What's going on with Kerry's medals?
There is a big cloud of dust being kicked up on the right regarding Kerry throwing his medals (or where they ribbons?) over the fence at the White House. This is getting a lot of attention and its obscuring the issue. The fact that Kerry is booting the issue is just drawing more attention to his clumsiness, rather leaving the substance of the contraversy in the self same dust.
The real issue, for those who have missed it or forgotten, is that Kerry's actions and the context in which he undertook them imply a rejection of what many Americans hold dear. Kerry wants to interpret his actions in a way that is more palatable to many Americans. So the contraversy involves an attempt by the right to highlight Kerry's early 70's understanding of his actions in order to argue he's not the right man for the job.
We hear a lot about the fact that he's changing his story. This turns Kerry's current actions into the center ring, which is less damaging I think than his orginal actions. This is because its far more plausable to argue that his understanding of the act is not the same as a reasonable witness might infer. This is also because changing your opinion of things over a distance of thirty years isn't really surprising. Finally, a bit of seeing yourself in a positive light doesn't strike anyone as a grave disability for office.
Recently there is the issue of "where they ribbons or medals?" Kerry booted this one so badly with Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America that his performace becomes the issue. I think some of this goes to communication style. Using Linda McCallister's model, there are three pure styles, the plain speaking noble, the intellectual socratic, and the relationship oriented reflective. George Bush is clearly a noble, so people who find that style acceptable find his communication tolerable or better. I find that a lot of people on the left really want to see some reflective and some socratic style. A figure who can manage both simultaneously (Clinton, a famous candidate style speaker) woos them. A figure like Bush who lacks either style is a real turn off. And yet, I don't see Kerry's media clumsiness and stiffness as a matter of style. I don't know who likes his style. Bush's style really appeals to those who respect the noble communication style. The president went on Russert's show and gave what struck me as a rather medicore performance and his poll numbers jumped. Kerry seems to have the effect that the more people see him, the less the like him. That's just communication, obviously his ideology will appeal to people.
While his revisionist history and his lackluster media performance are getting the talk, I think the key message, the intellectual content of Kerry's words and deeds, are getting overlooked, at least a bit.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Church & State, not exactly chocolate in your peanut butter
I've been reading a bit on Church and State, and its been pushing be towards an Augustinian possition. I have a bit more reading to do (including finishing up Stephen Monsma's Positive Neutrality) and will post at length shortly.
I've been reading a bit on Church and State, and its been pushing be towards an Augustinian possition. I have a bit more reading to do (including finishing up Stephen Monsma's Positive Neutrality) and will post at length shortly.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
O'Reilly analysis lacks any comprehension of the real world
Bill O'Reilly thinks politicians should express regret, like regular people. That for some mysterious reason, politicians are weasals, and this appears to be the tradition that is handed down.
Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly has never heard of this thing called the media. Or, perhaps he just doesn't know how it works. Perhaps he lives in the rarified atmosphere of the Factor, no spin ever enters and so he has, trapped in his ivory tower, lost touch with those who live in the real world where media spin would take hosest expressions that more was not done into admissions of guilt and even incompetance.
I offer as evidence, the Rumsfeld Memo of October 2003. Rumsfeld is one of those leaders not satisfied with success, who wants to know how to improve on success. So the SecDef asked his immediate lieutenants, are we adapting, learning, and anticipating as fast as we can, or can we do better, if so how? The press writes things like this USA Today opener:
"The United States has no yardstick for measuring progress in the war on terrorism, has not "yet made truly bold moves" in fighting al-Qaeda and other terror groups, and is in for a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent to top-ranking Defense officials last week."
If everything you said got spun this way, you'd stop talking like a regualr person too. You'd think that someone who rails against the spin, would criticize the problem, not the victims of the spin. The administration has to speak to the whole contry, not just to friends who will appreciate what they has to say, never mind helping them with favorable spin. So, they have to be careful, cautious, and circumspect. But, O'Reilly is content to read this as a personality defect.
Ivory Towers will do that to you.
Bill O'Reilly thinks politicians should express regret, like regular people. That for some mysterious reason, politicians are weasals, and this appears to be the tradition that is handed down.
Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly has never heard of this thing called the media. Or, perhaps he just doesn't know how it works. Perhaps he lives in the rarified atmosphere of the Factor, no spin ever enters and so he has, trapped in his ivory tower, lost touch with those who live in the real world where media spin would take hosest expressions that more was not done into admissions of guilt and even incompetance.
I offer as evidence, the Rumsfeld Memo of October 2003. Rumsfeld is one of those leaders not satisfied with success, who wants to know how to improve on success. So the SecDef asked his immediate lieutenants, are we adapting, learning, and anticipating as fast as we can, or can we do better, if so how? The press writes things like this USA Today opener:
"The United States has no yardstick for measuring progress in the war on terrorism, has not "yet made truly bold moves" in fighting al-Qaeda and other terror groups, and is in for a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent to top-ranking Defense officials last week."
If everything you said got spun this way, you'd stop talking like a regualr person too. You'd think that someone who rails against the spin, would criticize the problem, not the victims of the spin. The administration has to speak to the whole contry, not just to friends who will appreciate what they has to say, never mind helping them with favorable spin. So, they have to be careful, cautious, and circumspect. But, O'Reilly is content to read this as a personality defect.
Ivory Towers will do that to you.
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Lou Dobbs: Protectionist
Lou Dobbs has put a list of companies up on his CNN site who hire labor overseas. The only purpose of such a list is the encouragement of a subtle boycott. He has included a link to an article at a CNN:Money site that argues against free trade because those who take some part of their operations overseas benefit, while the harm tends to be located here, outside of the business. The author, Rory L. Terry, fails to compare the costs to the benefits outside of the business. Its pretty obvious that there is a benefit to business. They aren't stupid. The real question is whether the cost-benefit to the rest of us favors the practice or not, a question he doesn't address.
Lou Dobbs has put a list of companies up on his CNN site who hire labor overseas. The only purpose of such a list is the encouragement of a subtle boycott. He has included a link to an article at a CNN:Money site that argues against free trade because those who take some part of their operations overseas benefit, while the harm tends to be located here, outside of the business. The author, Rory L. Terry, fails to compare the costs to the benefits outside of the business. Its pretty obvious that there is a benefit to business. They aren't stupid. The real question is whether the cost-benefit to the rest of us favors the practice or not, a question he doesn't address.
Blame America pt 2: Late Cold War
In today's NYT, in the Arts pages, of all places, they popularize the theory of Mahmood Mamdani that the Americans created terrorism. See my post of March 14 on this topic. What Mamdani does not do is address the chronology of American use of non-state proxies compared to Soviet use of same. I think there is plenty of evidence that the Soviets were way ahead in this area and that America was playing catch-up. I also think that the Americans prefered to support guerrillas rather than terrorists. The Soviets don't seem to have had a perference. I continue to see this as a case where American responsibility is substantially less than Soviet responsibility. Looking at only the American side without taking the Soviet role into consideration thoroughly skews our understanding of how and why non-state terrorism is the problem it is today.
In today's NYT, in the Arts pages, of all places, they popularize the theory of Mahmood Mamdani that the Americans created terrorism. See my post of March 14 on this topic. What Mamdani does not do is address the chronology of American use of non-state proxies compared to Soviet use of same. I think there is plenty of evidence that the Soviets were way ahead in this area and that America was playing catch-up. I also think that the Americans prefered to support guerrillas rather than terrorists. The Soviets don't seem to have had a perference. I continue to see this as a case where American responsibility is substantially less than Soviet responsibility. Looking at only the American side without taking the Soviet role into consideration thoroughly skews our understanding of how and why non-state terrorism is the problem it is today.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Rice before the Commission
I watched Rice speak to the 9-11 commission this morning, and I think she did pretty well. Aside from the usual suspects trying to get Rice to play gotcha with them, it was pretty routine. What is disappointing is the way this puts everyone on the defensive so that no one is willing to admit that they made mistakes.
There is a great scene in Pearl Harbor where Dan Ackroyd as Captain Thurman, a cryptographer, tells a senior naval officer that he doesn't know what the Japanese fleet is up to. He suspects an attack on Pearl, because its the worst thing that could happen. He has no evidence for it. He pays attention to every itch, goosebump, or spine tinge, as well as troop movements and more conventional analytical tools. There are two points here. One is that its hard to predict the future. The second is that there is plenty of noise out there. The senior admiral was unwilling to mobilize the fleet because of a spine tingle. If we acted like every peice of intelligence traffic suggested a Pearl Harbor or a 9-11 we'd be constantly on edge, and we'd ultimatly fall prey to the "boy who cried wolf".
Consider in the past two years how many complained about the up and down colored alerts. Now that we are privy as a public to the general anticipation of threat, certainly we must realize that every warning does not foretell another 9-11. So why assume that Condi Rice and the rest should have assumed otherwise prior to 9-11?
Further, lets assume that they did. Let's assume that they were especially vigilant in these regards. What would Main Street have thought when the administration's Leftist opponants claimed that these alerts were intended to scare the public, to create a rally around the flag effect, or if we had gone so far as some suggested in the commission to attack Afghanistan, that we invented a foriegn war to distract the public from the "stolen election".
So, not only is it unrealistic that we should have drawn the right conclusions from all the data available, ignored the dead ends and connected the dots between the data actually related to the 9-11 conspiracy, but that even if we had, it would have been impossible to do anything about it because without the planes actually striking the buildings, the country would not have accepted the actions neccesary to do much of anything to stop it, or would have regarded the capture of the conspirators as exagerated.
From IMDB's list of quotes:
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz: So, sir, you would have us mobilize the entire fleet, at the cost of millions of dollars, based on this 'spine-tingling' feeling of yours?
Captain Thurman: No, sir. I understand my job is to gather and interpret material. Making difficult decisions based on incomplete information from my limited decoding ability is your job, sir.
Preperations for 9-11 would have impacted the civilian world much more than mobilizing the fleet. So the costs would have been more than just financial, they would have been far more broad.
I watched Rice speak to the 9-11 commission this morning, and I think she did pretty well. Aside from the usual suspects trying to get Rice to play gotcha with them, it was pretty routine. What is disappointing is the way this puts everyone on the defensive so that no one is willing to admit that they made mistakes.
There is a great scene in Pearl Harbor where Dan Ackroyd as Captain Thurman, a cryptographer, tells a senior naval officer that he doesn't know what the Japanese fleet is up to. He suspects an attack on Pearl, because its the worst thing that could happen. He has no evidence for it. He pays attention to every itch, goosebump, or spine tinge, as well as troop movements and more conventional analytical tools. There are two points here. One is that its hard to predict the future. The second is that there is plenty of noise out there. The senior admiral was unwilling to mobilize the fleet because of a spine tingle. If we acted like every peice of intelligence traffic suggested a Pearl Harbor or a 9-11 we'd be constantly on edge, and we'd ultimatly fall prey to the "boy who cried wolf".
Consider in the past two years how many complained about the up and down colored alerts. Now that we are privy as a public to the general anticipation of threat, certainly we must realize that every warning does not foretell another 9-11. So why assume that Condi Rice and the rest should have assumed otherwise prior to 9-11?
Further, lets assume that they did. Let's assume that they were especially vigilant in these regards. What would Main Street have thought when the administration's Leftist opponants claimed that these alerts were intended to scare the public, to create a rally around the flag effect, or if we had gone so far as some suggested in the commission to attack Afghanistan, that we invented a foriegn war to distract the public from the "stolen election".
So, not only is it unrealistic that we should have drawn the right conclusions from all the data available, ignored the dead ends and connected the dots between the data actually related to the 9-11 conspiracy, but that even if we had, it would have been impossible to do anything about it because without the planes actually striking the buildings, the country would not have accepted the actions neccesary to do much of anything to stop it, or would have regarded the capture of the conspirators as exagerated.
From IMDB's list of quotes:
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz: So, sir, you would have us mobilize the entire fleet, at the cost of millions of dollars, based on this 'spine-tingling' feeling of yours?
Captain Thurman: No, sir. I understand my job is to gather and interpret material. Making difficult decisions based on incomplete information from my limited decoding ability is your job, sir.
Preperations for 9-11 would have impacted the civilian world much more than mobilizing the fleet. So the costs would have been more than just financial, they would have been far more broad.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
A last gasp?
Fallujah - an unravelling or a last gasp? Its too early to tell, but I strongly suspect its a last gasp, or perhaps one of several death throws.
Fallujah - an unravelling or a last gasp? Its too early to tell, but I strongly suspect its a last gasp, or perhaps one of several death throws.
John Adams and the Establishment Clause
Discussions of the Establishment Clause often focus on Jefferson or Madison, but Adams should not be ignored here. His concern was that religion prospered when unencumbered by state connection. Leon Wieseltier has an article in The New Republic in which he argues the Adamsian line. Here is the money quote, "I had come to witness a disputation between religion's enemies and religion's friends. What I saw instead, with the exception of a single comment by Justice Souter, was a disputation between religion's enemies, liberal and conservative. And this confirmed me in my conviction that the surest way to steal the meaning, and therefore the power, from religion is to deliver it to politics, to enslave it to public life."
Discussions of the Establishment Clause often focus on Jefferson or Madison, but Adams should not be ignored here. His concern was that religion prospered when unencumbered by state connection. Leon Wieseltier has an article in The New Republic in which he argues the Adamsian line. Here is the money quote, "I had come to witness a disputation between religion's enemies and religion's friends. What I saw instead, with the exception of a single comment by Justice Souter, was a disputation between religion's enemies, liberal and conservative. And this confirmed me in my conviction that the surest way to steal the meaning, and therefore the power, from religion is to deliver it to politics, to enslave it to public life."
O'Reilly ready to cut and run
Seeming every more cowardly, Bill O'Reilly has apparently reached his casualty budget. The tough-talker is a paper tiger. Since his main appeal has been his directness, his recoil from actual cost makes him look more like the bully who cowers when someone stands up to him. We had hints of this with Al Franken, but its an opinion that is becomming pretty well established, as far as I am concerned.
Seeming every more cowardly, Bill O'Reilly has apparently reached his casualty budget. The tough-talker is a paper tiger. Since his main appeal has been his directness, his recoil from actual cost makes him look more like the bully who cowers when someone stands up to him. We had hints of this with Al Franken, but its an opinion that is becomming pretty well established, as far as I am concerned.
Is Kennedy Ignorant or Cynical?
Cynical. His attacks on Bush could just as easily be leveled, word for word, against Jack Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs, Cuba Missile Crisis, involvement in Vietnam, his "bear any burden" approach, his tax cuts, ... why I could almost identify every part of President Kennedy's policy and action. Someone should ask Teddy why he so repudiates Jack's policies.
Cynical. His attacks on Bush could just as easily be leveled, word for word, against Jack Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs, Cuba Missile Crisis, involvement in Vietnam, his "bear any burden" approach, his tax cuts, ... why I could almost identify every part of President Kennedy's policy and action. Someone should ask Teddy why he so repudiates Jack's policies.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Is Kerry Ignorant or Cynical?
I ended my post 10 hours ago asking this question. Catching up on my Lileks, he addresses the same analysis to Iraq and France. "Kerry’s statement indicates that either he doesn’t know about the French government’s vested financial interests in Iraq, or he does know and thinks we don’t." Ignorant or cynical? Well, Mr Kerry, I think Goldfinger said it best, "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action." If I catch the candidate in this kind of situation again, I'm just going to assume that he's cynically manipulating the electorate, or trying to.
I ended my post 10 hours ago asking this question. Catching up on my Lileks, he addresses the same analysis to Iraq and France. "Kerry’s statement indicates that either he doesn’t know about the French government’s vested financial interests in Iraq, or he does know and thinks we don’t." Ignorant or cynical? Well, Mr Kerry, I think Goldfinger said it best, "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action." If I catch the candidate in this kind of situation again, I'm just going to assume that he's cynically manipulating the electorate, or trying to.
Why Kerry and Dems are clueless on trade
Instapundit linked to this article at ContraCostraTimes.com entitled 'U.S. receiving more 'outsourced' jobs than it's losing.' Indeed. But what illuminates is this quote from Kerry, "not if you talk to any worker that's out there." The American worker who loses a job because of Free Trade is here, is visible, and you can court his vote. But it ignores all the other beneficiaries, like the guy who gets a job directly because of free trade, the guy who gets a job indirectly, and the overall lower prices paid by consumers.
1) Direct Job Creation.
We have seen several cases, and I have posted on some of them regarding outsourcing creating more jobs than are being lost. See here, here, here and a related post on values in economics here. Generally, when a company outsources some jobs, two things happen, it lowers costs and so creates new high paying jobs with some of the money. The famous IBM case (discussed here by Kim du Toit, with my comments here.) involved IBM moving some jobs oversees to create new ones at higher rates of pay. See this by Clay Risen in The New Republic, where he points out, "IBM, for example, plans to offshore 3,000 programming jobs this year. But, at the same time, it will also create 5,000 jobs in the United States. Does that count as jobs lost, jobs gained, or both?" So this is direct job creation (net 2000 better jobs) via free markets and outsourcing.
2) Indirect Job Creation
Porphyrogenitus has a post on a recent Financial Times article on free trade. The FT requires subscription, so no link. When the economy as a whole benfits through low prices, low interest rates, and vigorous trade, jobs are created by someone other than the outsourcer. Going back to the IBM example, IBM customers, who saved money on IBM products can use that money instead to create jobs, while at the same time, those 5,000 engineers, project supervisors, and managers are spending more money on consumer goods than the 3,000 programers were last year, so more jobs are created through consumer expansion.
3) Lower Prices
Even if wages are held constant, we benefit from falling prices. When you can combine higher wages and lower prices, you really create benefits to Americans.
The problem John Kerry has is in finding people who are advantaged by cases #2 and #3. The Contra Costa Times finds a BMW employee who is in the Carolinas because of free trade, rather than say in Bavaria. As many commentators have observed, the Clinton-Gore administration knew this about free trade and pushed for NAFTA despite the fact that John Kerry can find people harmed by it. Show me a policy and I'll show you someone harmed by it. This is because no policy is ever a pareto optimum. What Kerry is either not aware of, or is cynically demagoging, is that people harmed by outsourcing are directly aware of it, and those who benefit are generally (our BMW worker aside) unaware, or only vaguely aware.
If Kerry and other Dems are aware that the policies they advocate are harmful, but advocate them anyway, they are unfit. So, here's hoping they are just ignorant.
Instapundit linked to this article at ContraCostraTimes.com entitled 'U.S. receiving more 'outsourced' jobs than it's losing.' Indeed. But what illuminates is this quote from Kerry, "not if you talk to any worker that's out there." The American worker who loses a job because of Free Trade is here, is visible, and you can court his vote. But it ignores all the other beneficiaries, like the guy who gets a job directly because of free trade, the guy who gets a job indirectly, and the overall lower prices paid by consumers.
1) Direct Job Creation.
We have seen several cases, and I have posted on some of them regarding outsourcing creating more jobs than are being lost. See here, here, here and a related post on values in economics here. Generally, when a company outsources some jobs, two things happen, it lowers costs and so creates new high paying jobs with some of the money. The famous IBM case (discussed here by Kim du Toit, with my comments here.) involved IBM moving some jobs oversees to create new ones at higher rates of pay. See this by Clay Risen in The New Republic, where he points out, "IBM, for example, plans to offshore 3,000 programming jobs this year. But, at the same time, it will also create 5,000 jobs in the United States. Does that count as jobs lost, jobs gained, or both?" So this is direct job creation (net 2000 better jobs) via free markets and outsourcing.
2) Indirect Job Creation
Porphyrogenitus has a post on a recent Financial Times article on free trade. The FT requires subscription, so no link. When the economy as a whole benfits through low prices, low interest rates, and vigorous trade, jobs are created by someone other than the outsourcer. Going back to the IBM example, IBM customers, who saved money on IBM products can use that money instead to create jobs, while at the same time, those 5,000 engineers, project supervisors, and managers are spending more money on consumer goods than the 3,000 programers were last year, so more jobs are created through consumer expansion.
3) Lower Prices
Even if wages are held constant, we benefit from falling prices. When you can combine higher wages and lower prices, you really create benefits to Americans.
The problem John Kerry has is in finding people who are advantaged by cases #2 and #3. The Contra Costa Times finds a BMW employee who is in the Carolinas because of free trade, rather than say in Bavaria. As many commentators have observed, the Clinton-Gore administration knew this about free trade and pushed for NAFTA despite the fact that John Kerry can find people harmed by it. Show me a policy and I'll show you someone harmed by it. This is because no policy is ever a pareto optimum. What Kerry is either not aware of, or is cynically demagoging, is that people harmed by outsourcing are directly aware of it, and those who benefit are generally (our BMW worker aside) unaware, or only vaguely aware.
If Kerry and other Dems are aware that the policies they advocate are harmful, but advocate them anyway, they are unfit. So, here's hoping they are just ignorant.
Hitch on the Street
Christopher Hitchens in the Wall Street Journal: what a world. He looks at the future without intervention in Iraq and posits seven questions for those who opposed intervention. Tim Blair has formated these seven questions in bullet points.
Christopher Hitchens in the Wall Street Journal: what a world. He looks at the future without intervention in Iraq and posits seven questions for those who opposed intervention. Tim Blair has formated these seven questions in bullet points.
Liberal Messages planted in Entertainment
There is a recent storm over the use of entertainment as a platform for expressly political speech, as discussed here in the NYT. Glenn Reynolds notes, "Unaccountable corporate money influencing politics?" Micheal Medved spent an hour on Friday on this subject, covering all of the Times examples.
I find myself unable to enjoy certain entertainments I did enjoy prior to 9-11 because the stakes have changed. When producers put these kinds of messages in their program I am very likely to turn off the show and not return. I'm not sure whether they are trying to get the word out or whether they think we all agree with them, but I get enough of this nonsense in real life and need not get worked up when winding down with entertainment. Since I watch so little television, this mostly applies to music and movies, but the point remains.
There is a recent storm over the use of entertainment as a platform for expressly political speech, as discussed here in the NYT. Glenn Reynolds notes, "Unaccountable corporate money influencing politics?" Micheal Medved spent an hour on Friday on this subject, covering all of the Times examples.
I find myself unable to enjoy certain entertainments I did enjoy prior to 9-11 because the stakes have changed. When producers put these kinds of messages in their program I am very likely to turn off the show and not return. I'm not sure whether they are trying to get the word out or whether they think we all agree with them, but I get enough of this nonsense in real life and need not get worked up when winding down with entertainment. Since I watch so little television, this mostly applies to music and movies, but the point remains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)