Synthesis
The common themes this December have been Christmas under assault and the press as agent provocateur. Whether its wanting to cast Rumsfeld as the bad guy or the AP wanting to cast terrorists in a sympathetic light, the media is agenda driven. On the one hand, you can pick your media based on its agenda, but Neal Gabler is right to make the point that all media likes a soap opera. Consider his concluding idea: "The media love conflict, which is one of the staples of a good story, so much that they will do almost anything to get it, even or especially if it means jettisoning those messy and complicated elements that might spoil the tale." All of which leads me to wonder, how much of the "Christmas under assault" story is just that, a story told to create a drama. Consider the "crime wave" of the 90's. Real crimes occured, but the news reported them more, and while crime statistics fell, perceptions of crime rose. Suppose in a country of three hundred million, the media made every case of grinchery or humbug a story brought home to your TV. Under such conditions people might well belive that Christmas is being rolled back, even while its on the advance. The very story of Scrooge suggests there has always been some small number who humbug Christmas, so my suspicion is that it is as it ever was. The media just puts a camera in Scrooges face when he spits out another Bah! Humbug! In Dickens' tale, everyone regards the old man as an eccentric, not as a genuine threat to Christmas. Neither the struggling Cratchits nor the middling Fred seem to feel the miser's humbugs threaten their Christmas, rather they seem to regard Scrooge as the one who is the one harmed. I say we take up the part of nephew Fred and Bob Cratchit. Fred invites the old man to dinner every Christmas and Bob asks a blessing for his employer. Whether you want to extend that charitable spirit to the media is another question.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
AP serves interests of Terror
I think it was Micheal Barone who said that the media was generally unaware that its publicizing the terrorists agenda, but now the AP comes out and advocates such a position. Little Green Footballs linked early to the story, and Belmont Club has some good related stories (here and here). Powerline observes, "The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists' "stories." The photographers don't have to swear allegiance to the terrorists--gosh, that's reassuring--but they have "family and tribal relations" with them. " See also Roger Simon on the subject.
I think it was Micheal Barone who said that the media was generally unaware that its publicizing the terrorists agenda, but now the AP comes out and advocates such a position. Little Green Footballs linked early to the story, and Belmont Club has some good related stories (here and here). Powerline observes, "The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists' "stories." The photographers don't have to swear allegiance to the terrorists--gosh, that's reassuring--but they have "family and tribal relations" with them. " See also Roger Simon on the subject.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Theodore Dalrymple
Followed a link at Milt Rosenberg's blog, Milt's File to this interview with Dalrymple. As someone interested in education, I found it very interesting. In addition to being a columnist for the Spectator, he is also a psychiatric doctor working in an inner city area in Britain with both a hospital and a prison practice.
Refering to drug users, "in those night clubs are not the underclass. It’s widespread. It’s people in their 20s, their late 20s, and I don’t know if they’re ever going to grow out of it. I do meet intelligent people and they come to me and they know that there’s something missing in their lives, but they don’t know what it is. I tell them that what’s lacking is any kind of educational or cultural interest, but they don’t seem to be able to acquire one, even though there are of course ways of doing so. I suppose it’s possible for someone at 28 to get educated, but it’s difficult. I’ve often wondered whether, just as if a child doesn’t acquire a language by shall we say the age of six, so too if a child hasn’t learned to concentrate by the age of 12 or something, if they don’t acquire the habit of concentration, then I don’t know that it’s something they ever learn."
Followed a link at Milt Rosenberg's blog, Milt's File to this interview with Dalrymple. As someone interested in education, I found it very interesting. In addition to being a columnist for the Spectator, he is also a psychiatric doctor working in an inner city area in Britain with both a hospital and a prison practice.
Refering to drug users, "in those night clubs are not the underclass. It’s widespread. It’s people in their 20s, their late 20s, and I don’t know if they’re ever going to grow out of it. I do meet intelligent people and they come to me and they know that there’s something missing in their lives, but they don’t know what it is. I tell them that what’s lacking is any kind of educational or cultural interest, but they don’t seem to be able to acquire one, even though there are of course ways of doing so. I suppose it’s possible for someone at 28 to get educated, but it’s difficult. I’ve often wondered whether, just as if a child doesn’t acquire a language by shall we say the age of six, so too if a child hasn’t learned to concentrate by the age of 12 or something, if they don’t acquire the habit of concentration, then I don’t know that it’s something they ever learn."
The Real Che
Anthony Daniels, author of Utopias Elsewhere has a peice in New Criterion called The Real Che on perennial t-shirt figure Che Guevara.
Anthony Daniels, author of Utopias Elsewhere has a peice in New Criterion called The Real Che on perennial t-shirt figure Che Guevara.
The Secret Life of Don Rumsfeld
Two links from Instapundit on the secret life of Donald Rumsfeld. First, Powerline reminds us of the whole question and answer back in Kuwait about the armored up vehicles. And the reminder seems neccesary because the press only reports, interprets, or invents bad news about the SecDef. The Banty Rooster publishes the story of his brother, a wounded soldier, and Rumsfeld that I found very moving. See also VDH's column where he says, "Let Rumsfeld Be."
Two links from Instapundit on the secret life of Donald Rumsfeld. First, Powerline reminds us of the whole question and answer back in Kuwait about the armored up vehicles. And the reminder seems neccesary because the press only reports, interprets, or invents bad news about the SecDef. The Banty Rooster publishes the story of his brother, a wounded soldier, and Rumsfeld that I found very moving. See also VDH's column where he says, "Let Rumsfeld Be."
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Close the Borders!!!
Some advocate closing the borders because they are not happy with the state of immigration. Some are concerned about terrorism. I have always suspected that terrorism is something of a red herring. Marc Sageman, a CIA case officer in Afghanistan between 1987–89, has an excellent piece over at Foreign Policy Research Institute called Understanding Terror Networks. It comports with other things I have read about terrorism (especially Anatomy of Terrorism) and I put considerable stock in it. This teaser peice at FPRI should lead you to the book. I did, and when I added "Two of a Kind", Bobby Darin and Johnny Mercer Duets, shipping was free. ;-)
Many who oppose the current state of immigration are jumping on the terrorism bandwagon in hopes of putting divisions on the border, or some similar plan. Sageman's close study suggests that we have made it harder for terrorists to enter the country and that because of the social requirements of terrorism, for them to enter the country they need to make themselves obvious to law enforcement. The border can always be improved, but I contend that the border service is moving in then right direction (under the guidance of Homeland Security) and no special crackdown of the border is needed. Indeed the domestic crackdown of "sleeper cells" turned out to have proven there weren't any. (Which, given the urgency of terror, was probabably better than hoping the converse would not have been proved.) We know that half of the 9-11 terrorists were already on watch lists, but that in the 9-10 world, the urgency just wasn't there to actually follow through. Begining on 9-12, that urgency was there, and so future terrorists were already up against a considerable hurdle. Innovations made since then have only made the hurddle higher. Those who oppose our more or less open borders should make their case based on their hostility to immigration, not on the red herring of terrorism.
Some advocate closing the borders because they are not happy with the state of immigration. Some are concerned about terrorism. I have always suspected that terrorism is something of a red herring. Marc Sageman, a CIA case officer in Afghanistan between 1987–89, has an excellent piece over at Foreign Policy Research Institute called Understanding Terror Networks. It comports with other things I have read about terrorism (especially Anatomy of Terrorism) and I put considerable stock in it. This teaser peice at FPRI should lead you to the book. I did, and when I added "Two of a Kind", Bobby Darin and Johnny Mercer Duets, shipping was free. ;-)
Many who oppose the current state of immigration are jumping on the terrorism bandwagon in hopes of putting divisions on the border, or some similar plan. Sageman's close study suggests that we have made it harder for terrorists to enter the country and that because of the social requirements of terrorism, for them to enter the country they need to make themselves obvious to law enforcement. The border can always be improved, but I contend that the border service is moving in then right direction (under the guidance of Homeland Security) and no special crackdown of the border is needed. Indeed the domestic crackdown of "sleeper cells" turned out to have proven there weren't any. (Which, given the urgency of terror, was probabably better than hoping the converse would not have been proved.) We know that half of the 9-11 terrorists were already on watch lists, but that in the 9-10 world, the urgency just wasn't there to actually follow through. Begining on 9-12, that urgency was there, and so future terrorists were already up against a considerable hurdle. Innovations made since then have only made the hurddle higher. Those who oppose our more or less open borders should make their case based on their hostility to immigration, not on the red herring of terrorism.
Happy Holidays not good enough?
Virginia Postrel is swimming upstream arguing that not only is Happy Holidays a fine holiday greeting, but in some contexts (public, commcercial) better than Merry Christmas. I agree with Postrel that Happy Holidays remains a fine greeting, and is not a Christmas substitute. For one thing, its a pretty old, traditional greeting itself. To people who don't like Happy Holidays, I say, If this Holiday Greeting effects you, like a sqeaky violin, kick your cares, down the stairs, and watch the Holiday Inn movie with Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire. I do agree with the agrieved that Christmas is being pushed out of the public sphere. Lileks writes at the Backfence:
"Check out the U.S. Postal Service Web site: two different stamps for Kwanzaa. One for Eid, two for Hanukkah. Two for non-sectarian "Holiday," with pictures of Santa, reindeer, ornaments, that sort of thing. One for the Chinese New Year. One for those religiously inclined -- it features a Madonna and Child. But the Web site calls it "Holiday Traditional." The word "Christmas" doesn't appear on the site's description of the stamps. Eid, yes. Hanukkah, yes. Kwanzaa, yes. Christmas? No. It's Holiday Traditional."
This is not even-handed, its in fact neutral by no sensible standard. [The other sensible standard of neutrality is just to abandon the whole business, in this case, no holiday stamps.] The neutrality here is one of helping out the smaller players and penalizing the bigger player. Eugene Volokh repeats a joke about this kind of neutrality. This is third cauldron thinking.
Virginia Postrel is swimming upstream arguing that not only is Happy Holidays a fine holiday greeting, but in some contexts (public, commcercial) better than Merry Christmas. I agree with Postrel that Happy Holidays remains a fine greeting, and is not a Christmas substitute. For one thing, its a pretty old, traditional greeting itself. To people who don't like Happy Holidays, I say, If this Holiday Greeting effects you, like a sqeaky violin, kick your cares, down the stairs, and watch the Holiday Inn movie with Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire. I do agree with the agrieved that Christmas is being pushed out of the public sphere. Lileks writes at the Backfence:
"Check out the U.S. Postal Service Web site: two different stamps for Kwanzaa. One for Eid, two for Hanukkah. Two for non-sectarian "Holiday," with pictures of Santa, reindeer, ornaments, that sort of thing. One for the Chinese New Year. One for those religiously inclined -- it features a Madonna and Child. But the Web site calls it "Holiday Traditional." The word "Christmas" doesn't appear on the site's description of the stamps. Eid, yes. Hanukkah, yes. Kwanzaa, yes. Christmas? No. It's Holiday Traditional."
This is not even-handed, its in fact neutral by no sensible standard. [The other sensible standard of neutrality is just to abandon the whole business, in this case, no holiday stamps.] The neutrality here is one of helping out the smaller players and penalizing the bigger player. Eugene Volokh repeats a joke about this kind of neutrality. This is third cauldron thinking.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
Appologists for Tyranny
Its amazing what some people appologize for. Tom Palmer has posted on a group calling itself the British Helsiniki Human Rights Group, that argues that its Viktor Yushchenko who cheated in the Ukrainian elections, and approves of those remaining dictatorships in Eastern Europe. They favored Slobodan Miloševi?. Palmer includes some bloggers who ally themselves with the BHHRG and its claims in his criticism. Palmer makes the astute observation, "I’ve discovered that that hatred of Yushchenko is not unique, but of a piece with a vigorous whitewashing of old-style Soviet tyrants generally." He concludes by saying, "To be so angry at your own government that you will ally yourself with tyrants abroad is … well, words fail me. But when I become very calm, one comes to mind with perfect clarity: evil."
In my own study of Positivism, I've come across the surprising numbers of American Positivists (called Pragmatists in philosophy and Progressives in education) who fell head over heels for Soviet Communism during the 30's at the exact moment that Stalin was conducting his purges and forced collectivization. Positivism holds that its own "scientific" approach to social problems is correct, or as Virginia Postrel says, "the one right way". (See also Technocrats) Auguste Comte is not only the founder of Positivism, but of Sociology, the "scientific" study of society. Moral and political choices should be made by experts, imbued with the positive philiosophy, on a purely "scientific" basis. [Science in a Positive context will be presented in quotes because I hold that society cannot be examined scientifically, since repreated experimentation under controlled conditions are impossible.] I can understand how someone in 1936 might have lost confidence in capitalism, but to ignore the horrors of Stalinism something else entirely. Yet the Left then and now is all about ignoring the horrors of the enemies of capitalism and democracy, free markets and free societies. Embracing Ukraine's government-backed, Soviet-style candidate is only a demonstration of how this continues today.
Peter Beinart has written in a New Republic cover story about this problem, as it afflicts the Democrats, harkening back to the rejection of Henry Wallace and the embrace of Truman style anti-communism, and arguing that now the Democrats need to do it again. He writes, "In sharp contrast to the first years of the cold war, post-September 11 liberalism has produced leaders and institutions--most notably Michael Moore and MoveOn--that do not put the struggle against America's new totalitarian foe at the center of their hopes for a better world." While I think he's totally off the reservation when it comes to the real progress in Iraq, I do think he's right that the center-left and as much of the left as can stomach it, has to come to an awareness that the Democrats would be far better off being Hawkish in foriegn affairs than they would ever be as Doves. My own view is that the Democrats have been hemoraging Jacksonians since Vietnam, and in 2004, even turned their back on Wilsonians, retreating into pure Jeffersonianism. In foriegn policy terms, the Republicans had the Jacksonians, Hamiltonians, and those Wilsonians who put the spread of democracy above a devotion to multilateral institutons. (Wilson wanted international institutions to serve the cause of democracy, not the dictators, so the spirit of Wilson is with Bush.)
A rejection of Micheal Moore, MoveOn, and the anti-war crowd who so recently have prefered the Soviet style government candidate in Ukraine to Yushchenko would allow the Dems to win back some of the Wilsonians and those Jacksonians (mostly union labor) who will support victory in the war on terror. I am irritated much more by Joe Biden's and Peter Beinart's rejection (whether through ignorance or partisan purpose) of Rumsfeld and Iraqi success than I am worried that center-left hawks would fail in the war, but they need that purge, or as Beinart puts it, "American liberalism still has not had its meeting at the Willard Hotel. And the hour is getting late."
Its amazing what some people appologize for. Tom Palmer has posted on a group calling itself the British Helsiniki Human Rights Group, that argues that its Viktor Yushchenko who cheated in the Ukrainian elections, and approves of those remaining dictatorships in Eastern Europe. They favored Slobodan Miloševi?. Palmer includes some bloggers who ally themselves with the BHHRG and its claims in his criticism. Palmer makes the astute observation, "I’ve discovered that that hatred of Yushchenko is not unique, but of a piece with a vigorous whitewashing of old-style Soviet tyrants generally." He concludes by saying, "To be so angry at your own government that you will ally yourself with tyrants abroad is … well, words fail me. But when I become very calm, one comes to mind with perfect clarity: evil."
In my own study of Positivism, I've come across the surprising numbers of American Positivists (called Pragmatists in philosophy and Progressives in education) who fell head over heels for Soviet Communism during the 30's at the exact moment that Stalin was conducting his purges and forced collectivization. Positivism holds that its own "scientific" approach to social problems is correct, or as Virginia Postrel says, "the one right way". (See also Technocrats) Auguste Comte is not only the founder of Positivism, but of Sociology, the "scientific" study of society. Moral and political choices should be made by experts, imbued with the positive philiosophy, on a purely "scientific" basis. [Science in a Positive context will be presented in quotes because I hold that society cannot be examined scientifically, since repreated experimentation under controlled conditions are impossible.] I can understand how someone in 1936 might have lost confidence in capitalism, but to ignore the horrors of Stalinism something else entirely. Yet the Left then and now is all about ignoring the horrors of the enemies of capitalism and democracy, free markets and free societies. Embracing Ukraine's government-backed, Soviet-style candidate is only a demonstration of how this continues today.
Peter Beinart has written in a New Republic cover story about this problem, as it afflicts the Democrats, harkening back to the rejection of Henry Wallace and the embrace of Truman style anti-communism, and arguing that now the Democrats need to do it again. He writes, "In sharp contrast to the first years of the cold war, post-September 11 liberalism has produced leaders and institutions--most notably Michael Moore and MoveOn--that do not put the struggle against America's new totalitarian foe at the center of their hopes for a better world." While I think he's totally off the reservation when it comes to the real progress in Iraq, I do think he's right that the center-left and as much of the left as can stomach it, has to come to an awareness that the Democrats would be far better off being Hawkish in foriegn affairs than they would ever be as Doves. My own view is that the Democrats have been hemoraging Jacksonians since Vietnam, and in 2004, even turned their back on Wilsonians, retreating into pure Jeffersonianism. In foriegn policy terms, the Republicans had the Jacksonians, Hamiltonians, and those Wilsonians who put the spread of democracy above a devotion to multilateral institutons. (Wilson wanted international institutions to serve the cause of democracy, not the dictators, so the spirit of Wilson is with Bush.)
A rejection of Micheal Moore, MoveOn, and the anti-war crowd who so recently have prefered the Soviet style government candidate in Ukraine to Yushchenko would allow the Dems to win back some of the Wilsonians and those Jacksonians (mostly union labor) who will support victory in the war on terror. I am irritated much more by Joe Biden's and Peter Beinart's rejection (whether through ignorance or partisan purpose) of Rumsfeld and Iraqi success than I am worried that center-left hawks would fail in the war, but they need that purge, or as Beinart puts it, "American liberalism still has not had its meeting at the Willard Hotel. And the hour is getting late."
Friday, December 17, 2004
Krauthammer on Christmas
Charles Krauthammer's column today is entitled, Just Leave Christmas Alone.
Charles Krauthammer's column today is entitled, Just Leave Christmas Alone.
Two, Two, Two Holidays in One
One of the underlying themes of my Church-State studies has been my identification of two traditions of American history, remembered differently by evangelical and the more secular leaning people in American society. Both point to accurate facts (and some misremembered things too) but they both have virtually no knowledge of the other tradition.
Enter Christmas. It two has two traditions, though most Americans straddle both, there is some conflict, again, between the most religious and the least religious Americans regarding Christmas. The problem of the two traditions comes from the fact that no one remembers what Christmas was like prior to the Reformation. Picture a winter Mardi Gras, a Christmas Carnival. It was a holiday celebrated in the community, it was raucous and sometimes bawdy. Early Portestants tried to reform Christmas, purging it of its Carnival flavor and pushing it back into a celebration of the birth of Jesus. The net effect of this was to ban what many people regarded as Christmas, the goose, the food and drink, the 12 days of Christmas feating and festival, the decorations, the communal holiday, and so forth. As a consequence two Christmas traditions took root, one the birth of Christ, the second the party. Skip to early 19th century America, where most Churches had no particular Christmas celebration. The Carnival Christmas was present, but rejected by many Americans. Part of the Carnival Christmas, as evidenced by some carols (bring us some figgy pudding, we won't go until we get some) was the tradition of the well off in the community providing gifts of food and drink to a merry crowd that went on a progress through the community. As a community tradition, it was bounded by the relationships that existed the rest of the year. If someone got out of hand, there would be consequences, because everyone knew who was who. Now imagine New York in the 1820's, a much more anonymous society than the English village, and the demands for the well off to give gifts to the poor took on the class consciouness of a newly industrializing society. The old progress tradition held that a well off person who refused any gifts was owed some mischief, but as I said, too much mischief would be a problem, because in the English village, you had to live with your neighbors. Halloween, another progress holiday, retains the "trick or treat" tradition, though the days of its progress are numbered, again because people don't know their neighbors. In the context of class hostility, poor workers had additional grievances against wealthy capitalists and in the anonymous city, where the religious and social leaders were put off by the Carnival Christmas, such displays were taken to be mobbish violence. I suspect there is some truth to it, but how much is hard to say. Either way, Christmas was re-invented on moral grounds, whereby one's gifts were not owed because you were poor, but because you were deserving. In The Night Before Christmas, the new popular Christmas was laid out, focused on neither the Christ child, nor on the raucous community party, but on Santa Claus. In keeping with the Cult of Domesticity, the locus of Christmas was not the community, but the family. So this new Christmas was one that took place within the family and emphasized right behavior for which rewards would follow. Its also no accident that these virtuous Protestants would attach the new Christmas to commerce, which was the source of their prosperity. And, New York being full of Dutch Calvinists, drew on the Dutch St Nicholas for this new American Christmas.
The new American Christmas was not opposed to a religious Christmas, but drew on broad cultural principles, rather than religious ones, because the Christmas that was being replaced, the Carnival Christmas was detached from religion, yet still thrived. And so, you find Santa Claus no where near a Church, but in places of commerce. Seperatly, the Christ is central to the Church Christmas, which is hardly surprising. Two Christmases. One cultural, and one religious. Most Americans celebrate them both and have some trouble telling where one ends and the other begins, or even that there are two of them. Some very religious people prefer only the religious Christmas and reject the cultural Christmas with its many pagan elements (tree, holly, mistletoe, wreath, yule log, elves, &c, &c) and its embrace of commerce. Some very secular people reject both Christmases, because any Christmas is too religious for them. One clearly could celebrate either, or both Christmases, and most Americans celebrate and happily enjoy both. But knowing the history of the two traditions of Christmas may explain some of the contraversy that arises this time of year about the so-called real meaning of Christmas, which often is an attempt to exclude the cultural Christmas, or the inclusiveness of Christmas, which strikes me as odd, since the cultural Christmas has only incidental religous overtones, and is pretty well secular (which is what provokes the highly religious).
One of the underlying themes of my Church-State studies has been my identification of two traditions of American history, remembered differently by evangelical and the more secular leaning people in American society. Both point to accurate facts (and some misremembered things too) but they both have virtually no knowledge of the other tradition.
Enter Christmas. It two has two traditions, though most Americans straddle both, there is some conflict, again, between the most religious and the least religious Americans regarding Christmas. The problem of the two traditions comes from the fact that no one remembers what Christmas was like prior to the Reformation. Picture a winter Mardi Gras, a Christmas Carnival. It was a holiday celebrated in the community, it was raucous and sometimes bawdy. Early Portestants tried to reform Christmas, purging it of its Carnival flavor and pushing it back into a celebration of the birth of Jesus. The net effect of this was to ban what many people regarded as Christmas, the goose, the food and drink, the 12 days of Christmas feating and festival, the decorations, the communal holiday, and so forth. As a consequence two Christmas traditions took root, one the birth of Christ, the second the party. Skip to early 19th century America, where most Churches had no particular Christmas celebration. The Carnival Christmas was present, but rejected by many Americans. Part of the Carnival Christmas, as evidenced by some carols (bring us some figgy pudding, we won't go until we get some) was the tradition of the well off in the community providing gifts of food and drink to a merry crowd that went on a progress through the community. As a community tradition, it was bounded by the relationships that existed the rest of the year. If someone got out of hand, there would be consequences, because everyone knew who was who. Now imagine New York in the 1820's, a much more anonymous society than the English village, and the demands for the well off to give gifts to the poor took on the class consciouness of a newly industrializing society. The old progress tradition held that a well off person who refused any gifts was owed some mischief, but as I said, too much mischief would be a problem, because in the English village, you had to live with your neighbors. Halloween, another progress holiday, retains the "trick or treat" tradition, though the days of its progress are numbered, again because people don't know their neighbors. In the context of class hostility, poor workers had additional grievances against wealthy capitalists and in the anonymous city, where the religious and social leaders were put off by the Carnival Christmas, such displays were taken to be mobbish violence. I suspect there is some truth to it, but how much is hard to say. Either way, Christmas was re-invented on moral grounds, whereby one's gifts were not owed because you were poor, but because you were deserving. In The Night Before Christmas, the new popular Christmas was laid out, focused on neither the Christ child, nor on the raucous community party, but on Santa Claus. In keeping with the Cult of Domesticity, the locus of Christmas was not the community, but the family. So this new Christmas was one that took place within the family and emphasized right behavior for which rewards would follow. Its also no accident that these virtuous Protestants would attach the new Christmas to commerce, which was the source of their prosperity. And, New York being full of Dutch Calvinists, drew on the Dutch St Nicholas for this new American Christmas.
The new American Christmas was not opposed to a religious Christmas, but drew on broad cultural principles, rather than religious ones, because the Christmas that was being replaced, the Carnival Christmas was detached from religion, yet still thrived. And so, you find Santa Claus no where near a Church, but in places of commerce. Seperatly, the Christ is central to the Church Christmas, which is hardly surprising. Two Christmases. One cultural, and one religious. Most Americans celebrate them both and have some trouble telling where one ends and the other begins, or even that there are two of them. Some very religious people prefer only the religious Christmas and reject the cultural Christmas with its many pagan elements (tree, holly, mistletoe, wreath, yule log, elves, &c, &c) and its embrace of commerce. Some very secular people reject both Christmases, because any Christmas is too religious for them. One clearly could celebrate either, or both Christmases, and most Americans celebrate and happily enjoy both. But knowing the history of the two traditions of Christmas may explain some of the contraversy that arises this time of year about the so-called real meaning of Christmas, which often is an attempt to exclude the cultural Christmas, or the inclusiveness of Christmas, which strikes me as odd, since the cultural Christmas has only incidental religous overtones, and is pretty well secular (which is what provokes the highly religious).
Holiday Commercials again a source of irritation
There was a time back in the mid-nineties when Santa was portrayed as being full of vice. There was a commercial for some kind of chicken nuggets and Santa ate them while an elf looked on hungrily. Selfish Santa? The reverse of gift-giving Santa. Santa ogled, he lied, he engaged in all kinds of bad, anti-Santa behavior contrary to the Christmas spirit. I think this whole business culminated in the Bad Santa movie. For several years, either my lack of TV watching or the absence of a sustained message in commercials using Holiday themes, nothing struck me as quite so offensive. This year I have detected a growing theme that is both pervasive and hostile to the spirit of Christmas: "don't forget to get yourself some gifts!" There are two problems here, one ideological, one practical. Christmas is the season for giving, not looking out for yourself. Do that in the after-Christmas sales. Which leads to my second complaint, helpfully offered by my sister, who reminds me that its hard enough to buy gifts for people without people buying for themselves. Buying after Christmas for thyself solves two problems, one, you can devote yourself to giving for Christmas, and second, you can fill in any gaps from your wish list once you have received your gifts. Plus its on sale. The advertisers who put out the message that its OK to grab a little for yourself undermine the purpose of the holidays. Its not as bad as foul depictions of Santa, since that harms kids, but its no good.
There was a time back in the mid-nineties when Santa was portrayed as being full of vice. There was a commercial for some kind of chicken nuggets and Santa ate them while an elf looked on hungrily. Selfish Santa? The reverse of gift-giving Santa. Santa ogled, he lied, he engaged in all kinds of bad, anti-Santa behavior contrary to the Christmas spirit. I think this whole business culminated in the Bad Santa movie. For several years, either my lack of TV watching or the absence of a sustained message in commercials using Holiday themes, nothing struck me as quite so offensive. This year I have detected a growing theme that is both pervasive and hostile to the spirit of Christmas: "don't forget to get yourself some gifts!" There are two problems here, one ideological, one practical. Christmas is the season for giving, not looking out for yourself. Do that in the after-Christmas sales. Which leads to my second complaint, helpfully offered by my sister, who reminds me that its hard enough to buy gifts for people without people buying for themselves. Buying after Christmas for thyself solves two problems, one, you can devote yourself to giving for Christmas, and second, you can fill in any gaps from your wish list once you have received your gifts. Plus its on sale. The advertisers who put out the message that its OK to grab a little for yourself undermine the purpose of the holidays. Its not as bad as foul depictions of Santa, since that harms kids, but its no good.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Blog Awards 2004 experiences voting "irregularities"
While Hugh Hewitt asks his readers and listeners to vote for other bloggers who he thinks were more important than his blog, over at the Daily Kos, code is posted to automatically stuff the ballot box.
While Hugh Hewitt asks his readers and listeners to vote for other bloggers who he thinks were more important than his blog, over at the Daily Kos, code is posted to automatically stuff the ballot box.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Very Nice Social Security Reform Plan
John Kasich was on Neil Cavuto advocating his plan for Social Security reform. You can see a summary of a Kasich type plan here. (The best summary I found actually describes a plan by others, but other summaries were too brief.) Kasich's plan is a partial privatization of 2% (slightly less than a third of the employee contribution) for all workers under 55 years, in exchange for slowing the growth of SSI benefits by using only prices to adjust the COLA rather than prices and wages. This plan basically shifts the burden of the lost benfits from lower payments from the pay as you go system to the higher yielding private retirement accounts. Its a very responsible reform fiscally, reducing the burden on the trust fund as compared to other plans.
The benefit of Kasich's plan is its fiscal conservatism (unsurprising), but its major drawback its directly tied to its major strength: its basically designed to preserve the existing system rather than replace it with something better.
For anyone not familiar with Social Security reform, there are two problems, both demographic. One the one hand the baby boomers constitute a bubble of consumers who, like a snake's meal of a mouse, must pass through the system. On the other hand is the gradual decline in the ratio of workers to retirees, due to slowing birth rates and greater longevity. Like Bill Clinton's plan, the Kasich plan addresses the first problem, the boomer bubble, really well, but ignores the second problem, the declining ratio of workers to retirees.
My own analysis of plans rejected the Clinton plan, and I'd be inclined to reject the Kasich plan without some modification to accomodate the declining ratio. My own plan is to combine the Clinton plan (investing the Trust Fund in the market), a removal of the payroll tax cap, and full privatization of the employee contribution, leaving the employer contribution to fund transition costs and maintain the disability and survivorship programs. The first two elements are ultimatly there to assist with transition costs, the second part provides a better benefit and makes the ratio of workers to retirees irrelevant, since workers fund their own retirement directly. It would be harder to modify the Kasich plan, at least in the direction of greater privatization without increasing the transition costs which Kasich seeks to minimize.
John Kasich was on Neil Cavuto advocating his plan for Social Security reform. You can see a summary of a Kasich type plan here. (The best summary I found actually describes a plan by others, but other summaries were too brief.) Kasich's plan is a partial privatization of 2% (slightly less than a third of the employee contribution) for all workers under 55 years, in exchange for slowing the growth of SSI benefits by using only prices to adjust the COLA rather than prices and wages. This plan basically shifts the burden of the lost benfits from lower payments from the pay as you go system to the higher yielding private retirement accounts. Its a very responsible reform fiscally, reducing the burden on the trust fund as compared to other plans.
The benefit of Kasich's plan is its fiscal conservatism (unsurprising), but its major drawback its directly tied to its major strength: its basically designed to preserve the existing system rather than replace it with something better.
For anyone not familiar with Social Security reform, there are two problems, both demographic. One the one hand the baby boomers constitute a bubble of consumers who, like a snake's meal of a mouse, must pass through the system. On the other hand is the gradual decline in the ratio of workers to retirees, due to slowing birth rates and greater longevity. Like Bill Clinton's plan, the Kasich plan addresses the first problem, the boomer bubble, really well, but ignores the second problem, the declining ratio of workers to retirees.
My own analysis of plans rejected the Clinton plan, and I'd be inclined to reject the Kasich plan without some modification to accomodate the declining ratio. My own plan is to combine the Clinton plan (investing the Trust Fund in the market), a removal of the payroll tax cap, and full privatization of the employee contribution, leaving the employer contribution to fund transition costs and maintain the disability and survivorship programs. The first two elements are ultimatly there to assist with transition costs, the second part provides a better benefit and makes the ratio of workers to retirees irrelevant, since workers fund their own retirement directly. It would be harder to modify the Kasich plan, at least in the direction of greater privatization without increasing the transition costs which Kasich seeks to minimize.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Tom Hayden seeks to destroy Democrats
He thinks he is attempting to block US efforts in Iraq, but in fact he's the Republicans' friend by driving Jacksonian Democrats over to GOP.
He thinks he is attempting to block US efforts in Iraq, but in fact he's the Republicans' friend by driving Jacksonian Democrats over to GOP.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
The UN stock plumets and plumets
Claudia Rosett has been uncovering the story on Oil for Food for some time now. See the continuing coverage in her column at Opinion Journal. But it gets worse for the UN. Belmont Club has quite a round up. The first five links are on the sexual abuse scandal which is much wider than the Congo, and seems to stretch wherever there is peacekeeping. Next is a link to Diplomad on the corrupt nature of the UN. Diplomad concludes "It's time for the US and other serious countries (e.g., Australia, Israel) to get out of the UN." Glenn Reynolds replies, "Or to replace Kofi Annan with Vaclav Havel!" Some wonder whether the UN is fixable. Others worry that in its absence, other more pernicious leagues might fill the vacuum.
Claudia Rosett has been uncovering the story on Oil for Food for some time now. See the continuing coverage in her column at Opinion Journal. But it gets worse for the UN. Belmont Club has quite a round up. The first five links are on the sexual abuse scandal which is much wider than the Congo, and seems to stretch wherever there is peacekeeping. Next is a link to Diplomad on the corrupt nature of the UN. Diplomad concludes "It's time for the US and other serious countries (e.g., Australia, Israel) to get out of the UN." Glenn Reynolds replies, "Or to replace Kofi Annan with Vaclav Havel!" Some wonder whether the UN is fixable. Others worry that in its absence, other more pernicious leagues might fill the vacuum.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Aristotle's Guide to Powerpoint
One of the problems with publishing software and powerpoint is that for many, our reach exceeds our grasp. The result is a document or presentation that is too busy, confusing, or dominated by flash. Look, therefore, to Aristotle's 10 powerpoint tips at Beyond Bullet.
http://www.beyondbullets.com/2004/08/99_perspiration.html
One of the problems with publishing software and powerpoint is that for many, our reach exceeds our grasp. The result is a document or presentation that is too busy, confusing, or dominated by flash. Look, therefore, to Aristotle's 10 powerpoint tips at Beyond Bullet.
http://www.beyondbullets.com/2004/08/99_perspiration.html
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Battle of the Bad Acts
Among yesterday's posts, I argued that even where we support an American serviceman who appears to be defending his unit against dirty tricks, we cannot abandon the principle of the rules of war. I would draw your attention to two posts by IraqPundit, an Iraqi exile commenting on affairs back home. Two weeks ago IraqPundit observed that that the Western media ignore attacks by the terrorists against everyone except Westerners, especially nationals of the media's home country. The far more numerous attacks by terrorists against the Iraqis themselves are ignored, except insomuch as they suggest the Allawi government is being attacked. Yesterday, IraqPundit criticized the favorable terms that characterize Western media coverage of the terrorists in a post titled "Cunning and Resolute". The author notes, "Anyway, the Times of London has given us a reality check, a glimpse of Fallujah under the rule of these cunning and resolute heroes: 'Mutilated bodies dumped on Fallujah's bombed out streets today painted a harrowing picture of eight months of rebel rule.'"
So I return to my point of yesterday. In a world where the media will prevent the terrorists in a glow of soft light in the West and in propogandistic terms in the Mideast itself, the war for Iraq is a battle over the presentation of bad acts. The terrorists commit them all the time, but they are ignored by the media. Americans will make a few mistakes, but these will be exagerated and replayed constantly. Niel Gabler on Fox Newswatch described the defining pictoral moment of the Iraq War not as the statue of Saddam being toppled, but of Abu Ghraib. Jane Hall on the same show observed that Al Jazzera was playing the Marine in the mosque video three times an hour.
I argued in June, much of these attacks are aimed at frightening the Iraqis themselves. These bad acts on both sides are not portrayed in context or fairly. But the key here is how Iraqis themselves make these things out. The media, theirs and ours, want to portray the Coallition as the same as the Terrorists. Anyone who believes that, there or here, would surely be inclined against the American effort.
I conclude with this statement made by IraqPundit two weeks ago: "Such stories lead readers to conclude that Iraqis are safe in their homes, unless they are killed by either U.S. soldiers or some other clumsy bombing. Iraqis trying to surive the war against them know that the truth is a lot more complicated. Iraqi civilians are aware of the killings of Americans and others, and are horrified. Why aren't American journalists and critics of the war similarly concerned about the horrors -- including kidnappings and killings -- faced daily by Iraqi civilians?"
Among yesterday's posts, I argued that even where we support an American serviceman who appears to be defending his unit against dirty tricks, we cannot abandon the principle of the rules of war. I would draw your attention to two posts by IraqPundit, an Iraqi exile commenting on affairs back home. Two weeks ago IraqPundit observed that that the Western media ignore attacks by the terrorists against everyone except Westerners, especially nationals of the media's home country. The far more numerous attacks by terrorists against the Iraqis themselves are ignored, except insomuch as they suggest the Allawi government is being attacked. Yesterday, IraqPundit criticized the favorable terms that characterize Western media coverage of the terrorists in a post titled "Cunning and Resolute". The author notes, "Anyway, the Times of London has given us a reality check, a glimpse of Fallujah under the rule of these cunning and resolute heroes: 'Mutilated bodies dumped on Fallujah's bombed out streets today painted a harrowing picture of eight months of rebel rule.'"
So I return to my point of yesterday. In a world where the media will prevent the terrorists in a glow of soft light in the West and in propogandistic terms in the Mideast itself, the war for Iraq is a battle over the presentation of bad acts. The terrorists commit them all the time, but they are ignored by the media. Americans will make a few mistakes, but these will be exagerated and replayed constantly. Niel Gabler on Fox Newswatch described the defining pictoral moment of the Iraq War not as the statue of Saddam being toppled, but of Abu Ghraib. Jane Hall on the same show observed that Al Jazzera was playing the Marine in the mosque video three times an hour.
I argued in June, much of these attacks are aimed at frightening the Iraqis themselves. These bad acts on both sides are not portrayed in context or fairly. But the key here is how Iraqis themselves make these things out. The media, theirs and ours, want to portray the Coallition as the same as the Terrorists. Anyone who believes that, there or here, would surely be inclined against the American effort.
I conclude with this statement made by IraqPundit two weeks ago: "Such stories lead readers to conclude that Iraqis are safe in their homes, unless they are killed by either U.S. soldiers or some other clumsy bombing. Iraqis trying to surive the war against them know that the truth is a lot more complicated. Iraqi civilians are aware of the killings of Americans and others, and are horrified. Why aren't American journalists and critics of the war similarly concerned about the horrors -- including kidnappings and killings -- faced daily by Iraqi civilians?"
Army Transformation to fight Terrorism
The Army has long given serious thought to terrorism, what is it, why is it effective, and how to fight it. Though it didn't really gain the coinage as terrorism (rival terms are more common at other times) until recent decades, low intensity warfare as been a constant concern for thinkers in the Army and Marines. While the Small Wars Manual and the weight of history certainly favor the Marines in devising ways to fight Terrorism and Guerilla wars, the Army has simply the bulk of resources in the form of war colleges to devote to this form of land warfare, and its done somewhat more thinking on the nature of Terrorism. The Army's failure to keep pace with the Marines in implementation of these ideas is based on the Marines superior experience and the Army's otherwise laudable focus on the main threat facing American security, a major land war with the Soviets. One need look no farther than Vietnam to see how this has left the Marines in a much, much better place to run that war. Still the Army had people who understood how to fight that war, mostly in their war colleges and in various special forces units.
The problem facing the Army is how to transform itself from a main battle force designed to confront a superpower in Central Europe, to one capable of fighting the War on Terror and otherwise specializing in fighting low intensity wars. This problem is what makes Rumsfeld the essential man at the Pentagon. My fear is that there is no one else with the combination of the right vision and the ability to compel the military establishment as Rumsfeld. The Department of Defense web site starts off with a link on the War on Terror, but right after that is a link called "Transformation." That strikes me about right.
Westmoreland and Abrams were good soldiers who both fought as armored commanders in World War II. Had a war in Central Europe occured, they would have commanded armored divsions and mechanized corps with skill and great ability. That they were called upon to command in Vietnam is the mistake of others. Senior officers generally seek to fight the last war, to make the best of lessons learned, and avoid taking risks with radically new ideas or technology. Even some young officers I have spoken with have warned against too much transformation, and would prefer to leave the army a heavy main battle force. Before World War II theorists could be found advocating a radical new kind of war that would make the trench obsolete. Some spoke of the stormtrooper tactics, others of machine guns, still others of high level bombers, and yet others of tanks, submarines, or missiles. None were entirely wrong, but those advocated for tanks were more right than most. Combining tanks, close support aircraft, and mobile infantry to encircle enemy formations wasn't nearly as obvious in 1936 as it was in 1946. Doing it effectively was the trick.
The War on Terror will require some new vision, new tactics, applying and summoning forth new technology, and will draw on some experiences of military history (other low intensity wars) while drawing only most generally on the whole of military history. Kursk 1943 is not the place to start. The Philippines 1903 would be a far more reasonable place. This won't happen by itself. Compelling the old soldiers to abandon learned lessons will be hard, embracing a new doctrine will produce anxiety, advocates of alternative doctrines will snipe, changes will harm old constituencies before new ones are built to defend the new way.
Some of these new things may require a larger role for special forces, and so they may need to expand, but I think the bulk of the changes will involve using the familiar rifleman in new ways and under new conditions. For example, the support of precision guided weapons is probabaly as profound as the development of close air support was sixty plus years ago. Utilizing new communications and computer speeds will make new kinds of actions possible. I suspect the new kind of war won't look radically different: we won't abandon armor or shift way over to special forces. Nor will we need the Crusader, new heavy tanks, or other slow, heavy machines.
After Afghanistan and Iraq, as the Army moves forward, it needs to study the lessons of these campaigns and conciously look back to the campaigns of its own, and especially the Marines' small wars experience. In the meantime, as the Army moves forward with its transformation, don't kill the old doctrines, just shelve them. Thinkers in the war colleges will be anticipating the kinds of wars new enemies might require. Who these new enemies are or what kind of wars they will fight remains a mystery. Like the planners of the 1920's and 1930's who contemplated wars against all the major powers, a variety of ideas were developed and ultimatly found their way into the final war plans of World War II.
The Army has long given serious thought to terrorism, what is it, why is it effective, and how to fight it. Though it didn't really gain the coinage as terrorism (rival terms are more common at other times) until recent decades, low intensity warfare as been a constant concern for thinkers in the Army and Marines. While the Small Wars Manual and the weight of history certainly favor the Marines in devising ways to fight Terrorism and Guerilla wars, the Army has simply the bulk of resources in the form of war colleges to devote to this form of land warfare, and its done somewhat more thinking on the nature of Terrorism. The Army's failure to keep pace with the Marines in implementation of these ideas is based on the Marines superior experience and the Army's otherwise laudable focus on the main threat facing American security, a major land war with the Soviets. One need look no farther than Vietnam to see how this has left the Marines in a much, much better place to run that war. Still the Army had people who understood how to fight that war, mostly in their war colleges and in various special forces units.
The problem facing the Army is how to transform itself from a main battle force designed to confront a superpower in Central Europe, to one capable of fighting the War on Terror and otherwise specializing in fighting low intensity wars. This problem is what makes Rumsfeld the essential man at the Pentagon. My fear is that there is no one else with the combination of the right vision and the ability to compel the military establishment as Rumsfeld. The Department of Defense web site starts off with a link on the War on Terror, but right after that is a link called "Transformation." That strikes me about right.
Westmoreland and Abrams were good soldiers who both fought as armored commanders in World War II. Had a war in Central Europe occured, they would have commanded armored divsions and mechanized corps with skill and great ability. That they were called upon to command in Vietnam is the mistake of others. Senior officers generally seek to fight the last war, to make the best of lessons learned, and avoid taking risks with radically new ideas or technology. Even some young officers I have spoken with have warned against too much transformation, and would prefer to leave the army a heavy main battle force. Before World War II theorists could be found advocating a radical new kind of war that would make the trench obsolete. Some spoke of the stormtrooper tactics, others of machine guns, still others of high level bombers, and yet others of tanks, submarines, or missiles. None were entirely wrong, but those advocated for tanks were more right than most. Combining tanks, close support aircraft, and mobile infantry to encircle enemy formations wasn't nearly as obvious in 1936 as it was in 1946. Doing it effectively was the trick.
The War on Terror will require some new vision, new tactics, applying and summoning forth new technology, and will draw on some experiences of military history (other low intensity wars) while drawing only most generally on the whole of military history. Kursk 1943 is not the place to start. The Philippines 1903 would be a far more reasonable place. This won't happen by itself. Compelling the old soldiers to abandon learned lessons will be hard, embracing a new doctrine will produce anxiety, advocates of alternative doctrines will snipe, changes will harm old constituencies before new ones are built to defend the new way.
Some of these new things may require a larger role for special forces, and so they may need to expand, but I think the bulk of the changes will involve using the familiar rifleman in new ways and under new conditions. For example, the support of precision guided weapons is probabaly as profound as the development of close air support was sixty plus years ago. Utilizing new communications and computer speeds will make new kinds of actions possible. I suspect the new kind of war won't look radically different: we won't abandon armor or shift way over to special forces. Nor will we need the Crusader, new heavy tanks, or other slow, heavy machines.
After Afghanistan and Iraq, as the Army moves forward, it needs to study the lessons of these campaigns and conciously look back to the campaigns of its own, and especially the Marines' small wars experience. In the meantime, as the Army moves forward with its transformation, don't kill the old doctrines, just shelve them. Thinkers in the war colleges will be anticipating the kinds of wars new enemies might require. Who these new enemies are or what kind of wars they will fight remains a mystery. Like the planners of the 1920's and 1930's who contemplated wars against all the major powers, a variety of ideas were developed and ultimatly found their way into the final war plans of World War II.
War on Terror outside of Mideast
Some, such as Dennis Prager, argue the so-called war on terror is mis-named, because its a war on radical Islam. I disagree. I contend that terrorism was the method of war of the international communist movement during detente, supporting, training, and encouraging their leftist allies in the so-called third world. I like the phrase the war on terror and I don't want to see the concern limited to the Mideast. There are terrorists globally, and they have long aided one another, trained one another, and cooperated. Its essential to wage war on all terrorists in all places according to priorities established by policy. Certianly that makes the Mideast the central front in the War on Terror, but here is some good news on other fronts.
Rummy praises Canal security in Panama.
Rummy Urges a Latin Push Against Terror
Asst SecDef for Low Intensity Warfare on Columbia
Defense Ministerial of the Americas vow Unity in fight on Terror
Not surprisingly, those who prefer to capitulate to terror are concerned. More concern here.
Some, such as Dennis Prager, argue the so-called war on terror is mis-named, because its a war on radical Islam. I disagree. I contend that terrorism was the method of war of the international communist movement during detente, supporting, training, and encouraging their leftist allies in the so-called third world. I like the phrase the war on terror and I don't want to see the concern limited to the Mideast. There are terrorists globally, and they have long aided one another, trained one another, and cooperated. Its essential to wage war on all terrorists in all places according to priorities established by policy. Certianly that makes the Mideast the central front in the War on Terror, but here is some good news on other fronts.
Rummy praises Canal security in Panama.
Rummy Urges a Latin Push Against Terror
Asst SecDef for Low Intensity Warfare on Columbia
Defense Ministerial of the Americas vow Unity in fight on Terror
Not surprisingly, those who prefer to capitulate to terror are concerned. More concern here.
Pistons Pacers Brawl
How long should Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson be suspended? For ever. These guys are service providers who attacked their customers. Don't you fire the cashier who attacks the customer? Do you give a couple of days without pay to a desk clerk who punches a guest? These are service workers who engaged in criminal acts of violence against the people they are their to entertain. If it were the usher at the cinema, he's out on his ear. So to athletes who charge the stands and hit people.
How long should Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson be suspended? For ever. These guys are service providers who attacked their customers. Don't you fire the cashier who attacks the customer? Do you give a couple of days without pay to a desk clerk who punches a guest? These are service workers who engaged in criminal acts of violence against the people they are their to entertain. If it were the usher at the cinema, he's out on his ear. So to athletes who charge the stands and hit people.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Target/Salvation Army Contraversy
Regretable, but inevitable. Target can't open its storefront to speech from party A, but deny speech from party B. They either have to open the space they grant to one party to all parties, or restrict it entirely. As long as no one asserts their rights, someone like Target can maintain de facto content discrimination (rejecting speech on the basis of content), but someone has come along to demand their spot on the stage. Actually many someones: "We receive an increasing number of solicitation inquiries from non-profit organizations each year and determined that if we continue to allow the Salvation Army to solicit then it opens the door to other groups that wish to solicit our guests."
Hugh Hewitt is not happy about it, but James Lileks regards it as the way of the world.
Objections seem to break down into two groups, the "they do good work" school of thought and the "they're a holiday fixture" school of thought." The first school seems to be tainted by fears that this is some kind of anti-Christain bias. The second school is tainted by a dissatisfaction with the way corporations run the public space. The solution is simple, if the public wants more old-time public spaces, they need to create and use them. Otherwise this whole thing amounts to no more than nostalgia.
Regretable, but inevitable. Target can't open its storefront to speech from party A, but deny speech from party B. They either have to open the space they grant to one party to all parties, or restrict it entirely. As long as no one asserts their rights, someone like Target can maintain de facto content discrimination (rejecting speech on the basis of content), but someone has come along to demand their spot on the stage. Actually many someones: "We receive an increasing number of solicitation inquiries from non-profit organizations each year and determined that if we continue to allow the Salvation Army to solicit then it opens the door to other groups that wish to solicit our guests."
Hugh Hewitt is not happy about it, but James Lileks regards it as the way of the world.
Objections seem to break down into two groups, the "they do good work" school of thought and the "they're a holiday fixture" school of thought." The first school seems to be tainted by fears that this is some kind of anti-Christain bias. The second school is tainted by a dissatisfaction with the way corporations run the public space. The solution is simple, if the public wants more old-time public spaces, they need to create and use them. Otherwise this whole thing amounts to no more than nostalgia.
The Fallujah Marine and War Crimes
There are plenty of people ready to give the Marine who killed a wounded fellow in a mosque a pass because our guys should never be exposed to any risk more than absolutly neccesary. But given the American military power is overwhelming and that this keeps our guys safer, its not unreasonable that we seek to restrain ourselves from doing any more harm than in neccesary to accomplish our mission. This sets up a conflict between those who seek to minimize harm to our troops and those who seek to minimize harm to innocents, which is made more difficult because the enemy seeks to use innocents to shield them from harm. Of course the proper approach is to give both principles respect, and not just advocate for protection of only the troops or only the innocents. Only protecting the troops leads to unneccesary harm to innocents by negligence, which is wrong. Only protecting the innocent empowers those, like terrorists, willing to violate the same principle. The shooting in question did take place in a mosque, after all. Clinton era legal constraints of many kinds tended to put too many restrictions on US intelligence and military action. But the princple of legal restraint, that is the notion of war crimes, should not be thrown out because some enemy has decided to ignore them. Too many statements supporting the marine seem to come from the "worried mom" school of engagement, which is kill anything that my harm my darling boy.
Wars like the War on Terror, as fought in Iraq and Afghanistan are more political than they are military. Indeed, one could say more political, social, and economic than military. Suppose the reputation of Americans was such that it was supposed that a fleeing terrorist fell down while fleeing, we'd help him up, give him his weapon back and give him a count of ten to get back to his fellows. Would the average Iraqi be more inclined to favor the guy who hides in mosques and lays roadside bombs and blows up civilian services, or the Americans? Now we should not be handing back the weapons of terrorists who fall down, but neither should we be shooting the unarmed and fallen.
See the last paragraph of this NRO article by Mackubin Thomas Owens.
There are plenty of people ready to give the Marine who killed a wounded fellow in a mosque a pass because our guys should never be exposed to any risk more than absolutly neccesary. But given the American military power is overwhelming and that this keeps our guys safer, its not unreasonable that we seek to restrain ourselves from doing any more harm than in neccesary to accomplish our mission. This sets up a conflict between those who seek to minimize harm to our troops and those who seek to minimize harm to innocents, which is made more difficult because the enemy seeks to use innocents to shield them from harm. Of course the proper approach is to give both principles respect, and not just advocate for protection of only the troops or only the innocents. Only protecting the troops leads to unneccesary harm to innocents by negligence, which is wrong. Only protecting the innocent empowers those, like terrorists, willing to violate the same principle. The shooting in question did take place in a mosque, after all. Clinton era legal constraints of many kinds tended to put too many restrictions on US intelligence and military action. But the princple of legal restraint, that is the notion of war crimes, should not be thrown out because some enemy has decided to ignore them. Too many statements supporting the marine seem to come from the "worried mom" school of engagement, which is kill anything that my harm my darling boy.
Wars like the War on Terror, as fought in Iraq and Afghanistan are more political than they are military. Indeed, one could say more political, social, and economic than military. Suppose the reputation of Americans was such that it was supposed that a fleeing terrorist fell down while fleeing, we'd help him up, give him his weapon back and give him a count of ten to get back to his fellows. Would the average Iraqi be more inclined to favor the guy who hides in mosques and lays roadside bombs and blows up civilian services, or the Americans? Now we should not be handing back the weapons of terrorists who fall down, but neither should we be shooting the unarmed and fallen.
See the last paragraph of this NRO article by Mackubin Thomas Owens.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
The blog Power and Control makes the point, "Voting coalitions are ruled by the least committed members. So the question to the cultural conservatives is: do you want 2004 to be the Republican high water mark or would you like to extend the string."
Some cultural conservatives reply, "So if cultural conservatives would just give up on the main issue which keeps them in the Republican Party, then the GOP would enjoy a longer period of political control in Washington?If you put yourself in the culturecon's shoes, you have to ask yourself 'What's the point?!' If the party doesn't fight for what really matters to you, why should you give a flip about the party's success?"
Sort answers include,
1) incremental wins
2) preventing the other side from doing worse things
3) the ability to create spaces where your wing of the party gets to advance its agenda (much easier in a federalist system than a unitary one)
What Power and Control's author understands is that parties are coalitions. Diverse groups of (yet still further diverse individuals) interests working together to advance more of their agenda then they could with any other likely coalition. Some members of coalitions are loose. That is they cross over frequently to the other side, but remain affiliated with the coalition. Some members are not affiliated, but justed the coalition just because the agenda appealed more (possibly every so slightly more) than the other agenda. Let's also make allowances for external circumstances, such as family party affiliation, past party affiliation, geography, and so forth. The more you look into it, the more parties are just vessels for interests to organize and have no particular ideology themselves. This is one of the reasons that parties can swap ideology.
The social conservative view represented in Power and Control's comments goes on to say, "If you really believe that the Republican Party is a coalition, then I would remind you that coalition partners are in a coalition to further their own interests, not those of their fellow members. And it is very important for you to remember this: if you sacrifice the objectives of one of your constituencies, don't count on that constituency being very committed."
Coalitions who don't cooperate on the interests of other coalition members, but only seek their own agenda are not effective coalitions. Coalition partners who don't understand that they have to compromise with other partners are hurting their coalition. There is no interest that can govern by itself. Only coalitions of interests can govern.
People who put a socially conservative agenda at the top of their concerns are not a majority of the Republican coalition and are a minority of the Democratic coalition. This means they need to comprimise with enough moderates to get something rather than nothing. Its clear that some people would rather get nothing and remain ideologically pure, than to get some thing now and possibly impress a larger number with the success of this policy. Education reform has traditionally be very incremental drawing on the huge numbers of local programs out there. No one gets 100% of what they want in education.
Too many people who share their opinions with a quarter or less of the American people get mad that they can't get their will imposed on the whole country. When people on the other side hear this frustration, or maybe just hear the agenda, come to the conclusion that the "religious right wants to impose its values on the country." The frustrating thing about this is that its the result of people generalizing from a small group of people who don't understand politics.
Parties are effective when they advance a broad agenda with the cooperation of most of the coalition on each point of the agenda.
Some cultural conservatives reply, "So if cultural conservatives would just give up on the main issue which keeps them in the Republican Party, then the GOP would enjoy a longer period of political control in Washington?If you put yourself in the culturecon's shoes, you have to ask yourself 'What's the point?!' If the party doesn't fight for what really matters to you, why should you give a flip about the party's success?"
Sort answers include,
1) incremental wins
2) preventing the other side from doing worse things
3) the ability to create spaces where your wing of the party gets to advance its agenda (much easier in a federalist system than a unitary one)
What Power and Control's author understands is that parties are coalitions. Diverse groups of (yet still further diverse individuals) interests working together to advance more of their agenda then they could with any other likely coalition. Some members of coalitions are loose. That is they cross over frequently to the other side, but remain affiliated with the coalition. Some members are not affiliated, but justed the coalition just because the agenda appealed more (possibly every so slightly more) than the other agenda. Let's also make allowances for external circumstances, such as family party affiliation, past party affiliation, geography, and so forth. The more you look into it, the more parties are just vessels for interests to organize and have no particular ideology themselves. This is one of the reasons that parties can swap ideology.
The social conservative view represented in Power and Control's comments goes on to say, "If you really believe that the Republican Party is a coalition, then I would remind you that coalition partners are in a coalition to further their own interests, not those of their fellow members. And it is very important for you to remember this: if you sacrifice the objectives of one of your constituencies, don't count on that constituency being very committed."
Coalitions who don't cooperate on the interests of other coalition members, but only seek their own agenda are not effective coalitions. Coalition partners who don't understand that they have to compromise with other partners are hurting their coalition. There is no interest that can govern by itself. Only coalitions of interests can govern.
People who put a socially conservative agenda at the top of their concerns are not a majority of the Republican coalition and are a minority of the Democratic coalition. This means they need to comprimise with enough moderates to get something rather than nothing. Its clear that some people would rather get nothing and remain ideologically pure, than to get some thing now and possibly impress a larger number with the success of this policy. Education reform has traditionally be very incremental drawing on the huge numbers of local programs out there. No one gets 100% of what they want in education.
Too many people who share their opinions with a quarter or less of the American people get mad that they can't get their will imposed on the whole country. When people on the other side hear this frustration, or maybe just hear the agenda, come to the conclusion that the "religious right wants to impose its values on the country." The frustrating thing about this is that its the result of people generalizing from a small group of people who don't understand politics.
Parties are effective when they advance a broad agenda with the cooperation of most of the coalition on each point of the agenda.
Monday, November 08, 2004
More Semantics
I see that Mystery Pollster is also dealing with the problem of "Moral Values" as a problem for voting analysis.
I see that Mystery Pollster is also dealing with the problem of "Moral Values" as a problem for voting analysis.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Semantics
Yesterday [ed. actually this morning, but seperated by eight hours sleep], I wrote about the semantics of the exit polling. Roger L. Simon does the same thing with the semantics of moral vision. Does it mean opposition to gay marriage and stem cell research, or the will to confront terrorism in the Middle East?
Yesterday [ed. actually this morning, but seperated by eight hours sleep], I wrote about the semantics of the exit polling. Roger L. Simon does the same thing with the semantics of moral vision. Does it mean opposition to gay marriage and stem cell research, or the will to confront terrorism in the Middle East?
A Unity Ticket?
Over at Evangelical Outpost, Joe Carter is discussing Kerry's attempts to woo McCain. Most of the comments section rejects the notion as impractical. For a unity ticket to work, its actually got to be a unity ticket, not just window dressing. Cabinet appointments must either cross the political spectrum or concentrate on the center right and center left, draw from both parties, and generally reach deeply into both parties.
Consider the following scenario. After 9-11, the administration, which had already hung on to several Clinton appointees, including Clark, consults with top Democrats like Lieberman, Biden, Breaux, and others to fill out vacant spots in the administration. In December, when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neal leaves, a fiscally conservative Democrat is selected. A "Scoop Jackson" Democrat is selected to head up Homeland Security. Before the primary pre-season begins, Bush reaches out to Lieberman and plans are made to run a Bush-Lieberman ticket of national unity. The Democrats run some anti-war candidates, but a lot of Dems support the unity ticket. This would increase the 1864 parallels.
Would such a scenario have been better? Who knows, but as far as viable unity tickets are concerned, they require this level of bipartisanship.
Over at Evangelical Outpost, Joe Carter is discussing Kerry's attempts to woo McCain. Most of the comments section rejects the notion as impractical. For a unity ticket to work, its actually got to be a unity ticket, not just window dressing. Cabinet appointments must either cross the political spectrum or concentrate on the center right and center left, draw from both parties, and generally reach deeply into both parties.
Consider the following scenario. After 9-11, the administration, which had already hung on to several Clinton appointees, including Clark, consults with top Democrats like Lieberman, Biden, Breaux, and others to fill out vacant spots in the administration. In December, when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neal leaves, a fiscally conservative Democrat is selected. A "Scoop Jackson" Democrat is selected to head up Homeland Security. Before the primary pre-season begins, Bush reaches out to Lieberman and plans are made to run a Bush-Lieberman ticket of national unity. The Democrats run some anti-war candidates, but a lot of Dems support the unity ticket. This would increase the 1864 parallels.
Would such a scenario have been better? Who knows, but as far as viable unity tickets are concerned, they require this level of bipartisanship.
Arlen Specter
I've always liked Arlen Specter. Once again, conservatives far enough to the right to find Specter unacceptable are attempting to derail him. Those conservatives don't have the votes or the public support to govern. Nominating Federal judges that don't get confirmed is a form of fetishism. Todd Zywicki, over at The Volokh Conspiracy, argues that these nominations are a zero sum game, and that moderate appointments don't change the calculus. Maybe, but continuing to nominate very conservative judges won't change that, but probabaly reinforces the zero sum mentality. As Infidel Cowboy argues, the difference between the two parties' vote totals are too close, and the strength of the hard right too small to try and govern from the right.
I am glad to see Hugh Hewitt takes a similar line.
I've always liked Arlen Specter. Once again, conservatives far enough to the right to find Specter unacceptable are attempting to derail him. Those conservatives don't have the votes or the public support to govern. Nominating Federal judges that don't get confirmed is a form of fetishism. Todd Zywicki, over at The Volokh Conspiracy, argues that these nominations are a zero sum game, and that moderate appointments don't change the calculus. Maybe, but continuing to nominate very conservative judges won't change that, but probabaly reinforces the zero sum mentality. As Infidel Cowboy argues, the difference between the two parties' vote totals are too close, and the strength of the hard right too small to try and govern from the right.
I am glad to see Hugh Hewitt takes a similar line.
Positivism
This philosophy has been my central area of study for a year or so now. I find its ideas throughout the modern world, depite the explicit fall of Positivism in the middle of the last century. Whether its the influence of Positivism in education, or technocracy as a form of stasism, I think its not only one of the fundamental ideological positions presently, but has been since its articulation nearly two hundred years ago. Any number of people, like Virginia Postrel, argue that its not about right and left, but identifies dynamists, reactionaries, and technocrats. If I were to rename these groups Enlightenment liberals, reactionaries, and positivists, I think it becomes obvious that this isn't a post-Cold War innovation.
This philosophy has been my central area of study for a year or so now. I find its ideas throughout the modern world, depite the explicit fall of Positivism in the middle of the last century. Whether its the influence of Positivism in education, or technocracy as a form of stasism, I think its not only one of the fundamental ideological positions presently, but has been since its articulation nearly two hundred years ago. Any number of people, like Virginia Postrel, argue that its not about right and left, but identifies dynamists, reactionaries, and technocrats. If I were to rename these groups Enlightenment liberals, reactionaries, and positivists, I think it becomes obvious that this isn't a post-Cold War innovation.
The More Important Issue: Iraq or Terrorism
I have seen pundits discussing the issue of how the answer this question correlated with voting preference. I think the question is false because of problems of defenition. Those who saw Iraq as a seperate issue also saw it as a problem with Bush. Those who saw Iraq as part of a broader war on terror, and so said Terrorism, were more accepting of the dificulties which accompany warfare, and favored the President.
I have seen pundits discussing the issue of how the answer this question correlated with voting preference. I think the question is false because of problems of defenition. Those who saw Iraq as a seperate issue also saw it as a problem with Bush. Those who saw Iraq as part of a broader war on terror, and so said Terrorism, were more accepting of the dificulties which accompany warfare, and favored the President.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Debates #2
Question 3
"What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?"
The Question presumes misjudgment and so allows a list as an answer rather than some argument to support the notion that any misjudgment was made. Kerry claims, "First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance." Apparently for Kerry a true alliance is not one where the participants share a worldview, wish to participate, and don't need coddling. A true alliance is one where consensus is achieved by all of the members of the security council, regardless of the fact that they often have irreconcilable policy goals, because we can have a summit. "...That he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections." On the contrary, Bush argued the opposite, that when the UN speaks, it has to mean what it says, and that he would enforce resolutions for the UN, even without the UN. "Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections.
We had Saddam Hussein trapped." A profound misreading of the situation. "He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. 'Last resort.'" Its means "after its too late". Kerry will wait until the costs of action have skyrocketed.
"You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, 'I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter.'" This is a recipie for no action. Everything about Kerry says no action. His standard for consenus will prevent any action, waiting until action is absolutly neccesary will prevent action, and wanting to be able to look into the eyes of grieving parents means no action. This is the true Kerry, his claims that he intends to win, that he won't waver is just a lie. "And we pushed our allies aside." France and Germany are the only allies that matter to Kerry, and their illegal ties to Saddam don't give him a moment of pause. "And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion." Kerry's failure to recognize that our wealth and power is perponderant is such a profound failure of understanding, one wonders if he thinks Elvis Presley will sing at his inauguration. "$200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq." Twenty years of Senate votes attest to the idea that Kerry would always prefer to defund defense and intelligence for social spending. News Flash Senator, this is not a road to victory. Forget Elvis, Kerry wants Bach to play. "And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. " Kerry either ignores the explanation of what Iraq is intended to do, he's a liar, or an idiot. Very likely all three.
Bush pointed out Kerry's earlier statements supporting deposing Saddam and intervening in Iraq. Sensible for a 30 second responce.
Question 4
"What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?"
Bush said, "Jim, we've got the capability of doing both." So obvious its stunning.
"As a matter of fact, this is a global effort." So it must be if victory is the goal.
"To say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror." Stunningly obvious.
Kerry repeats his embarassing analysis which is as off the mark as his analysis of Vietnam and the Cold War. If Kerry says the sun rises in the east, I advise you to verify that yourself.
"You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need." Armor of any kind has very specific advantages, normally being light and agile is better than being heavily armored. "10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren't armored." We have armored vehicles. There is a reason we didn't armor the Humvee. There is a reason we don't have a completely mechanized and armored army.
Question 3
"What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?"
The Question presumes misjudgment and so allows a list as an answer rather than some argument to support the notion that any misjudgment was made. Kerry claims, "First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance." Apparently for Kerry a true alliance is not one where the participants share a worldview, wish to participate, and don't need coddling. A true alliance is one where consensus is achieved by all of the members of the security council, regardless of the fact that they often have irreconcilable policy goals, because we can have a summit. "...That he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections." On the contrary, Bush argued the opposite, that when the UN speaks, it has to mean what it says, and that he would enforce resolutions for the UN, even without the UN. "Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections.
We had Saddam Hussein trapped." A profound misreading of the situation. "He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. 'Last resort.'" Its means "after its too late". Kerry will wait until the costs of action have skyrocketed.
"You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, 'I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter.'" This is a recipie for no action. Everything about Kerry says no action. His standard for consenus will prevent any action, waiting until action is absolutly neccesary will prevent action, and wanting to be able to look into the eyes of grieving parents means no action. This is the true Kerry, his claims that he intends to win, that he won't waver is just a lie. "And we pushed our allies aside." France and Germany are the only allies that matter to Kerry, and their illegal ties to Saddam don't give him a moment of pause. "And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion." Kerry's failure to recognize that our wealth and power is perponderant is such a profound failure of understanding, one wonders if he thinks Elvis Presley will sing at his inauguration. "$200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq." Twenty years of Senate votes attest to the idea that Kerry would always prefer to defund defense and intelligence for social spending. News Flash Senator, this is not a road to victory. Forget Elvis, Kerry wants Bach to play. "And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. " Kerry either ignores the explanation of what Iraq is intended to do, he's a liar, or an idiot. Very likely all three.
Bush pointed out Kerry's earlier statements supporting deposing Saddam and intervening in Iraq. Sensible for a 30 second responce.
Question 4
"What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?"
Bush said, "Jim, we've got the capability of doing both." So obvious its stunning.
"As a matter of fact, this is a global effort." So it must be if victory is the goal.
"To say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror." Stunningly obvious.
Kerry repeats his embarassing analysis which is as off the mark as his analysis of Vietnam and the Cold War. If Kerry says the sun rises in the east, I advise you to verify that yourself.
"You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need." Armor of any kind has very specific advantages, normally being light and agile is better than being heavily armored. "10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren't armored." We have armored vehicles. There is a reason we didn't armor the Humvee. There is a reason we don't have a completely mechanized and armored army.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
The Debates #1
Eighteen Questions and closing statements, lets have a look. I watched the debates, and will be following the text at CNN.com's transcript.
Question 1
"Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?"
This is a bad question. What idiot says no to this question? The whole series of debate quetsions are frequently bad examples of question framing because there is one obvious right answer. A good question is open-ended, such as "What is your plan to prevent another 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States?" Such a question does not waste time with the "my plan can beat up your plan" part of the answer.
Kerry's plan here is to make us better liked by those who are alienated by Bush's Iraq policy. This will greatly reduce the chance of a 9/11 terrorist attack from French state terrorists. Its not likely to have any effect on states or groups that already hate us. Kerry will have a summit with allies and they will hold hands in a circle and a fairy will sprinkle magic dust on the participants. To take Kerry a little more seriously, Kerry's mistake here is to think that more could be done. People like the French, Germans, and Russians are already sharing intelligence on terrorists, where we have problems with the is our Iraq policy, not in fighting terrorists outside of Iraq. Kerry is offering a platiutude. Yeah, I like apple pie too. Apple pie doesn't stop terrorism. Kerry also claims he can do a better job training Iraqi's, preparing for election, and mixing a Tom Collins. He can say he sings better than Bing Crosby and dances better than Fred Astaire, but I didn't see him in Holiday Inn. Claims offered with no articulation of a plan are arguments about nothing more than character. Take my word for it. Rather than allowing citzens to evaluate evidence critically to determine which claims were sensible and which were preferable, we were given nothing but an empty claim.
Bush offered the following: "Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice." A doctrine that extends guilt to those who offer support or refuge, denying terrorists sanctuary in states where the "you're with us or against us" line has pushed the line of cooperation as far as it is likey to go. Is this a coalition of the coerced, yes. Lybia was coerced into abandoning terror sponsorships and WMD programs. Good thing, I say. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia went from being Taliban supporters to active allies in the war on terror. They didn't do that because we asked real nice. "In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it." Solid explanation of the rational. He contines a few lines later by saying, "we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror." That's it in a nutshell.
Question 2
"Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?"
Another dumb question. Assuming that Kerry had offered a plan in question 1, this question would be unnecesary, even if rephrased into an open-ended question, like why is your plan better, point by point. As it is, this is just a restatement of the first question, an a waste of time.
For example, Bush just rejects the premise of a Kerry victory and goes on about what a leader he is. He says some good things, like, "This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate," and, "The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty." Good solid stuff, but its not an answer to the question. I will say that Bush was probabaly playing the nice guy by answer the question in some form of a "no". Pat Cadell suggests that Bush was wooing women and independents who didn't want to see the kind of toughness we saw at the Convention. There is a women who has said that several times on Brit Hume's show (not Maura Liason, maybe CeCe Conally?), and there may be others who thought he should. I think the better answer would have been, "Because the chance of another major attack decreases when we engage the enemy in the middle east, rather than allowing him to plan a major action, my more aggressive policy does a better job preventing a possible subsequent attack. Right now, many terrorists are too busy trying to prevent Iraq from building a foundation for democracy to attack us here. Suppose we both withdrew from Iraq and established a lasting peace, what would the terrorists do when they left? They would plan more attacks."
Eighteen Questions and closing statements, lets have a look. I watched the debates, and will be following the text at CNN.com's transcript.
Question 1
"Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?"
This is a bad question. What idiot says no to this question? The whole series of debate quetsions are frequently bad examples of question framing because there is one obvious right answer. A good question is open-ended, such as "What is your plan to prevent another 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States?" Such a question does not waste time with the "my plan can beat up your plan" part of the answer.
Kerry's plan here is to make us better liked by those who are alienated by Bush's Iraq policy. This will greatly reduce the chance of a 9/11 terrorist attack from French state terrorists. Its not likely to have any effect on states or groups that already hate us. Kerry will have a summit with allies and they will hold hands in a circle and a fairy will sprinkle magic dust on the participants. To take Kerry a little more seriously, Kerry's mistake here is to think that more could be done. People like the French, Germans, and Russians are already sharing intelligence on terrorists, where we have problems with the is our Iraq policy, not in fighting terrorists outside of Iraq. Kerry is offering a platiutude. Yeah, I like apple pie too. Apple pie doesn't stop terrorism. Kerry also claims he can do a better job training Iraqi's, preparing for election, and mixing a Tom Collins. He can say he sings better than Bing Crosby and dances better than Fred Astaire, but I didn't see him in Holiday Inn. Claims offered with no articulation of a plan are arguments about nothing more than character. Take my word for it. Rather than allowing citzens to evaluate evidence critically to determine which claims were sensible and which were preferable, we were given nothing but an empty claim.
Bush offered the following: "Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice." A doctrine that extends guilt to those who offer support or refuge, denying terrorists sanctuary in states where the "you're with us or against us" line has pushed the line of cooperation as far as it is likey to go. Is this a coalition of the coerced, yes. Lybia was coerced into abandoning terror sponsorships and WMD programs. Good thing, I say. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia went from being Taliban supporters to active allies in the war on terror. They didn't do that because we asked real nice. "In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it." Solid explanation of the rational. He contines a few lines later by saying, "we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror." That's it in a nutshell.
Question 2
"Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?"
Another dumb question. Assuming that Kerry had offered a plan in question 1, this question would be unnecesary, even if rephrased into an open-ended question, like why is your plan better, point by point. As it is, this is just a restatement of the first question, an a waste of time.
For example, Bush just rejects the premise of a Kerry victory and goes on about what a leader he is. He says some good things, like, "This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate," and, "The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty." Good solid stuff, but its not an answer to the question. I will say that Bush was probabaly playing the nice guy by answer the question in some form of a "no". Pat Cadell suggests that Bush was wooing women and independents who didn't want to see the kind of toughness we saw at the Convention. There is a women who has said that several times on Brit Hume's show (not Maura Liason, maybe CeCe Conally?), and there may be others who thought he should. I think the better answer would have been, "Because the chance of another major attack decreases when we engage the enemy in the middle east, rather than allowing him to plan a major action, my more aggressive policy does a better job preventing a possible subsequent attack. Right now, many terrorists are too busy trying to prevent Iraq from building a foundation for democracy to attack us here. Suppose we both withdrew from Iraq and established a lasting peace, what would the terrorists do when they left? They would plan more attacks."
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Kofi fails to control his mouth
In the words of Mark Steyn, "The UN system designed to constrain Saddam was instead enriching him, through the Oil-for-Food programme, and enabling him to subsidise terrorism. Given that the Oil-for-Fraud programme was run directly out of Kofi Annan's office, the Secretary-General ought to have the decency to recognise that he had his chance with Iraq, he blew it, and a period of silence from him would now be welcome."
In the words of Mark Steyn, "The UN system designed to constrain Saddam was instead enriching him, through the Oil-for-Food programme, and enabling him to subsidise terrorism. Given that the Oil-for-Fraud programme was run directly out of Kofi Annan's office, the Secretary-General ought to have the decency to recognise that he had his chance with Iraq, he blew it, and a period of silence from him would now be welcome."
Saturday, September 18, 2004
First Hand Blog Reporting
My brother witnessed a fire, and got some pics. See what happened on my brother's blog.
My brother witnessed a fire, and got some pics. See what happened on my brother's blog.
O'Reilly losing his audience?
Bill O'Reilly has run afoul of people like Laura Ingraham, who criticize his embrace of terms of the left. I lost interest in him between April and July. I think that he became more interested in his posture as an independent that the truth of his analysis. More than anything, O'Reilly is just a contrarian. Click the July link to an article by VDH on people who float along following the news day, or in O'Reilly's case, opposed to the news day.
Bill O'Reilly has run afoul of people like Laura Ingraham, who criticize his embrace of terms of the left. I lost interest in him between April and July. I think that he became more interested in his posture as an independent that the truth of his analysis. More than anything, O'Reilly is just a contrarian. Click the July link to an article by VDH on people who float along following the news day, or in O'Reilly's case, opposed to the news day.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
The International Community?
Two articles have something very good to say on this subject. One is in Slate, which does a nice job on the inherent reasons broad coallitions are not capable of routine responce as needed. Anyone who has read up on the Napoleonic Wars can recognize that even when there are only four important players, getting them all together at once is just too much to ask most of the time. Of the seven coallitions formed, only the 6th, and 7th included all of the major powers, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. (The first coallition probabaly didn't need the strength of Russia, but the early withdrawl of Prussia doomed it.) Some more needs to be done on why we seem to be so in thrall of the idea of a consensus among the international powers. Victor Davis Hanson is probabaly the go to source for that.
Second is a six week old piece by Robert Kagan on the Kerry line, we should "only go to war because we have to." Kagan demonstrates that this reveals a more profound unilateralism than the Bush administration. Bush and his team is an internationalist one willing to work with those able to work with us at a given time. Kerry is arguing for an isolationist withdrawl from the international community. He knows full well, as Lee Smith pointed out in the piece mentioned above, that expecting the international community to ever form consensus is so rare that it nearly amonts to a guarantee of inaction. So Kerry's multilateralism is really just a mask for Jeffersonian isolationism.
Two articles have something very good to say on this subject. One is in Slate, which does a nice job on the inherent reasons broad coallitions are not capable of routine responce as needed. Anyone who has read up on the Napoleonic Wars can recognize that even when there are only four important players, getting them all together at once is just too much to ask most of the time. Of the seven coallitions formed, only the 6th, and 7th included all of the major powers, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. (The first coallition probabaly didn't need the strength of Russia, but the early withdrawl of Prussia doomed it.) Some more needs to be done on why we seem to be so in thrall of the idea of a consensus among the international powers. Victor Davis Hanson is probabaly the go to source for that.
Second is a six week old piece by Robert Kagan on the Kerry line, we should "only go to war because we have to." Kagan demonstrates that this reveals a more profound unilateralism than the Bush administration. Bush and his team is an internationalist one willing to work with those able to work with us at a given time. Kerry is arguing for an isolationist withdrawl from the international community. He knows full well, as Lee Smith pointed out in the piece mentioned above, that expecting the international community to ever form consensus is so rare that it nearly amonts to a guarantee of inaction. So Kerry's multilateralism is really just a mask for Jeffersonian isolationism.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Brooks on Hawk vs. Hawk
In this space I pointed to this NYTimes column by David Brooks. He argues that Hawks break down into gradualists and the confrontationalists. The gradualists argue for constant pressure, but against confrontation, because its frequently conter-productive. The confrontationalists argue for clearing out the enemy when we know where he is.
I will say that talking like a gradualist and occasionally being a confrontationalist is walking softly and carrying a big stick. Its the best of all possible policies. People like Bill Bennett rightly complain that talking like a confrontationalist and acting like a gradualist makes us look weak.
For myself, I'd say that my instincts tend more toward confrontationalism and my intellect tends to favor gradualism. I have no problems with confrontationalism per se, but I do agree with the gradualists that these things are won over the long term. I also dislike talking like a confrontationalist and acting in any other fashion. I'd rather talk like a gradualist, expect and plan for a long term commitment, and occasionally, unexpectedly, confront our enemies forcefully.
In this space I pointed to this NYTimes column by David Brooks. He argues that Hawks break down into gradualists and the confrontationalists. The gradualists argue for constant pressure, but against confrontation, because its frequently conter-productive. The confrontationalists argue for clearing out the enemy when we know where he is.
I will say that talking like a gradualist and occasionally being a confrontationalist is walking softly and carrying a big stick. Its the best of all possible policies. People like Bill Bennett rightly complain that talking like a confrontationalist and acting like a gradualist makes us look weak.
For myself, I'd say that my instincts tend more toward confrontationalism and my intellect tends to favor gradualism. I have no problems with confrontationalism per se, but I do agree with the gradualists that these things are won over the long term. I also dislike talking like a confrontationalist and acting in any other fashion. I'd rather talk like a gradualist, expect and plan for a long term commitment, and occasionally, unexpectedly, confront our enemies forcefully.
Theory
Kerry's strategy was to A) establish his bone fides as a warfighter, in order to B) criticize the Iraq war and the while Bush foriegn policy without being tarred as a loopy peacenik. It worked once, when Kerry testified in the Senate in '71. The strategy is being derailed because this time around Kerry can't establish his bone fides. His '71 testimony, his other anti-Vietnam activities, his career in the Senate all undermine the notion that Kerry is who he says he is. Most recently his own waffling on Iraq prevents him from establishing his hawkish credentials. Perhaps he keeps trying to move on to phase B only to realize that he hadn't completed A.
Kerry's strategy was to A) establish his bone fides as a warfighter, in order to B) criticize the Iraq war and the while Bush foriegn policy without being tarred as a loopy peacenik. It worked once, when Kerry testified in the Senate in '71. The strategy is being derailed because this time around Kerry can't establish his bone fides. His '71 testimony, his other anti-Vietnam activities, his career in the Senate all undermine the notion that Kerry is who he says he is. Most recently his own waffling on Iraq prevents him from establishing his hawkish credentials. Perhaps he keeps trying to move on to phase B only to realize that he hadn't completed A.
Monday, September 13, 2004
A Pattern Emerges
It seems there are a number of people who are reputed to have said one thing, then "recanted". I wonder. Recently, there is the case of Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor, and so well up the chain of command at the Texas National Guard for then Lt George Bush, now himself Commander-in-Chief. Originally CBS claimed Hodges as part of their authentication of the memos critcal of Bush's service. But, as ABC reports, "he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered." ABC also observes, "CBS responds: 'We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it.'"
CBS is claiming that Hodges is changing his story, Hodges is claiming the press misled him. "According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were 'handwritten' and after CBS read him excerpts he said, 'well if he wrote them that's what he felt.'" ABC goes on to say, "His personal belief is that the documents have been 'computer generated' and are a 'fraud'."
So, did Hodges change his tune, as CBS claims, or did CBS lie to him to get him to say what they wanted? And how prevelent is it for these supposed recantations to be media misquotes or distortions? And how often does the press describe a correction of its own errors as a recantation by a source? "We didn't err, our source recanted." Or perhaps, more honestly, "Our source caught us lying about what they said, but that won't match our story, so we'll attempt to discredit them."
Also, check out Mark Steyn on this subject
It seems there are a number of people who are reputed to have said one thing, then "recanted". I wonder. Recently, there is the case of Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor, and so well up the chain of command at the Texas National Guard for then Lt George Bush, now himself Commander-in-Chief. Originally CBS claimed Hodges as part of their authentication of the memos critcal of Bush's service. But, as ABC reports, "he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered." ABC also observes, "CBS responds: 'We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it.'"
CBS is claiming that Hodges is changing his story, Hodges is claiming the press misled him. "According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were 'handwritten' and after CBS read him excerpts he said, 'well if he wrote them that's what he felt.'" ABC goes on to say, "His personal belief is that the documents have been 'computer generated' and are a 'fraud'."
So, did Hodges change his tune, as CBS claims, or did CBS lie to him to get him to say what they wanted? And how prevelent is it for these supposed recantations to be media misquotes or distortions? And how often does the press describe a correction of its own errors as a recantation by a source? "We didn't err, our source recanted." Or perhaps, more honestly, "Our source caught us lying about what they said, but that won't match our story, so we'll attempt to discredit them."
Also, check out Mark Steyn on this subject
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Cheney v Edwards
This Monday, Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term. "I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq," Kerry said. He called the president's talk about a coalition fighting alongside about 125,000 U.S. troops "the phoniest thing I've ever heard." Apparently, Kerry thinks that the war has consequences, and that there is a difference between doing it right and doing it wrong. Indeed, Kerry told a West Virginia rally the "W" in Bush's name stood for "wrong -- wrong choices, wrong judgment, wrong priorities, wrong direction for our country" on everything from jobs to Iraq.
It turns out that Dick Cheney also thinks the war has consequences and that there is a right way and a wrong way to prosecute the war. It therefore follows that if the two candidacies have such differing visions, the Kerry vision might well be consequencial and wrong. That adds up to dangerous. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told supporters at a town-hall meeting.
Kerry claims he would do everything differently, including pulling out of Iraq and claiming to be able to internationalize the war. Kerry claims to be able to bring the troops home with honor and quickly, he claims to be able to bring in new international partners. To many of us this sounds like a combination of fantasy (there simply are no available troops to replace Americans) and cutting and running. Consequential and wrong: dangerous.
John Edwards replied, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that. John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."
So, apparently, Kerry can suggest that Bush's policy is harmful, risky, and a distraction, which is to say that it risks harmful consequences, but heaven forbid the other guys say this about Kerry. To suggest that is an unAmerican scare tactic. Edwards may think that the Kerry/Edwards program would do that, but reasonable people might believe its harmful, risky, and dangerous. You simply can't call the other guy's policy bad without expecting him to call your plan bad.
This Monday, Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term. "I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq," Kerry said. He called the president's talk about a coalition fighting alongside about 125,000 U.S. troops "the phoniest thing I've ever heard." Apparently, Kerry thinks that the war has consequences, and that there is a difference between doing it right and doing it wrong. Indeed, Kerry told a West Virginia rally the "W" in Bush's name stood for "wrong -- wrong choices, wrong judgment, wrong priorities, wrong direction for our country" on everything from jobs to Iraq.
It turns out that Dick Cheney also thinks the war has consequences and that there is a right way and a wrong way to prosecute the war. It therefore follows that if the two candidacies have such differing visions, the Kerry vision might well be consequencial and wrong. That adds up to dangerous. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told supporters at a town-hall meeting.
Kerry claims he would do everything differently, including pulling out of Iraq and claiming to be able to internationalize the war. Kerry claims to be able to bring the troops home with honor and quickly, he claims to be able to bring in new international partners. To many of us this sounds like a combination of fantasy (there simply are no available troops to replace Americans) and cutting and running. Consequential and wrong: dangerous.
John Edwards replied, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that. John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."
So, apparently, Kerry can suggest that Bush's policy is harmful, risky, and a distraction, which is to say that it risks harmful consequences, but heaven forbid the other guys say this about Kerry. To suggest that is an unAmerican scare tactic. Edwards may think that the Kerry/Edwards program would do that, but reasonable people might believe its harmful, risky, and dangerous. You simply can't call the other guy's policy bad without expecting him to call your plan bad.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
EU President: Smooth Operator
The EU President, the Dutch Bernard Bot, put out a statement about the school siege in Beslan which said, "We would like to know from the Russian authorities how this tragedy could have happened." The Russians were not amused. According to EUObserver, the Russian Foriegn Minister replied, "In a situation when the whole world knew that the main priority was saving children, and that there would be no storming, to hear such words from a minister seems to us to be blasphemy." Bot promised to smooth things over with the Russian Foriegn Minister, but the Russians aren't in any apparent hurry to actually make contact with Bot. According to the Financial Times, "Bot's aides said Mr Lavrov was travelling in the Middle East and was hard to contact, shrugging off suggestions of a possible snub." Uh huh.
The EU President, the Dutch Bernard Bot, put out a statement about the school siege in Beslan which said, "We would like to know from the Russian authorities how this tragedy could have happened." The Russians were not amused. According to EUObserver, the Russian Foriegn Minister replied, "In a situation when the whole world knew that the main priority was saving children, and that there would be no storming, to hear such words from a minister seems to us to be blasphemy." Bot promised to smooth things over with the Russian Foriegn Minister, but the Russians aren't in any apparent hurry to actually make contact with Bot. According to the Financial Times, "Bot's aides said Mr Lavrov was travelling in the Middle East and was hard to contact, shrugging off suggestions of a possible snub." Uh huh.
Democrats for Bush
Google the phrase 'Democrats for Bush' and what you find is entirely based on terror, foriegn policy, and embrace of the Truman-Kennedy strength and committment to democracy. No one other than Zell Miller talks about how the President represents the values of the heartland. Zell is a dinosour and if he had much more of a public career ahead of him would end up switching parties. Democrats for Bush, or 9-11 Democrats are voting on the issue of foriegn policy.
Google the phrase 'Democrats for Bush' and what you find is entirely based on terror, foriegn policy, and embrace of the Truman-Kennedy strength and committment to democracy. No one other than Zell Miller talks about how the President represents the values of the heartland. Zell is a dinosour and if he had much more of a public career ahead of him would end up switching parties. Democrats for Bush, or 9-11 Democrats are voting on the issue of foriegn policy.
More and more Dems drink the Kool-Aid
The party of McGovern seems more and more unhinged. Loopy partisans are always out there in the wings, but they seem to be going mainstream, while the mainstream Dems go loopy. The Vince-Foster-was-murdered people never gained a central place in the party. As the American Spectator began to devote itself to Clinton conspiracy theories, it lost readership. The Left, starting with paranoid delusions of a "great right-wing conspiracy", through anguish at their failure to steal the election (a theft which they then projected on the Republicans) in Florida, through 9-11, Iraq, and Michael Moore have gone so far off the deep end, I think they are performing miracles of self-destruction.
I accept the conventional wisdom that the country was evenly divided and that the margin of undecideds was small. So my own explanation of the 11 point Bush lead is that Democratic frothing at the mouth is killing them. Some voters either vote Democratic or go fishing. More and more are staking out a spot by the lake. Some voters are undecided and are going for Bush. And non-voters may come out to support the President rather than see the party of madness and lunacy (I'm referring to Terry McAuliffe, Michael Moore, and most recently, and regrettably, Susan Estrich) gain control of the White House.
Responsible Democrats have two choices. One, they can opt for the approach taken by Randy Kelly, Ron Silver, or Ed Koch, and support the President on the issues of terror and democracy abroad while opposing him on issues like abortion or stem cell research. Two, they can lament the hate so many in their party have towards so many Republicans, and hope that once in power their leaders will be forced to adopt a more responsible policy and tone. Voting Democratic implies that you either agree with the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, or believe that they will come to their senses once they win.
I strongly believe that once a politician goes over the deep end, they are broken and cannot be put back together. Some of these people, say Gore, are so damaged by the contested election of 2000 that they can never be let near to the levers of power again. This is the central lesson of Nixon. Others were never on an even keel, and should never have been let in in the first place. These wackos are generally not politicians but activists and propagandists.
As more and more Dems cut loose their ties to responsible politics and give in to hate and venom, the party faces a longer and more profound wander in the woods. This may well be neccesary to purge the party of its madness and help the party re-invent itself. The Democrats chose not to embrace the Clintonian Third Way without Clinton. So, some new approach will have to be discovered.
The party of McGovern seems more and more unhinged. Loopy partisans are always out there in the wings, but they seem to be going mainstream, while the mainstream Dems go loopy. The Vince-Foster-was-murdered people never gained a central place in the party. As the American Spectator began to devote itself to Clinton conspiracy theories, it lost readership. The Left, starting with paranoid delusions of a "great right-wing conspiracy", through anguish at their failure to steal the election (a theft which they then projected on the Republicans) in Florida, through 9-11, Iraq, and Michael Moore have gone so far off the deep end, I think they are performing miracles of self-destruction.
I accept the conventional wisdom that the country was evenly divided and that the margin of undecideds was small. So my own explanation of the 11 point Bush lead is that Democratic frothing at the mouth is killing them. Some voters either vote Democratic or go fishing. More and more are staking out a spot by the lake. Some voters are undecided and are going for Bush. And non-voters may come out to support the President rather than see the party of madness and lunacy (I'm referring to Terry McAuliffe, Michael Moore, and most recently, and regrettably, Susan Estrich) gain control of the White House.
Responsible Democrats have two choices. One, they can opt for the approach taken by Randy Kelly, Ron Silver, or Ed Koch, and support the President on the issues of terror and democracy abroad while opposing him on issues like abortion or stem cell research. Two, they can lament the hate so many in their party have towards so many Republicans, and hope that once in power their leaders will be forced to adopt a more responsible policy and tone. Voting Democratic implies that you either agree with the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, or believe that they will come to their senses once they win.
I strongly believe that once a politician goes over the deep end, they are broken and cannot be put back together. Some of these people, say Gore, are so damaged by the contested election of 2000 that they can never be let near to the levers of power again. This is the central lesson of Nixon. Others were never on an even keel, and should never have been let in in the first place. These wackos are generally not politicians but activists and propagandists.
As more and more Dems cut loose their ties to responsible politics and give in to hate and venom, the party faces a longer and more profound wander in the woods. This may well be neccesary to purge the party of its madness and help the party re-invent itself. The Democrats chose not to embrace the Clintonian Third Way without Clinton. So, some new approach will have to be discovered.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Mark Steyn
Somehow he manages to write about the Beslan school business rather than the hurricane. As usual he's right on.
Somehow he manages to write about the Beslan school business rather than the hurricane. As usual he's right on.
All Hurricane All the Time
Who is this constant hurricane coverage for? What about the school takeover in Beslan? The downed Russian planes? The Kerry campaign shakeup? The campiagning in the Ohio Valley by both candidates? The new polls showing Bush up by 11 points? An election in Mexico? The Sudan genocide? And there are other natural disasters, a flood in China and an earthquake in Japan. Hello? Is there more to news than pictures of Florida hurricanes?
Who is this constant hurricane coverage for? What about the school takeover in Beslan? The downed Russian planes? The Kerry campaign shakeup? The campiagning in the Ohio Valley by both candidates? The new polls showing Bush up by 11 points? An election in Mexico? The Sudan genocide? And there are other natural disasters, a flood in China and an earthquake in Japan. Hello? Is there more to news than pictures of Florida hurricanes?
Monday, August 30, 2004
Posner on the 9-11 Commisison Report
Its in the NYTimes and its quite perceptive.
Most interesting to me was his description of the FBI's limitations, especially in the area of counter-terrorism. "The F.B.I. is an excellent police department, but that is all it is."
Its in the NYTimes and its quite perceptive.
Most interesting to me was his description of the FBI's limitations, especially in the area of counter-terrorism. "The F.B.I. is an excellent police department, but that is all it is."
More on the committed voter
Most voters are committed, and a plurality are probabaly strongly committed. The truely undecided are smallish, probabaly less than 10%. As a result, when network execs and print editors consider whether to cover the issues or the horserace, they opt for the horserace, because the audience is bigger. If 50% is strongly committed, 40% is weakly committed, and 10% is undecided, I would expect 75% of the coverage to be horserace, and 25% to be a mixture of serious and attractive issues. Attractive issues, those which attract viewers but don't really have any bearing on the capacity to govern, are neccesary for ratings. Serious issues are complex and require sustained attention. People who pay close attention to issues and read the kinds of sustained issue oriented pieces tend to be the cmmitted voters, strongly or weakly. The true undecided often is either not paying attention until the last minute or is only paying a scant bit of attention.
So its natural that television coverage and a good deal of the daily press will cover the horserace and will not do a good job with the issues. There just isn't an audience for it. The political press, be it The New Republic, the Weekly Standard, or whatnot, is being read by active political people, not undecideds.
Most voters are committed, and a plurality are probabaly strongly committed. The truely undecided are smallish, probabaly less than 10%. As a result, when network execs and print editors consider whether to cover the issues or the horserace, they opt for the horserace, because the audience is bigger. If 50% is strongly committed, 40% is weakly committed, and 10% is undecided, I would expect 75% of the coverage to be horserace, and 25% to be a mixture of serious and attractive issues. Attractive issues, those which attract viewers but don't really have any bearing on the capacity to govern, are neccesary for ratings. Serious issues are complex and require sustained attention. People who pay close attention to issues and read the kinds of sustained issue oriented pieces tend to be the cmmitted voters, strongly or weakly. The true undecided often is either not paying attention until the last minute or is only paying a scant bit of attention.
So its natural that television coverage and a good deal of the daily press will cover the horserace and will not do a good job with the issues. There just isn't an audience for it. The political press, be it The New Republic, the Weekly Standard, or whatnot, is being read by active political people, not undecideds.
Conventions and their Moderate Speakers
People said that the Democratic delegates were far more liberal than the Convention presented. They shifted toward the center. Now the same is being said about the Republicans, especially in terms of their speakers. I would think this is obvious, but it seems to confound many observers. The activists of both parties will by necessity be less centrist than the country. For one thing, the parties are more ideological, as Jim jeopardize and Zell Miller illustrate. This is a problem for the two-party system, but parties don't represent ideological diversity any more. So who will take the time and trouble to participate in political campaigns? Who will go to conventions? The ideologically committed. Ideologically committed centrist don't have a party. They cross back and forth, they are swing voters. So the parties, with a base on the left and right then reach out to the center to win them over to their side for this or that election. So of course parties will put on a more moderate face as they reach out to the center. How else could it be? Any discussion that fails to recognize this seems to me to be fundamentally confused.
People said that the Democratic delegates were far more liberal than the Convention presented. They shifted toward the center. Now the same is being said about the Republicans, especially in terms of their speakers. I would think this is obvious, but it seems to confound many observers. The activists of both parties will by necessity be less centrist than the country. For one thing, the parties are more ideological, as Jim jeopardize and Zell Miller illustrate. This is a problem for the two-party system, but parties don't represent ideological diversity any more. So who will take the time and trouble to participate in political campaigns? Who will go to conventions? The ideologically committed. Ideologically committed centrist don't have a party. They cross back and forth, they are swing voters. So the parties, with a base on the left and right then reach out to the center to win them over to their side for this or that election. So of course parties will put on a more moderate face as they reach out to the center. How else could it be? Any discussion that fails to recognize this seems to me to be fundamentally confused.
Kerry's worldview formed by Vietnam
The Belgravia Dispatch has a nice piece on this subject. If I haven't said it before, Kerry is the worst case I've ever seen of wanting to fight the last war. Of course what makes it worse is that he's actually several wars in the hole.
The Belgravia Dispatch has a nice piece on this subject. If I haven't said it before, Kerry is the worst case I've ever seen of wanting to fight the last war. Of course what makes it worse is that he's actually several wars in the hole.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Social Studies gone soft on Civics
PS, the journal of the American Political Science Association had an article this April on the decline of civics education in the public schools. Hat Tip to Wilson Quarterly, which does a nice round up of interesting pieces. I'll focus on a part of the problem which is often featured here, contentious ideological conflict by those setting the agenda. When Social Reconstructionists want to present a radical critique of American political and social institutions, traditionalists recoil and want it stopped. When Perennialists want to explain and defend the establishment, the left cries foul and tries to push the kind of unpopular critique that I have mentioned. The end result is no civics education. There are two issues here, academic inquiry and parental control of the message presented to their kids.
Intellectual honesty requires that that teachers teach all substantive arguments, not just the ones they like or that are popular in the community. Teacher's don't need to teach them all equally, they just need to give them a fair hearing. Parents, the administration, and others in the community have greater tolerance for a teacher who is fair, even if some material is not their cup of tea. When things get ugly is when the teacher is both out of step and unfair.
In a public school system, parents are also voters and taxpayers, so ultimately they govern. Thumb your nose at them and they may well come back hard with cuts in funding, targeted funding, or regulations and legislation. They are the consumers acting for their children. If teachers and schools attempt to usurp that authority they risk confronting the parent's much greater political power.
The solution is a civics program that is based on the wants and desires of the parents and community with substantial consideration of alternative views. Consideration needs to be limited by good method and respect for evidence. Students who know how to apply good social science methods and have a respect for evidence will have a robust commitment to good ideas and a resistance to bad ones.
PS, the journal of the American Political Science Association had an article this April on the decline of civics education in the public schools. Hat Tip to Wilson Quarterly, which does a nice round up of interesting pieces. I'll focus on a part of the problem which is often featured here, contentious ideological conflict by those setting the agenda. When Social Reconstructionists want to present a radical critique of American political and social institutions, traditionalists recoil and want it stopped. When Perennialists want to explain and defend the establishment, the left cries foul and tries to push the kind of unpopular critique that I have mentioned. The end result is no civics education. There are two issues here, academic inquiry and parental control of the message presented to their kids.
Intellectual honesty requires that that teachers teach all substantive arguments, not just the ones they like or that are popular in the community. Teacher's don't need to teach them all equally, they just need to give them a fair hearing. Parents, the administration, and others in the community have greater tolerance for a teacher who is fair, even if some material is not their cup of tea. When things get ugly is when the teacher is both out of step and unfair.
In a public school system, parents are also voters and taxpayers, so ultimately they govern. Thumb your nose at them and they may well come back hard with cuts in funding, targeted funding, or regulations and legislation. They are the consumers acting for their children. If teachers and schools attempt to usurp that authority they risk confronting the parent's much greater political power.
The solution is a civics program that is based on the wants and desires of the parents and community with substantial consideration of alternative views. Consideration needs to be limited by good method and respect for evidence. Students who know how to apply good social science methods and have a respect for evidence will have a robust commitment to good ideas and a resistance to bad ones.
Saudization
Good news from the oil kingdom. Saudization is a program to replace departing westerners with Saudi workers. As the war on terror continues, many westerners leave the kingdom. The Saudi's in the past filled many of their labor needs with foriegn workers, westerners for the high skilled jobs, mideasterners for the unskilled work. Saudis themselves would sit back fat and happy on oil revenues, so it was thought. The shift from an oil-funded idleness, which has proved so ammenable to radical Islam and terrorism, to a bourgious society of skilled workers will inevitably bring liberalism.
Some commontators, notably Dennis Prager, miss this point. They reject the Friedman thesis because the 9-11 terrorists were not unemployed in the way Americans think about unemployment. In America, unemployment means poverty and is closely associated in its long term forms with low educational attainment. But in other parts of the world where industrial or commodity social welfare provide education and comfortable living standards without labor, its possible to be frustrated by a lack of opportunity without living under an overpass. Conservatives recognize the argument that dependence breeds resentment, which is why Americans are so cool towards generous social welfare policies, but by the same token, we should recognize that where the welfare is abundant, dependence will still be a source of frustration. Sitting around with nothing to do funded by oil wealth is not a recipie for the development of a liberal society. Let's flip that around, Prager and others will recognize that an ethic of work produces classical liberalism. Put Saudi's to work producing goods and services for decent incomes and liberalization and modernity will follow. We have seen it all over the globe. A middle class based on professional and commercial activity produces a middle class with the kinds of values that are a rocky soil to the seeds of fanaticism.
Good news from the oil kingdom. Saudization is a program to replace departing westerners with Saudi workers. As the war on terror continues, many westerners leave the kingdom. The Saudi's in the past filled many of their labor needs with foriegn workers, westerners for the high skilled jobs, mideasterners for the unskilled work. Saudis themselves would sit back fat and happy on oil revenues, so it was thought. The shift from an oil-funded idleness, which has proved so ammenable to radical Islam and terrorism, to a bourgious society of skilled workers will inevitably bring liberalism.
Some commontators, notably Dennis Prager, miss this point. They reject the Friedman thesis because the 9-11 terrorists were not unemployed in the way Americans think about unemployment. In America, unemployment means poverty and is closely associated in its long term forms with low educational attainment. But in other parts of the world where industrial or commodity social welfare provide education and comfortable living standards without labor, its possible to be frustrated by a lack of opportunity without living under an overpass. Conservatives recognize the argument that dependence breeds resentment, which is why Americans are so cool towards generous social welfare policies, but by the same token, we should recognize that where the welfare is abundant, dependence will still be a source of frustration. Sitting around with nothing to do funded by oil wealth is not a recipie for the development of a liberal society. Let's flip that around, Prager and others will recognize that an ethic of work produces classical liberalism. Put Saudi's to work producing goods and services for decent incomes and liberalization and modernity will follow. We have seen it all over the globe. A middle class based on professional and commercial activity produces a middle class with the kinds of values that are a rocky soil to the seeds of fanaticism.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
How to use the Show-Me Standards 1.1
This will be a continuing description of how to use the Show-Me standards. It will proceed in order of the four goals and the forty-three sub-goals. This is part 1 of Goal 1.
Goal 1: Students in Missouri public schools will acquire the knowledge and skills to gather, analyze and apply information and ideas.
part 1: Students will demonstrate within and integrate across all content areas the ability to
develop questions and ideas to initiate and refine research
The heart of this subject is question framing. (Useful pieces on question framing are here and here.) We all know the familiar list of question to ask, who, where, when, how, what, and why. But which are the important questions to ask to support research?
Who, where, and when are fact based questions, so they will not sustain inquiry (except in some sophisticated questions, see below) and will not challenge the researcher. Often they can be answered conclusively by recourse to one authority. If I can look up the answer in a reference book, its not a good question.
How is a very profound question (except in science, where its often technical) that is often far beyond most students capacity. Unless a student is capable of collecting a lot of smaller questions under one large how, thinking profoundly about what it all means, and managing the length, a how question should be re-phrased to turn it into a what or why question. How questions presuppose a knowledge of what and why questions or a capacity to provide what and why answers en route to a how.
The best questions for most students are what and why questions. A what question explains the nature of a thing by assembling its characteristics in a meaningful way. Every student is capable of a what question, although the best students will provide much more interesting and abstract answers to a what than will the struggling student. A barely satisfactory what answer is little more than a collection of descriptions of characteristics, including who, where, and when that is comprehensive and coherent. A proficient what answer will not only be factually accurate (which the the basic minimum requried, without which, no answer is passing) but will be meaningful as well.
Its good that a student can tell me who fought the American Civil War, when it happened, where important events took place, and organize other information of a factual nature about the Civil War. Its better what a student can do all of that and tell me what it means. There are no right answers to the meaning part of this question, but teachers must remember that there are wrong answers. The American Civil War is not a Marxist uprising of a working class against a capitalist class. Too often teachers will slide too far to either looking for one right answer (their own) or accepting any nonsense that comes along. Critical thinking, sound analysis, and solid research require that any thesis be based on the best explanation of the facts presented, while dealing substantively with facts that don't support the thesis.
A why question implies a firm grasp of what. If a student argues that the American Civil War was an economic struggle emphizing the tariff, its pretty easy to see how that student could begin to answer the question why did the American Civil War happen? To the student who has no answer to what, why will remain a mystery. Often, as in my example, a what will lead quickly to a why, but it is important to remember that while the direction of the thesis is clear, a why question requires more reserach, more interpretation of factual data (compared to description), and more experience handling ideas. A why is more advanced than a what, but not beyond a properly prepared student with adequate time.
Note that even though I am giving examples from older students, the same applies to younger students. If the issue at hand is animal locomotion, a middle elementary science subject, every student should be able to tell me what flying is an how a bird uses it. (eg, To escape predetors and to exploit resources unavilable to walkers and swimmers.) This would also be a reasonable answer to a why question, although a good why answer will also deal with the costs of flying, thereby explaining flightless birds, like penguins. A good why always takes more account of unsupportive facts than a what, because its more interpretive.
Finally, some students will demonstrate that they are capable of sophisticated question framing. If you find them attempting to cram a good when question into a what or why, free them up to ask the when question. A good when question is a question of periodization. Like a why, its assumes a clear what answer. For example, when does the Civil War become inevitable? This is a good question. It does have one weakness, it implies that it was inevitable. I'd rather weaken the word inevitable, rather than attach a qualifier, such as "if ever". If a student was willing to consider that the evidence might support the answer, "it wasn't," I wouldn't object too much to this title.
Who were the Populists? If the answer is at least as solid as I suggested for a what question, there is no need to rephrase the question to be "what is a Populist." A good who question is a description of a movement or group as compelling as a what, and should be an obvious springboard to more advanced work.
Where questions that fit this catagory also involve some interpretation of place. Attempting to identify regions in the five themes of geography is properly this kind of question. A good where question isn't based on one data-set. Where are the tropical rain forests is a good question of students are predicting their location based on a variety of climate factors, its not a good question if they are consulting a map. Some where questions can be parallel to why questions. Where are the rain forests threatened, presupposes an answer to why are rainforests threatened. This question takes the why version and locates it geographically. That may raise interesting questions when conditions vary on the basis of some new ingredient.
All students should be able to answer proper what questions, most students should be able to move on to why questions, and a few students will always ask interesting questions no matter what words they use.
This will be a continuing description of how to use the Show-Me standards. It will proceed in order of the four goals and the forty-three sub-goals. This is part 1 of Goal 1.
Goal 1: Students in Missouri public schools will acquire the knowledge and skills to gather, analyze and apply information and ideas.
part 1: Students will demonstrate within and integrate across all content areas the ability to
develop questions and ideas to initiate and refine research
The heart of this subject is question framing. (Useful pieces on question framing are here and here.) We all know the familiar list of question to ask, who, where, when, how, what, and why. But which are the important questions to ask to support research?
Who, where, and when are fact based questions, so they will not sustain inquiry (except in some sophisticated questions, see below) and will not challenge the researcher. Often they can be answered conclusively by recourse to one authority. If I can look up the answer in a reference book, its not a good question.
How is a very profound question (except in science, where its often technical) that is often far beyond most students capacity. Unless a student is capable of collecting a lot of smaller questions under one large how, thinking profoundly about what it all means, and managing the length, a how question should be re-phrased to turn it into a what or why question. How questions presuppose a knowledge of what and why questions or a capacity to provide what and why answers en route to a how.
The best questions for most students are what and why questions. A what question explains the nature of a thing by assembling its characteristics in a meaningful way. Every student is capable of a what question, although the best students will provide much more interesting and abstract answers to a what than will the struggling student. A barely satisfactory what answer is little more than a collection of descriptions of characteristics, including who, where, and when that is comprehensive and coherent. A proficient what answer will not only be factually accurate (which the the basic minimum requried, without which, no answer is passing) but will be meaningful as well.
Its good that a student can tell me who fought the American Civil War, when it happened, where important events took place, and organize other information of a factual nature about the Civil War. Its better what a student can do all of that and tell me what it means. There are no right answers to the meaning part of this question, but teachers must remember that there are wrong answers. The American Civil War is not a Marxist uprising of a working class against a capitalist class. Too often teachers will slide too far to either looking for one right answer (their own) or accepting any nonsense that comes along. Critical thinking, sound analysis, and solid research require that any thesis be based on the best explanation of the facts presented, while dealing substantively with facts that don't support the thesis.
A why question implies a firm grasp of what. If a student argues that the American Civil War was an economic struggle emphizing the tariff, its pretty easy to see how that student could begin to answer the question why did the American Civil War happen? To the student who has no answer to what, why will remain a mystery. Often, as in my example, a what will lead quickly to a why, but it is important to remember that while the direction of the thesis is clear, a why question requires more reserach, more interpretation of factual data (compared to description), and more experience handling ideas. A why is more advanced than a what, but not beyond a properly prepared student with adequate time.
Note that even though I am giving examples from older students, the same applies to younger students. If the issue at hand is animal locomotion, a middle elementary science subject, every student should be able to tell me what flying is an how a bird uses it. (eg, To escape predetors and to exploit resources unavilable to walkers and swimmers.) This would also be a reasonable answer to a why question, although a good why answer will also deal with the costs of flying, thereby explaining flightless birds, like penguins. A good why always takes more account of unsupportive facts than a what, because its more interpretive.
Finally, some students will demonstrate that they are capable of sophisticated question framing. If you find them attempting to cram a good when question into a what or why, free them up to ask the when question. A good when question is a question of periodization. Like a why, its assumes a clear what answer. For example, when does the Civil War become inevitable? This is a good question. It does have one weakness, it implies that it was inevitable. I'd rather weaken the word inevitable, rather than attach a qualifier, such as "if ever". If a student was willing to consider that the evidence might support the answer, "it wasn't," I wouldn't object too much to this title.
Who were the Populists? If the answer is at least as solid as I suggested for a what question, there is no need to rephrase the question to be "what is a Populist." A good who question is a description of a movement or group as compelling as a what, and should be an obvious springboard to more advanced work.
Where questions that fit this catagory also involve some interpretation of place. Attempting to identify regions in the five themes of geography is properly this kind of question. A good where question isn't based on one data-set. Where are the tropical rain forests is a good question of students are predicting their location based on a variety of climate factors, its not a good question if they are consulting a map. Some where questions can be parallel to why questions. Where are the rain forests threatened, presupposes an answer to why are rainforests threatened. This question takes the why version and locates it geographically. That may raise interesting questions when conditions vary on the basis of some new ingredient.
All students should be able to answer proper what questions, most students should be able to move on to why questions, and a few students will always ask interesting questions no matter what words they use.
Parents: bar the doors and hide the kids!
The school year is starting and the Leftists want your child. The most recent posting on the listserv for the National Council for Social Studies is one for the Education for Sustainable Development Teacher Project. If this doesn't reek of Social Reconstructionism to you, you just aren't following education. I looked over their materials and took their survey, and sure enough, its the same anti-capitalist, technocratic experts will ban plastic bags for you, anti-globo, socialist claptrap we've come to expect from the Social Reconstructionists, whose goal it is to reconstruct society into a Leftist utoptia.
This is why we have high stakes testing. Parents with a clue see this stuff and they demand a return to education, as opposed to indoctrination. When their (and their political proxies') demands are ignored, they pull out the sledge-hammer.
This is why we have home schooling. Parents with a real aversion to this kind of indoctrination give up on the re-education camps and being the kids back home for real eduation.
This is why we have vouchers and charter schools. Parents see this kind of nonsense and want there kids somewhere else.
Teachers who don't get this are part of the problem. Teachers who push this kind of curriculum against parent, community, and administration desires, are the enemy of the public schools.
The school year is starting and the Leftists want your child. The most recent posting on the listserv for the National Council for Social Studies is one for the Education for Sustainable Development Teacher Project. If this doesn't reek of Social Reconstructionism to you, you just aren't following education. I looked over their materials and took their survey, and sure enough, its the same anti-capitalist, technocratic experts will ban plastic bags for you, anti-globo, socialist claptrap we've come to expect from the Social Reconstructionists, whose goal it is to reconstruct society into a Leftist utoptia.
This is why we have high stakes testing. Parents with a clue see this stuff and they demand a return to education, as opposed to indoctrination. When their (and their political proxies') demands are ignored, they pull out the sledge-hammer.
This is why we have home schooling. Parents with a real aversion to this kind of indoctrination give up on the re-education camps and being the kids back home for real eduation.
This is why we have vouchers and charter schools. Parents see this kind of nonsense and want there kids somewhere else.
Teachers who don't get this are part of the problem. Teachers who push this kind of curriculum against parent, community, and administration desires, are the enemy of the public schools.
North Koreans Defect while South Koreans Protest for Unification
On the one hand, Koreans living in the North have a clear idea of the difference between North and South. In the story, Reuters notes, "More than 100,000 North Korean refugees -- possibly twice that number -- are camped out or in hiding, mostly in China and increasingly in Southeast Asia after fleeing poverty and repression in the North, activists say."
On the other hand, Koreans living in the South have a romanticized notion of the Nation. The BBC ends a story on public protest with the line, "protesters say their government's close ties with the US are hindering the detente with Pyongyang." People are risking assasination to get out, and these kids want to get in.
At least the government has some perspective. The Beeb reports, "President Roh criticised anti-American protests on the anniversary of the country's liberation from Japanese forces in the World War Two. 'This attitude seems to reflect the thinking that the United States is responsible for all the past, present and future problems of [South Korea],' he said."
In this case at least, we can answer Machiavelli's question opening Chapter 29 of the Discources, a head of state displays less ingratitude than at least some of the people. The wise old Florentine writes, "As to the errors made in maintaining itself free, among others they are those of offending those Citizens whom it ought to reward, and of having suspicion of those in whom it ought to have confidence." If we substitute allies for citizens, we have the situation exactly. South Korea should honor and celebrate the American effort which allowed the South to go from an impoverished land to one of the most prosperous and advanced in the world. The long term sacrifice of the Americans for the South Koreans should inspire confidence. But it is not so, at least not among those taking to the streets.
Indeed, there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.
On the one hand, Koreans living in the North have a clear idea of the difference between North and South. In the story, Reuters notes, "More than 100,000 North Korean refugees -- possibly twice that number -- are camped out or in hiding, mostly in China and increasingly in Southeast Asia after fleeing poverty and repression in the North, activists say."
On the other hand, Koreans living in the South have a romanticized notion of the Nation. The BBC ends a story on public protest with the line, "protesters say their government's close ties with the US are hindering the detente with Pyongyang." People are risking assasination to get out, and these kids want to get in.
At least the government has some perspective. The Beeb reports, "President Roh criticised anti-American protests on the anniversary of the country's liberation from Japanese forces in the World War Two. 'This attitude seems to reflect the thinking that the United States is responsible for all the past, present and future problems of [South Korea],' he said."
In this case at least, we can answer Machiavelli's question opening Chapter 29 of the Discources, a head of state displays less ingratitude than at least some of the people. The wise old Florentine writes, "As to the errors made in maintaining itself free, among others they are those of offending those Citizens whom it ought to reward, and of having suspicion of those in whom it ought to have confidence." If we substitute allies for citizens, we have the situation exactly. South Korea should honor and celebrate the American effort which allowed the South to go from an impoverished land to one of the most prosperous and advanced in the world. The long term sacrifice of the Americans for the South Koreans should inspire confidence. But it is not so, at least not among those taking to the streets.
Indeed, there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Map of Missouri by Presidential Voting over 40 years according to county
Red is consistant Republican victories.
Lt Red voted for the Rep Pres candidate except during Democratic landslides.
Violet are those states who voted for Democrats during Democratic victories
Sky Blue are counties voting Republican during republican victories
Medium Blue vote Democratic except during Republican landslides
Blue vote Democratic all the time
Dark Blue is St Louis and is perponderantly democratic.
I'll add the geographic information from the Survey USA poll I examined in my last post.
They divide the state into four regions: St Louis/East, Kansas City Area, Ozarks, and Central. From my map, I would divide Missouri into three districts. North, SW, and SE. Anyway...
StL: 306 likely voters, 43% for Bush, 51.6% for Kerry
KC: 141 likely voters, 44.7% for Bush, 51.8% for Kerry
Ozark: 122 likely voters, 57.4% for Bush, 36.9% for Kerry
Central: 75 likely voters, 56.2% for Bush, 30.7% for Kerry
Ozark seems to be the 18 counties in the south west, and I have to guess that Central at least includes the 9 counties in the center of the state that are Red. The Central results are so similar to the Ozarks its hard to figure out where everything north of the Missouri River is allocated.
The area just south of KC which is violet, that's in Ike Skelton's district. I suspect that if Ike were to retire and a Republican take the seat, the area would begin to drift into the solidly red column. A big chunk of his district always votes Republican at the top of the ticket and is happy to send this Truman Democrat to Congress every two years. Skelton is the only Democrat elected in 2002 who was not in KC or StL. See the Secretary of State for Missouri map of the districts of federal representation. The 1st district is St Louis and has elected William Clay with 70% in 2002. The 3rd district is Dick Gephardt's district. He won with 59% in 2002. The 5th district is Kansas City. Karen McCarthy won there with 66%. Those are all safe democratic areas. There is no question in the 1st and 5th districts. It will be interesting to see what happens in the 3rd district when Gephardt has retired. Over at the Arch City Chronicle they have an interesting breakdown of the 3rd district. The Republican, Federer, ran against Gephardt in 2000 and got 40% of the vote. Russ Carnahan won the primary, so will meet Federer in November. Carnahan is the son of Mel (former governor) and Jean (former senator). So having covered the four districts currently in Democratic hands, let's turn to the other five.
The 2nd district is a suburban, affluent district, where the republican, Akin, won with 67% of the vote in 2002. The 6th district in NW Mo elected the Republican with 63%. The 7th district, the Ozarks, sent Roy Blunt, the Majority Whip, to Congress with 75% of the vote. In the SE, Emerson won with 72% of the vote. The 9th is NE Mo, Hulshof won with 68%. All were incumbants. Results from CNN.
Red is consistant Republican victories.
Lt Red voted for the Rep Pres candidate except during Democratic landslides.
Violet are those states who voted for Democrats during Democratic victories
Sky Blue are counties voting Republican during republican victories
Medium Blue vote Democratic except during Republican landslides
Blue vote Democratic all the time
Dark Blue is St Louis and is perponderantly democratic.
I'll add the geographic information from the Survey USA poll I examined in my last post.
They divide the state into four regions: St Louis/East, Kansas City Area, Ozarks, and Central. From my map, I would divide Missouri into three districts. North, SW, and SE. Anyway...
StL: 306 likely voters, 43% for Bush, 51.6% for Kerry
KC: 141 likely voters, 44.7% for Bush, 51.8% for Kerry
Ozark: 122 likely voters, 57.4% for Bush, 36.9% for Kerry
Central: 75 likely voters, 56.2% for Bush, 30.7% for Kerry
Ozark seems to be the 18 counties in the south west, and I have to guess that Central at least includes the 9 counties in the center of the state that are Red. The Central results are so similar to the Ozarks its hard to figure out where everything north of the Missouri River is allocated.
The area just south of KC which is violet, that's in Ike Skelton's district. I suspect that if Ike were to retire and a Republican take the seat, the area would begin to drift into the solidly red column. A big chunk of his district always votes Republican at the top of the ticket and is happy to send this Truman Democrat to Congress every two years. Skelton is the only Democrat elected in 2002 who was not in KC or StL. See the Secretary of State for Missouri map of the districts of federal representation. The 1st district is St Louis and has elected William Clay with 70% in 2002. The 3rd district is Dick Gephardt's district. He won with 59% in 2002. The 5th district is Kansas City. Karen McCarthy won there with 66%. Those are all safe democratic areas. There is no question in the 1st and 5th districts. It will be interesting to see what happens in the 3rd district when Gephardt has retired. Over at the Arch City Chronicle they have an interesting breakdown of the 3rd district. The Republican, Federer, ran against Gephardt in 2000 and got 40% of the vote. Russ Carnahan won the primary, so will meet Federer in November. Carnahan is the son of Mel (former governor) and Jean (former senator). So having covered the four districts currently in Democratic hands, let's turn to the other five.
The 2nd district is a suburban, affluent district, where the republican, Akin, won with 67% of the vote in 2002. The 6th district in NW Mo elected the Republican with 63%. The 7th district, the Ozarks, sent Roy Blunt, the Majority Whip, to Congress with 75% of the vote. In the SE, Emerson won with 72% of the vote. The 9th is NE Mo, Hulshof won with 68%. All were incumbants. Results from CNN.
Some Poll Analysis
Watching the polls over at Real Clear Politics. From May and June, Bush was up by one or two points (and that lead seemed to be growing). The first three weeks of July, Kerry had a two or three point lead, but by the last week of July it was less than a full point. This was the week of the Convention. Begining in August, Bush has his one or two point lead back. In the most recent Survey USA poll, Bush was up one (with a +/- of 4%). So the question is, was July just part of the random variation within this +/- or was July a bump? Its hard to say, because other state polls don't show a similar pattern. Survey USA shows Matt Blunt taking the state house by five points, which clears the +/- by a point. Bond is a run-away winner getting 55% of the likely voters with 2% undecided, and 5-6% identifying "other." I think that reverse coat-tails are the new effect. So that I predict Bond and Blunt will help Bush.
One of the most interesting background results was this, "88% of Bush voters pick Bond." Given Bond's huge lead, who are the Bush-Yes, Bond-No people? Are they 9-11 Democrats? Looking at this another way, 82% of Bush supporters said they were voting for Bush, while 14% said they were voting against Kerry. Is this 9% Bush-Yes, Bond-No the same as the 14% who was voting against Kerry? If so, its probabaly a good sense of the 9-11 democrat. Likewise, 14% of Bush voters are voting for McCaskill for governor.
How many Bush voters could return home by November? Bush has more solid report. Of those voters who are certain who they will vote for (and the whole poll is of likely voters), Bush gets 50% and Kerry gets 46%. Of the merely probable, Kerry gets 55% and Bush 36%. Part of this can be explained by two phenomena. First, there are conservatives who are mad at Bush and are responding to pollsters for Kerry but will come back to Bush when the voting counts. They are sending a message. Second, conservatives tend to under-report in polling, especially in urban areas. Some of this Kerry softness can be explained by these. Another way to look at this is the voting-against column. Only 44% of Kerry respondants are for Kerry. 53% are just anti-Bush. One of the key third catagories in voting is the stay at home voter. Voters who are dissatisfied with both candidates are more likely to stay at home, even if they did appear to be likely voters.
Where is Bush strong demographically? Voters who know who they are voting for, males, voters 35-65, white and hispanic voters.
Where is Kerry strong? Probable voters, females, young voters, black and asian voters.
I've already mentioned political affiliation and the cross-tabs with other candidates, but I haven't mentioned independents. 53% support Kerry, and 39% support Bush. First, we should note that 89% of the survey responants, 573 out of 643 are certain who they will vote for. The other 70 are soft on their selection. 193 responants were Independents. 75 independents said they would vote for Bush. 102 independents said they would vote for Kerry. 1o said they would vote for someone else. 5 were undecided. There is 1 independent unaccounted for. By comparison, Blunt got 74 independents to 96 for McCaskill. Bond gets 88 independents to 86 for Farmer. Bond is a very popular Republican. So assume he has attracted every independent who would consider a Republican. That's 46% of independents. Keep in mind that 5% of so-called independents are actually partisans for 3rd parties. So an index of Bush's progress or failure might be this figure. he's at +1 with 39% of independents, with a maximum goal of 46%. If we attempt to test this by ideological self-identification, we get similar numbers. Conservatives support both Bond and Bush in similar numbers. Out of 259 conservatives, 204 support Bond, 207 support Bush. Out of 281 moderates, 115 support Bond, 84 support Bush. Bond has 41% of moderates, Bush has 30% of moderates. The gap here is slightly wider than independents, so it might well be easier to see progress. You'll notice the large number of conservatives who don't support the Republican. Missouri democrats tend to be conservative democrats. Check out Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat.
Let's continue in the vein by looking at where a candidate's support comes from. Out of the 311 Bush supporters, 301 of them identified themselves as conservative, moderate, or liberal. So out of 311, 66.5% are conservative, 27.0% are moderate, and 3.2% are liberal. Out of 302 Kerry supporters, 288 identified themselves C, I, or M. So out of 302, 14.6% are conservatives, 61.3% are moderates, and 19.5% are liberals. So Kerry needs to capture Bush's moderates without giving up the same number of conservatives. Bush's ideal situation would be to go after moderate votes in such a way that it reveals how far left Kerry is. Since only one in eight Missouri voters is liberal, this is not the place to win elections.
Here's an interesting set. 54% of 100 likely voters with graduate hours are for Bush. 56% of 125 college graduates are for Bush. 55% of 178 likely voters with some college are for Bush. 41% of likely voters with no college support Bush. The previous month's Survey USA found a more more even match based on education, except for college graduates. The numbers for Bush in July were 44% for voters with grad hours (to Kerry's 43%), 57% of college graduates, 46% of some college (to Kerry's 47%), and 46% of no college (to Kerry's 49%). These number have a pretty wide margin of error. They figured for a sample of 100 it was +/- 10%. Putting them together, gives you a better sense in so much as it lowers the margin of error.
Watching the polls over at Real Clear Politics. From May and June, Bush was up by one or two points (and that lead seemed to be growing). The first three weeks of July, Kerry had a two or three point lead, but by the last week of July it was less than a full point. This was the week of the Convention. Begining in August, Bush has his one or two point lead back. In the most recent Survey USA poll, Bush was up one (with a +/- of 4%). So the question is, was July just part of the random variation within this +/- or was July a bump? Its hard to say, because other state polls don't show a similar pattern. Survey USA shows Matt Blunt taking the state house by five points, which clears the +/- by a point. Bond is a run-away winner getting 55% of the likely voters with 2% undecided, and 5-6% identifying "other." I think that reverse coat-tails are the new effect. So that I predict Bond and Blunt will help Bush.
One of the most interesting background results was this, "88% of Bush voters pick Bond." Given Bond's huge lead, who are the Bush-Yes, Bond-No people? Are they 9-11 Democrats? Looking at this another way, 82% of Bush supporters said they were voting for Bush, while 14% said they were voting against Kerry. Is this 9% Bush-Yes, Bond-No the same as the 14% who was voting against Kerry? If so, its probabaly a good sense of the 9-11 democrat. Likewise, 14% of Bush voters are voting for McCaskill for governor.
How many Bush voters could return home by November? Bush has more solid report. Of those voters who are certain who they will vote for (and the whole poll is of likely voters), Bush gets 50% and Kerry gets 46%. Of the merely probable, Kerry gets 55% and Bush 36%. Part of this can be explained by two phenomena. First, there are conservatives who are mad at Bush and are responding to pollsters for Kerry but will come back to Bush when the voting counts. They are sending a message. Second, conservatives tend to under-report in polling, especially in urban areas. Some of this Kerry softness can be explained by these. Another way to look at this is the voting-against column. Only 44% of Kerry respondants are for Kerry. 53% are just anti-Bush. One of the key third catagories in voting is the stay at home voter. Voters who are dissatisfied with both candidates are more likely to stay at home, even if they did appear to be likely voters.
Where is Bush strong demographically? Voters who know who they are voting for, males, voters 35-65, white and hispanic voters.
Where is Kerry strong? Probable voters, females, young voters, black and asian voters.
I've already mentioned political affiliation and the cross-tabs with other candidates, but I haven't mentioned independents. 53% support Kerry, and 39% support Bush. First, we should note that 89% of the survey responants, 573 out of 643 are certain who they will vote for. The other 70 are soft on their selection. 193 responants were Independents. 75 independents said they would vote for Bush. 102 independents said they would vote for Kerry. 1o said they would vote for someone else. 5 were undecided. There is 1 independent unaccounted for. By comparison, Blunt got 74 independents to 96 for McCaskill. Bond gets 88 independents to 86 for Farmer. Bond is a very popular Republican. So assume he has attracted every independent who would consider a Republican. That's 46% of independents. Keep in mind that 5% of so-called independents are actually partisans for 3rd parties. So an index of Bush's progress or failure might be this figure. he's at +1 with 39% of independents, with a maximum goal of 46%. If we attempt to test this by ideological self-identification, we get similar numbers. Conservatives support both Bond and Bush in similar numbers. Out of 259 conservatives, 204 support Bond, 207 support Bush. Out of 281 moderates, 115 support Bond, 84 support Bush. Bond has 41% of moderates, Bush has 30% of moderates. The gap here is slightly wider than independents, so it might well be easier to see progress. You'll notice the large number of conservatives who don't support the Republican. Missouri democrats tend to be conservative democrats. Check out Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat.
Let's continue in the vein by looking at where a candidate's support comes from. Out of the 311 Bush supporters, 301 of them identified themselves as conservative, moderate, or liberal. So out of 311, 66.5% are conservative, 27.0% are moderate, and 3.2% are liberal. Out of 302 Kerry supporters, 288 identified themselves C, I, or M. So out of 302, 14.6% are conservatives, 61.3% are moderates, and 19.5% are liberals. So Kerry needs to capture Bush's moderates without giving up the same number of conservatives. Bush's ideal situation would be to go after moderate votes in such a way that it reveals how far left Kerry is. Since only one in eight Missouri voters is liberal, this is not the place to win elections.
Here's an interesting set. 54% of 100 likely voters with graduate hours are for Bush. 56% of 125 college graduates are for Bush. 55% of 178 likely voters with some college are for Bush. 41% of likely voters with no college support Bush. The previous month's Survey USA found a more more even match based on education, except for college graduates. The numbers for Bush in July were 44% for voters with grad hours (to Kerry's 43%), 57% of college graduates, 46% of some college (to Kerry's 47%), and 46% of no college (to Kerry's 49%). These number have a pretty wide margin of error. They figured for a sample of 100 it was +/- 10%. Putting them together, gives you a better sense in so much as it lowers the margin of error.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)