense for explaining why it was neccesary to send in three divisions in the first place, but since we have, the military strength that remained available to Saddam Hussein appears to have been a pistol, which he chose not to employ.
Mark Steyn posses the question well
In a recent commentary, Mark Steyn asks the following:
"The extreme Left has made a terrible strategic mistake shacking up with the Islamists. In one sense, they’re not as incompatible as they might appear: Islamism may be religious in origin but in its political form it is simply this decade’s brand of oppressive statism, as communism was before it. But the only question now is how deeply this strategic error infects the less insane Left."
He goes on to mention the Dean refence to the "Saudi's let Bush know about 9-11 in advance" theory which Dean found so "interesting". Hugh Hewitt wrote about this specific problem a few days ago, but I am drawn to Steyn's formulation. The extream left will join arms with who ever is most obviously at odds with the capitalist west, especially America, especially when lead by a Republican. The following question then, how much of this is conducted through to the less insane left by the Nation, Noam Chomsky, and the rest of the usual suspects? The Dean reference suggests the medium of the left becomes more conductive when energy is added in the form of Bush-hatred.
The fact that Lieberman would charge, "If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place," seems to confirm this theory.
In a recent commentary, Mark Steyn asks the following:
"The extreme Left has made a terrible strategic mistake shacking up with the Islamists. In one sense, they’re not as incompatible as they might appear: Islamism may be religious in origin but in its political form it is simply this decade’s brand of oppressive statism, as communism was before it. But the only question now is how deeply this strategic error infects the less insane Left."
He goes on to mention the Dean refence to the "Saudi's let Bush know about 9-11 in advance" theory which Dean found so "interesting". Hugh Hewitt wrote about this specific problem a few days ago, but I am drawn to Steyn's formulation. The extream left will join arms with who ever is most obviously at odds with the capitalist west, especially America, especially when lead by a Republican. The following question then, how much of this is conducted through to the less insane left by the Nation, Noam Chomsky, and the rest of the usual suspects? The Dean reference suggests the medium of the left becomes more conductive when energy is added in the form of Bush-hatred.
The fact that Lieberman would charge, "If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place," seems to confirm this theory.
Dean still clueless
Dean still suggests that other troops be brought in to allow US troops to be sent home. Whose troops is he thinking of? Of all the countries capable of power projection, all but France already have troops in Iraq. Most contries don't maintain proper militaries. Those who do are largely either engaged in hostilities or potential hostilities (eg. India) or are rivals of the United States and have no business in Iraq. Its a fact of the democratic world that the large number of friends of democracy either maintain little or no real military power (Germany and Japan are obvious exampes, but Brazil and Mexico also fit into the catagory) or are already present (Britain, Australia &c).
Either Dean thinks there are viable combat forces in other countries, in which case someone needs to pull him aside and enlighten him, or he thinks things in Iraq are ready for the kinds of troops who can't shoot back, don't expect to get shot at, and would be worthless in a real fight, in which case should needs to pull him aside and enlighten him. Either way, he's clueless.
Dean still suggests that other troops be brought in to allow US troops to be sent home. Whose troops is he thinking of? Of all the countries capable of power projection, all but France already have troops in Iraq. Most contries don't maintain proper militaries. Those who do are largely either engaged in hostilities or potential hostilities (eg. India) or are rivals of the United States and have no business in Iraq. Its a fact of the democratic world that the large number of friends of democracy either maintain little or no real military power (Germany and Japan are obvious exampes, but Brazil and Mexico also fit into the catagory) or are already present (Britain, Australia &c).
Either Dean thinks there are viable combat forces in other countries, in which case someone needs to pull him aside and enlighten him, or he thinks things in Iraq are ready for the kinds of troops who can't shoot back, don't expect to get shot at, and would be worthless in a real fight, in which case should needs to pull him aside and enlighten him. Either way, he's clueless.
More on the Democratic coallition
Rachel Swarns writes in the NYT of the Dean/Gephardt contest in Iowa, focusing on the unions. What is interesting here is the fact that the complaints mentioned in the article are Dean's old neo-liberal policies, that is his openness to free-trade and willingness to slow the growth of the kinds of middle class entitlements that union members typically rely upon. There is no mention of the hostility that rank and file union membership are likely to have with Dean's more recent progressive policy approach. Consider, Gephardt backed the war in Iraq as well as the $87 billion for Iraqi reconstruction. Traditionally unions, or at least labor unions (Dean's support is far more from government employee unions than labor) have been more hawkish than other members of the democratic party. One of the sources of Reagan democrats were union members who were socially conservative, pro-gun, and rejected the dovishness of Dems on the Cold War, including Vietnam. The NYT article quotes Steve Rosenthal, the longtime political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O, as saying, "It's not like the day after there's a presumptive nominee everyone's going to kiss and make up. There's going to need to be some time for healing."
My reading of this is that if given a choice between Bush and Dean, the unions are going to have to figure out where to go from there. And its gonna take some time. Dare I say, soul searching?
Rachel Swarns writes in the NYT of the Dean/Gephardt contest in Iowa, focusing on the unions. What is interesting here is the fact that the complaints mentioned in the article are Dean's old neo-liberal policies, that is his openness to free-trade and willingness to slow the growth of the kinds of middle class entitlements that union members typically rely upon. There is no mention of the hostility that rank and file union membership are likely to have with Dean's more recent progressive policy approach. Consider, Gephardt backed the war in Iraq as well as the $87 billion for Iraqi reconstruction. Traditionally unions, or at least labor unions (Dean's support is far more from government employee unions than labor) have been more hawkish than other members of the democratic party. One of the sources of Reagan democrats were union members who were socially conservative, pro-gun, and rejected the dovishness of Dems on the Cold War, including Vietnam. The NYT article quotes Steve Rosenthal, the longtime political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O, as saying, "It's not like the day after there's a presumptive nominee everyone's going to kiss and make up. There's going to need to be some time for healing."
My reading of this is that if given a choice between Bush and Dean, the unions are going to have to figure out where to go from there. And its gonna take some time. Dare I say, soul searching?
Friday, December 12, 2003
Are the Democrats Goldwater in '64, Eugene McCarthy in '68, or McGovern in '72?
Hugh Hewitt has a good article on Dean's embrace of the nutty Left's worldview. Realignment is in the works. Clinton masked it by being a neo-liberal, being a Southerner, and having an enormous charisma. Hence its hard to assess where in the process we are. Dean's own quirkiness cloud's assessment. The anti-Bush hatred suggests '72. Part of the question (the '64 part) revolves around where we will go in the struggle between neo-liberals (Clinton) and progressives (Dean). Note that old style Dems (Gephardt) are reduced to the role of spoilers.
William Saletan makes some useful observations from the NH debates in Slate. Scroll down to point 3. My take home from all of this is that Lieberman wants to carry the neo-liberal/new democrat mantle so clearly abandon by Gore in 2000.
I saw Gore speak at the University of Missouri in '92 and '96. He was a democrat I could live with, especially on economic and domestic issues. Likewise Clinton. I prefered Gore to Clinton on foriegn policy. When Gore ran in 2000, I was disheartened by his lurch to the left. He ceased to be the kind of democrat I could live with. Though I was not enamored by W (I voted for McCain in the primary), when confronted by an indifferent Republican and any Democrat I don't actively like, I vote Republican, because I'd rather have republicans appointed to Treasury, Commerce, State, Defence, and the rest, to democrats. In this case, I was abandonded by a dem I could have liked, and had no problem voting for W. I was right. Even before 9-11 proved thet W had come to office with a huge unexpected capacity, I liked his foriegn/defense team. Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, its all good. Its a line up like that which makes me a Republican. Presidents have limited power and spend a great deal of time being national exemplars, and so on. A good spate of appointments can make some real headway. For the record I was a Paul O'Neal fan as well. Its too bad he was shuffled out.
What the hell happened to Al Gore? In 1988 one of the memorable moments of the campaign (the seven dwarves, God I love Al Haig) was when Dick Gephardt charged Gore as follows: "So you decided that you'd better move to the right on defense and a lot of other issues. And lately you've been sounding more like Al Haig than Al Gore." Read about the whole incident here. That was an a democrat I could live with. Sure I supported Haig in '88 (and have the bumper stickers and campaign materials to prove it), and voted for Bush in '88 and '92, but Al Gore was the kind of Democrat you could work with. Not in 2000, he wasn't. He never had my vote in 2000, he lurched to the left. Now we see he's just kept going left, driven no doubt by resentment and animus over Florida (the dummy should have just won Tennessee) and vered from the land of the Vital Center to the land of MoveOn.org.
I'm a neo-liberal of the right. I like market solutions to social problems, and I am anti-statist (unless we're talking national security). I often find I have more in common with neo-liberals of the left than I do with other kinds of conservatives. I get along well with old anti-communists, and I like the WSJ crowd. If the Republican party is the party of business, I'm a happy camper. If it stands for capitalism, free markets, and a strong national defence, they reflexivly have my vote. Its the social conservatives I worry about. I tend to sympathize with social conservatives, but given a choice between, as Dennis Prager puts it, being pure or being free, I pick freedom every time.
So, as a neo-liberal of the right, I take a great deal of concern with what is going on with neo-liberals of the left. Who will win this power struggle in the democratic party? Will it be Lieberman and the Clintons, or the new Dean/Gore alliance?
Hugh Hewitt has a good article on Dean's embrace of the nutty Left's worldview. Realignment is in the works. Clinton masked it by being a neo-liberal, being a Southerner, and having an enormous charisma. Hence its hard to assess where in the process we are. Dean's own quirkiness cloud's assessment. The anti-Bush hatred suggests '72. Part of the question (the '64 part) revolves around where we will go in the struggle between neo-liberals (Clinton) and progressives (Dean). Note that old style Dems (Gephardt) are reduced to the role of spoilers.
William Saletan makes some useful observations from the NH debates in Slate. Scroll down to point 3. My take home from all of this is that Lieberman wants to carry the neo-liberal/new democrat mantle so clearly abandon by Gore in 2000.
I saw Gore speak at the University of Missouri in '92 and '96. He was a democrat I could live with, especially on economic and domestic issues. Likewise Clinton. I prefered Gore to Clinton on foriegn policy. When Gore ran in 2000, I was disheartened by his lurch to the left. He ceased to be the kind of democrat I could live with. Though I was not enamored by W (I voted for McCain in the primary), when confronted by an indifferent Republican and any Democrat I don't actively like, I vote Republican, because I'd rather have republicans appointed to Treasury, Commerce, State, Defence, and the rest, to democrats. In this case, I was abandonded by a dem I could have liked, and had no problem voting for W. I was right. Even before 9-11 proved thet W had come to office with a huge unexpected capacity, I liked his foriegn/defense team. Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, its all good. Its a line up like that which makes me a Republican. Presidents have limited power and spend a great deal of time being national exemplars, and so on. A good spate of appointments can make some real headway. For the record I was a Paul O'Neal fan as well. Its too bad he was shuffled out.
What the hell happened to Al Gore? In 1988 one of the memorable moments of the campaign (the seven dwarves, God I love Al Haig) was when Dick Gephardt charged Gore as follows: "So you decided that you'd better move to the right on defense and a lot of other issues. And lately you've been sounding more like Al Haig than Al Gore." Read about the whole incident here. That was an a democrat I could live with. Sure I supported Haig in '88 (and have the bumper stickers and campaign materials to prove it), and voted for Bush in '88 and '92, but Al Gore was the kind of Democrat you could work with. Not in 2000, he wasn't. He never had my vote in 2000, he lurched to the left. Now we see he's just kept going left, driven no doubt by resentment and animus over Florida (the dummy should have just won Tennessee) and vered from the land of the Vital Center to the land of MoveOn.org.
I'm a neo-liberal of the right. I like market solutions to social problems, and I am anti-statist (unless we're talking national security). I often find I have more in common with neo-liberals of the left than I do with other kinds of conservatives. I get along well with old anti-communists, and I like the WSJ crowd. If the Republican party is the party of business, I'm a happy camper. If it stands for capitalism, free markets, and a strong national defence, they reflexivly have my vote. Its the social conservatives I worry about. I tend to sympathize with social conservatives, but given a choice between, as Dennis Prager puts it, being pure or being free, I pick freedom every time.
So, as a neo-liberal of the right, I take a great deal of concern with what is going on with neo-liberals of the left. Who will win this power struggle in the democratic party? Will it be Lieberman and the Clintons, or the new Dean/Gore alliance?
This may be over the top
I get the sense that this latest Supreme Court ruling may turn out to be one of those constitutional moments historians later shake their head at. Others include the time Niceas and Alcebiades colluded to break the Ostracism, and when Sulla refused to lay down the Roman dictatorship. The power of super wealthy interests, whether a George Soros or a well funded PAC, seem to have grown considerably. The power of regular people to influence politics seems to have diminished. As I say, this might be over-reacting, but its certainly not the right step. I'd much rather see changes which increase the power of political parties and diminished those of special interest organizations.
I get the sense that this latest Supreme Court ruling may turn out to be one of those constitutional moments historians later shake their head at. Others include the time Niceas and Alcebiades colluded to break the Ostracism, and when Sulla refused to lay down the Roman dictatorship. The power of super wealthy interests, whether a George Soros or a well funded PAC, seem to have grown considerably. The power of regular people to influence politics seems to have diminished. As I say, this might be over-reacting, but its certainly not the right step. I'd much rather see changes which increase the power of political parties and diminished those of special interest organizations.
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Rand Simberg doesn't understand history
His explanation at Fox News totally fails to understand the benefit of understanding history. History is not mathematics. History doesn't tell us what will happen in the future, searching for these kinds of lessons is futile. History tells us what has happened in the past.
Having walked to the nearby sandwich shop, I have a pretty good idea of what will probably occur next time I walk there. I have a good understanding of the likely kinds of things that might happen. However, all kinds of things may happen that have never happened on the way to the sandwhich shop. History, or indeed any kind of experience, gives us a range of likely outcomes, unlikley outcomes, and the highly unlikely outcomes. It doesn't tell us what will happen.
It so happens that there are patterns in human and social experience, and so things are not totally and completly new all of the time. By the same token, these patterns are not governed by mathematical certainties, even complex ones.
His explanation at Fox News totally fails to understand the benefit of understanding history. History is not mathematics. History doesn't tell us what will happen in the future, searching for these kinds of lessons is futile. History tells us what has happened in the past.
Having walked to the nearby sandwich shop, I have a pretty good idea of what will probably occur next time I walk there. I have a good understanding of the likely kinds of things that might happen. However, all kinds of things may happen that have never happened on the way to the sandwhich shop. History, or indeed any kind of experience, gives us a range of likely outcomes, unlikley outcomes, and the highly unlikely outcomes. It doesn't tell us what will happen.
It so happens that there are patterns in human and social experience, and so things are not totally and completly new all of the time. By the same token, these patterns are not governed by mathematical certainties, even complex ones.
Monday, December 01, 2003
Holiday a Success
Made the turkey this year. 12 and a half pounds for 5 people. No leftovers to speak of, which is pretty much the way I wanted it. First time I've gotten to host the Thanksgiving meal, and it went quite well.
Made the turkey this year. 12 and a half pounds for 5 people. No leftovers to speak of, which is pretty much the way I wanted it. First time I've gotten to host the Thanksgiving meal, and it went quite well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)