Jonah, I think your memory serves. Here's what John Davis, president of the e North Carolina Forum for Research and Economic Education and editor of The Almanac of North Carolina Politics, recently told Politico about the value of an Edwards endorsement: "It would carry no weight. He didn't help carry any state in the Southeast, his own home county or even his home precinct in 2004."
Kathleen, if memory serves, in 2004 Democrats insisted that John Edwards would make the Kerry-Edwards ticket competitive throughout the South. Not only was that not true, not only did Edwards not deliver North Carolina, but he didn't even improve Kerry's share by a single percentagepoint over Gore-Lieberman in 2000.
On the speculation about a humanitarian invasion of Burma, it's clear that NRO readers are on to the fact that liberals will only use force when our own national interests are not at stake. That is very sad, and even mildly entertaining in its perversity. But what happens to the millions about to die from exposure, starvation, and disease because the junta won't allow aid in, and/or can't/won't distribute it effectively? The odds are, they will die.
Perhaps the best combination of useful facts and intelligent analysis comes (as it so often does on third-world crises) from my old friend, Robert Kaplan, writing in the New York Times. Kaplan says that the military part is the easy part. Our team is well organized for this sort of affair. And, by great chance, we have a lot of Navy ships sitting in a port in Thailand, where they were supposed to be playing war games. That means they could be there quickly enough to help. But, after explaining why various regional powers and other players would object to our military presence, Kaplan writes:
The other challenge we face lies within Myanmar. Because a humanitarian invasion could ultimately lead to the regime’s collapse, we would have to accept significant responsibility for the aftermath. And just as the collapse of the Berlin Wall was not supposed to lead to ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein was not supposed to lead to civil war, the fall of the junta would not be meant to lead to the collapse of the Burmese state. But it might.
About a third of Myanmar’s 47 million people are ethnic minorities, who have a troubled historical relationship with the dominant group, the Burmans. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the heroine of the democracy movement, is an ethnic Burman just like the generals, and her supporters are largely focused on the Burman homeland. Meanwhile, the Chins, Kachins, Karennis, Karens, Shans and other hill tribes have been fighting against the government. The real issue in Myanmar, should the regime fall, would be less about forging democracy than a compromise between the Burmans and the other ethnic groups...
So, Kaplan suggests that we have learned something about the laws of unintended consequences — surely a good thing. We still have not learned how to piece a country back together again, and we sure don't trust the Chinese taking charge of that in Burma. The locals, including the heroic Daw Aung San Suu Kyi — Laura Bush's hero — are not organized. (As a rule, I believe that the third world is the third world in large part because it isn't organized.) A well-functioning Central Intelligence — the current one or a new one — would have the democracy movement in better shape, and might have helped out those tribes at the border to organize better resistance, and to be ready should the moment come when the military rulers collapse. Even as I write that, it sounds ridiculous to me. What nation is so far-seeing and has such great intelligence and other resources that it could bother to do that much work for a small, unimportant country with few resources and of no real interest to us? On the other hand, I recall having that endless debate, in many forums, during the late 1980s vis-a-vis helping the Afghans organize into a functioning state after the Soviets left. Small, poor, useless country. Who cares? What harm can they do?
And why should we care about Burma, apart from humanitarian reasons? A great many serious defense analysts in this country believe that China is the ultimate threat, greater even than the jihadists. A friendly government on its border could be useful, no?
(Camden, S.C. — )What's this MSNBC-sponsored commercial for Barack Obama? It appears that Andrea Mitchell has caught Chris's tingle. And while we're reality checking: Why all the excitement about the possibility of a VP John Edwards, as though he could bring N.C. to the table? Edwards could not have - - and was not going to be reelected — in his own state. No one holds him in greater contempt than his fellow southerners, who know the difference between a poisonous and a non-poisonous snake.
Mark just said on his show what I thought when they shook hands tonight: The Dem ticket could very well be Obama-Edwards. Camelot and John Boy from the Waltons.
"IT WON'T DO." That was our bottom line in 1984 when Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York, Democratic vice presidential candidate, balked at releasing her husband's income tax returns. Ms. Ferraro ultimately relented. It was our bottom line four years ago, when Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of the Democratic nominee, refused to release her returns; Ms. Kerry relented as well. And it is just as apt now with regard to Cindy McCain's tax returns."
Actually, unless I am mistaken, there was always a limit to the degree to which Ms. Kerry "relented" (the disclosures she made were very far from complete), but Cindy McCain needs to do a fair bit of "relenting" herself too. I listed some of the reasons why in this article about Ms. Kerry back in 2004 (although, as the wife of a low tax candidate Mrs McCain is less vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy if her tax affairs are, shall we say, 'efficiently' arranged). Mutatis mutandis, the same arguments apply to Mrs. McCain.
Via a reader; Dennis Miller on FoxBusiness just now on the Edwards endorsement of Obama: "I just hope Hillary appreciates the irony in the fact that the 'E Tu Brute?' moment comes from a guy who probably filed a class action suit against knife manufacturers."
ABC to Clinton: You Won West Virginia? We Don't Care. Look! It's John Edwards! [Byron York]
John Edwards's appearance in Michigan to endorse Obama just happened to be set for 6:30 P.M., at the top of the networks' nightly news feeds. ABC's World News went to a live picture off the top, but Edwards apparently missed his slot, so ABC went to its China coverage and promised to return to Michigan live.
Unlike cable news, the network newscasts do not usually carry live events in their carefully-timed programs. But after China, ABC went back to Michigan while anchorman Charles Gibson explained that the Clinton campaign had hoped "that the headlines would be all about her victory in West Virginia, and yet with this…they seem a bit trumped." Gibson explained that Edwards' appearance was "timed for maximum exposure…timed for the evening newscasts." And with that, guess who walked onto the stage, with ABC carrying it live? "George Stephanopoulos, this is the kind of publicity that you can't buy," Gibson said. "This was designed to completely squash the West Virginia story," Stephanopoulos added. And with that, ABC took Obama's introduction of Edwards live, and…completely squashed the West Virginia story. Didn't even report it in any real sense. A big victory for Obama — the kind of publicity that you can't buy — courtesy of ABC News.
On the one hand, John McCain, who stands for smaller government and lower spending, is bemoaned as a non-conservative. On the other hand, House Republicans are chided for participating in a big spending farm bill boondoggle and not being conservative enough.
So let me get this straight...
One of the principal definitions of a conservative is that he believes in smaller government.
Yet John McCain is not a conservative.
Let's see how the nominee votes on the conference report. Will he get any credit from Rush and Levin if he votes against it? I'm not holding my breath.
Yes, McCain may vote right when it hits the Senate one last time. The porkbuster should. Yes, that's a good position. But that doesn't eradicate other positions and comments and instincts of his.
Serious conservatives aren't voting for the Democrat. But listening to talk-radio callers and reading my e-mails, it's clear to me there's a danger they stay home out of frustration and a sense there is no real conservative leader running.
Hey! Hillary Is Really, Really Pro-Choice, Too! [Byron York]
After the NARAL endorsement of Obama, Can you say "hastily arranged?"
Members of Congress To Hold Press Conference On Hillary’s Strong Pro-Choice Record
Wednesday, May 14 6:15 p.m. EDT Members of Congress Discuss Hillary’s Strong Pro-Choice Record Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee First Floor Training Room 430 South Capitol Street Washington, DC
And Mark Levin Starts His Show with "Positive Advice" [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
My advice to conservatives: Cut your ties from the Republican party. Cut your ties to the McCain campaign. Run on principle.. it's all you have... If you follow these other Republicans, you will go down.
You think I ought to be happy that there's conservatism out there. I'm not happy my own party wants to get rid of it. I'm mad that my own party wants to cast conservatism aside. I know there's plenty of conservatism out there. That's the source of the frustration. But conservatism by itself cannot move things. It needs a political party. In our political structure, it is parties that get things done. The Republican Party was the home of conservatism, and it still is. But the people that run the Republican Party right now are trying to get rid of it. And it's a death wish. It is an absolute death wish. And I'll tell you, if they happen to win, if the Republicans happen to win in November — 'cause, look, as I said earlier, we're not going to vote for socialist Obama. He's a full-blown ignoramus, embarrassingly uninformed about crucial things. We're not going to vote for this guy. We're not going to vote for Hillary. We wouldn't vote for Algore. For some of us the question is, are we going to vote at all? But it's entirely possible, this newly constituted Republican Party which stands for nothing but liberalism lite might end up winning because a lot of the country might look at this socialist bunch the Democrats are offering and say pooey, and want no part of it, and then where are we?
Speaking of the Farm Bill, which passed on a 318-106 vote today, Republicans failed to strip out a very special provision benefiting one company. In case you want to know who is plundering you this time, I wrote on the matter earlier this week.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) penned a letter to Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) on the Farm Bill's various problems, including earmarks. I don't have a link for it, but here's a small sample:
The farm bill — which reaffirms flawed policies and carries earmarks that were “airdropped” into the bill — symbolizes a broken Washington. During the House Republican retreat this past January, House Republicans adopted a series of earmark reform principles. One of those principles was “no more airdrops” — because we recognized Americans are fed up with the practice of dropping wasteful earmarks into bills at the last minute with little to no scrutiny or public debate.
This comes after Boehner's endorsement of the Paul Ryan (R.,Wis.) plan to pay for a gas tax holiday by removing earmarks from this year's appropriations bills. The gas-tax business is rather gimmicky, of course, but I cannot think of a better way to pay for it.
Not all conservatives agree on this topic, of course — Ramesh ably argues the opposite school on earmarks — but I believe Boehner is taking a correct and politically wise approach (according to Frank Luntz's research, per Robert Novak, last item) that will appeal to the right people who consider voting Republican. Some from the anti-earmark school have been critical of Boehner as too soft, but I've disagreed. House Republicans are definitely not of one mind on this issue, so you could say he's really going out on a limb. It could cost him, too.
As Sean Hannity issued the above warning to congressional Republicans today on his show, the House — including enough Republicans (100) to amass a veto-proof majority — passed the pork-laden farm bill.
The program is nothing more than a massive income transfer from American taxpayers to a small handful of very large producers who grow just a few crops; the program can’t be serving the purposes its defenders claim it does — ensuring a stable food supply and keeping farmers out of poverty — considering that a majority of American farmers do just fine without government aid; and disputes over the large U.S. and EU farm-subsidy programs have opened an apparently unbridgeable divide between developed and developing countries in the current round of multilateral trade talks. The only conclusion one can reasonably draw is that the system is broken and ought to be scrapped.
With food prices soaring, it takes some gall to force Americans to pay billions of dollars to millionaire agribusinesses. Yet that’s what the latest farm bill would do. Since the last farm bill was enacted in 2002, the five crops that receive the lion’s share of farm subsidies have also enjoyed massive price hikes: cotton (105 percent price hike), soybeans (164 percent), corn (169 percent), wheat (256 percent), and rice (281 percent). For consumers, these price hikes have caused financial pain domestically and near-riots abroad. For farmers, it’s a sunnier story: Total net farm income has leaped 56 percent in just two years, and helped bring the average farm household’s income to a record $89,434, and its net worth to $838,875.
During this crop-price boom, continuing to subsidize farmers makes as much sense as paying Apple to make another generation of iPods.
Yet instead of cutting, Congress’s answer is to harvest even more farm subsidies. The latest version would increase payment rates for more than a dozen crops and increase conservation subsidies. Although the same farmers already receive massive annual subsidies, plus taxpayer-funded crop insurance, Congress would also layer a new permanent disaster aid program. Release of any disaster aid would require an emergency declaration, so expect Congress to declare an emergency any week that it rains — or doesn’t rain.
Farm subsidies have long been America’s largest corporate-welfare program. Rather than help small, struggling family farmers, the majority of subsidies go to commercial farmers, who report an average income of $200,000 and a net worth of nearly $2 million.
Republican leadership ought to crack down on Republicans who supported the bill. Will it? Unlikely.
WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., netted tax breaks for the thoroughbred horse racing industry in the farm bill worth $126 million over the next 10 years, a provision that helped guarantee his support for the hotly debated bill.
The provision ensures that all racehorses are depreciated over three years for tax purposes, regardless of when the horses start training. The current tax code doesn't reflect the entire length of a horse's racing life, according to a National Thoroughbred Racing Association analysis of Jockey Club racing data.
"While many Americans identify the horse industry as one of Kentucky's signature industries, its economic impact extends well beyond the borders of the commonwealth," McConnell said.
Reidl says: " farm subsidies will continue costing taxpayers at least $25 billion annually." Yay! Thanks for the leadership!
I really liked Pinker’s book The Language Instinct and have one or two more Pinker titles on my shelf that I look forward to reading eventually. But when he turns to anything touching on morality or theology, I’m afraid the results are often crude and jejune. His 1997 essay on infanticide for the New York Times Magazine was a case in point. (He concluded that it is a bad thing but that a) it can be an understandable act and b) we don’t really have strong grounds for condemning it.)
Pinker’s new essay on bioethics is pretty bad, for the reasons Yuval Levin goes through and a few more. Levin is, I think, a little too soft on the vicious hostility to religion that the New Republic has let Pinker express in its pages. Note how Pinker begins his discussion of a report by the president’s bioethics council.
The report's oddness begins with its list of contributors. Two (Adam Schulman and Daniel Davis) are Council staffers, and wrote superb introductory pieces. Of the remaining 21, four (Leon R. Kass, David Gelernter, Robert George, and Robert Kraynak) are vociferous advocates of a central role for religion in morality and public life, and another eleven work for Christian institutions (all but two of the institutions Catholic). Of course, institutional affiliation does not entail partiality, but, with three-quarters of the invited contributors having religious entanglements, one gets a sense that the fix is in.
As Levin points out, Pinker has done a fine job of highlighting the theocratic menace of Georgetown University. The question this passage raises for me, though, is: What proportion of people with “religious entanglements” would Pinker consider appropriate? Defined as broadly as Pinker defines them, three-quarters of the American public probably have “religious entanglements.” Later in the essay he takes a swipe at a “a smattering of scientists (mostly with a reputation for being religious or politically conservative)” on the council. To the extent there is any argument here at all, it is that religious people are by definition less rational and sensible than non-believers. Pinker himself seems to be a walking refutation of that claim.
Georgia’s victory is the third big win for school choice this year. Louisiana enacted a tuition tax deduction during Jindal’s first special session. Last week, Florida increased the cap on its corporate tax credit program to $120 million. Importantly, that win came with strong support from Democrats. Democrats are also sponsoring school choice measures in Maryland and New Jersey. I wouldn’t be surprised if a couple more states pass bills this year. All in all, 2008 is turning out to be a good year for school choice.
Also looking for attention: Sean Penn, who accuses Obama of having an “phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional" record. I agree! I suspect for different reasons.
Steven Pinker's attention lights on the new report titled Human Dignity and Bioethics from the President's Council on Bioethics. He gives it both barrels.
I suggest we send the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security strategists, and all their like-minded colleagues in the intelligence community and elsewhere to their rooms until they memorize this 2006 piece by Bruce Thornton (or, actually, just about any piece by Bruce Thornton). Every word should be memorized, but this is particularly relevant to the thinking behind the language purge:
[S]ome Westerners, enthralled to their own materialist assumptions and multicultural “we are the world” sentimentalism, wave away this evidence and reduce this destructive behavior to any and every cause except the one that counts: spiritual belief. So we hear that the violence is caused by a lack of jobs, or a lack of liberal-democratic institutions, or “frustration” and insecurity about the dismal backwardness of most Muslim states, or wounded pride in the face of Western success, or resentment of Western imperialist and colonialist sins, or oppressive autocrats, or . . . take your pick. The same therapeutic mentality that thinks destructive behavior in teens results from a “lack of self-esteem” reduces the religious values of Muslims to mere “epiphenomena,” as the Marxists see it, symptoms of some underlying condition rooted in material deprivation, political impotence, or psychological trauma.
The problem with Islam, however, is not a lack of self-esteem but too damned much. This is a faith fanatically certain of its truth and righteousness, the culminating vision of God’s relations with humanity, the ultimate meaning of human existence on every level, including the social and political. As such, its destiny is to spread over the whole world until the benefits, both in this life and the next, of submission to God are bestowed on all humans, and the dysfunctional man-made values–– including democracy, materialism, “equal rights,” and freedom–– are swept away. For however alluring, these do not deliver true happiness or true freedom, but mere hedonism and license that create misery and degradation in this world, and put the soul at risk in the next.
If, then, you are in possession of this truth that you are absolutely certain holds the key to universal happiness in this world and the next, why would you be tolerant of alternatives? Why should you tolerate a dangerous lie? Why should you “live and let live,” the credo of the spiritually moribund who stand for everything because they stand for nothing? And why wouldn’t you kill in the name of this vision, when the infidel nations work against God’s will and his beneficent intentions for the human race?
This is precisely what the jihadists tell us, what fourteen centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence tell us, what the Koran and Hadith tell us. Yet we smug Westerners, so certain of our own superior knowledge that human life is really about genes or neuroses or politics or nutrition, condescendingly look down on the true believer. Patronizing him like a child, we tell him that he doesn’t know that his own faith has been “hijacked” by “fundamentalists” who manipulate his ignorance, that what he thinks he knows about his faith is a delusion, and that the true explanation is one that we advanced, sophisticated Westerners understand while the believer remains mired in superstition and neurotic fantasy.
Lisa: By using "Ye Men" in my subject line, I was only making a lame attempt at a pun. ("Ye Men" … "Yemen" … geddit?) I certainly intended no disrespect towards the female population of Yemen, whom I know to be all wonderful, wonderful people.
I deeply regret any distress I may inadvertently have caused to our Yemena readers.
And you are of course right about cooking. Even more traditionally female skills are alive and well. My daughter is a pretty good knitter, and patronizes a store in our village devoted to that art. They seem to be doing good business.
Human hands are good for a lot of things other than tapping at keyboards.
What on Earth Is the President Talking About? [Andy McCarthy]
What is it about the vision of democracy that makes the mind go ga-ga? The AP reports that, having arrived in Jersualem, "President Bush said Wednesday that 60 years of Israel's existence is cause for optimism for democratic change throughout the Middle East. 'What happened here is possible everywhere.'"
So the existence of a democracy with strong Western ties that sprang to life as a democracy with strong Western ties is cause for optimism that the hundreds of millions of Muslims surrounding it — many of whom openly seek its destruction when not brazenly calling for its destruction — will democratize notwithstanding the utter absence of a democratic tradition and a belief system that is resistant (indeed, hostile) to Western democracy in several particulars.
Very sad news. Army Staff Sgt. Ronald Blystone, who was on the cover of NR in 2005 (it was my "We're Winning" story), was killed by small arms fire while patrolling in Baghdad. He was on his third tour. Read this and this, and you'll get an idea of what an incredible American he was and the sacrifices his family has made for our country (his brother is in Iraq as well, and his mom didn't know which of them had been killed when two officers showed up at her door). He had three children, and the family has set up an educational fund for their children. I'll be contributing and I hope you will too. Donations can be mailed to Blystone Educational Fund, BanCorp South, P.O. Box 4023, Springfield, MO 65808.
I'm also told the good people at the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation will be presenting each of the three children a EE Patriot Bond maturity value of $30,000 each.
I agree with Kathryn, Mark and Andy, but if I can throw out one other point. There seems to be something other than a misunderstanding of conservatism going on with his column. He writes:
How much do seven members of the U.S. Senate weigh?
Eyeing them — Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, Saxby Chambliss, David Vitter, Jim Bunning, Richard Burr — I'd guess they probably come in at about 1,300 pounds. These are the Republicans who have signed a hold letter, preventing action on the reauthorization of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
Now, how much do 3 million HIV/AIDS-infected people — the treatment goal of a reauthorized PEPFAR — weigh? This is a more difficult calculation. Adults with advanced forms of the disease can weigh about 60 pounds. Children with AIDS are like a shadow falling on a scale. Maintaining weight becomes difficult with vomiting and diarrhea, with tuberculosis and fungal infections, and with cancers such as Kaposi's sarcoma and lymphoma.
Even so, you'd think that a few million of these wasting bodies would weigh more on the moral balance than seven senators. But so far, you'd be wrong.
I understand Gerson's passionate about this issue (and deeply invested in it) and that's all fine, even admirable. But does reducing the issue to the comparative body weight of U.S. senators and dying Africans really take us very far? Literary license notwithstanding, it's worth remembering that the senate is slow and deliberative by design. This sort of dark utilitarian calculus may score cheap rhetorical points, but I think Gerson's frustration is aimed less at conservatism than it is at the inefficiencies of deliberative democracy.
Re: A Humanitarian Invasion of Burma? [Iain Murray]
British conservative activist Ben Rogers, as humane a man as I have ever met, has some related thoughts here. He's not gung-ho, but he's not as dismissive of military intervention as Rich's friend.
"It's Not a Safety Net, It's an Entitlement Program" [Stephen Spruiell]
Rep. Ron Kind, a Democrat from Wisconsin, has been a stalwart on farm-subsidy reform for a long time. Moments ago, he took to the floor of the House to speak against the outrageous, $300 billion farm bill set to pass both houses today (Bush has promised a veto). Watch:
Andrew Sullivan today makes a case for removing the rigid statutory ban against the entry of HIV positive people into the United States (even as visitors), and treating the disease like other serious and communicable conditions. He is exactly right. The ban now on the books is not only unreasonable (given what we now know about how the disease is and is not spread) but utterly unenforceable, and creates a dangerous perverse incentive, encouraging people with HIV to go untreated and unreported—thus increasing, not lowering, the risk they will spread the disease. When I was in the White House, we made inquiries on the Hill (at the President’s personal request, if I’m not mistaken—though I don’t recall that with certainty) about removing the ban by statute, and found a mix of (mostly) disinterest and (a little) hostility on both sides of the aisle. There is now a bipartisan effort to attach a provision removing the ban to the PEPFAR reauthorization bill. I hope it succeeds.
Lomborg described the need to plan over the next century to deal with climate change.
John McCain should make the case that the "100 years" in Iraq is much the same as "100 years" in climate change work — you spend the time you need to spend on the problem, and don't make rash promises to fix the issues quickly. It would reinforce his true meaning on Iraq while promising long term solutions to climate change rather than short term goals that just sound nice.
(1) Keep tinkering alive! It's not only John Ratzenberger who's trying to keep tinkering alive. There are lots of programs, websites, clubs, competitions. A few passed on from readers:
(2) Tinkerproof automobiles So far as tinkering with cars is concerned, in the words of one reader, echoing many others:
Consider that the barrier to entry has increased when it comes to things like cars. It used to be that one could just roll down to the library, grab the manufacturer's manual for the car, pick up a socket wrench, and go to work. Now cars have pretty advanced computers in them that need equally sophisticated diagnostic equipment, the cost of which is out of reach for your average hobbyist car guy.
[Me] That's not going to get any better as we head into the nanotech society. Machines you can open up and fiddle with are disappearing fast. Domestically, the VCR may have been the last. We had a VCR repair shop in my village until a couple of years ago. No more. Ever see anyone tinkering with an iPod? (Well, there was that kid who reconfigured his iPhone, but he is plainly a genius.)
(Sorry). Secretary Kempthorne is poised to make a "major announcement" about the proposed listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act at 2:30. I will try to have instant reaction. It could be a small victory or a major, devastating defeat for the American economy.
UPDATE: He says it is now "threatened." See "Planet Gore" in a bit for more.
The National Abortion Rights Action League, which changed its name to NARAL Pro-Choice America, has just announced that its political action committee is endorsing Barack Obama. From the press release:
“Pro-choice Americans have been fortunate to have two strong pro-choice candidates in Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, both of whom have inspired millions of new voters to participate in this historic presidential race,” [NARAL President Nancy] Keenan said. “Today, we are proud to put our organization’s grassroots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election. That candidate is Sen. Obama.”
Internal Struggle for Personal Betterment Alert [Andy McCarthy]
Fox reports an Israeli shopping mall has been struck by a rocket fired from Gaza. Palestinian Islamic [INSENSITIVE TERM DELETED] has claimed responsibility. No word yet on when the peace-loving Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank will rise up in condemnation against this handful of criminals that is perverting the true Islam.
Did I mention that recent polling indicates that 50 percent of Palestinians openly support terrorist attacks against Israel? On the bright side, this compares favorably with the 93 percent of young Palestinian adults (aged 18 to 25) who deny Israel’s right to exist — a figure that plummets to a mere 75 percent when the total population is factored in. Obviously, this has nothing to do with Islam and is caused by foolish Americans who enhance the self-esteem of terrorists by referring to them as you-know-what-ists.
I asked a friend who has experience at all levels of this kind of thing, from humanitarian delivery to high-level government deliberations, whether it makes sense to go into Burma without permission. His response:
No. It would make us feel good about ourselves, and help a very, very small number of people (an almost entirely symbolic exercise – very hard to do in bulk – and with no control over distribution) but could backfire in serious ways: 1) Something get’s screwed up (like when we crushed Khurdish kids under pallets of relief supplies in Provide Comfort or when gangsters got to all the aid first or a plane goes down or whatever), as it always does. 2) There is no movement in Burma to take advantage of the good intention, thus and strategic communication benefit on the real target audience is lost (unlike in Acheh where we got a huge strategic comms benefit with Indonesians who saw it real time via their govt and international media that Burma does not have access too). 3) it would be replayed against us by the junta and others as more examples of American imposition and intrusiveness, especially when something goes wrong and the benefit is know to be infinitesimally small, as it has to be given the sheer mechanical challenge of dropping aid w/out permission with no knowledge of what the situation on the ground it.
Obama and Clinton and McCain will all be for it, because it looks and feels good.
A better strategy is to continue to lead the international community (but not out front – pushing someone else out front as the flag carrier) to show up the junta and it’s ineffectiveness and use this whole episode as a serious point of leverage to get a Prague Spring going in Burma.
This Republican ad is running today in Kent County, Michigan (Grand Rapids) for Barack Obama's visit. It lacks subtlety and it's too long to be terribly effective, even if it does have the virtue of mentioning his comments about bitter people clinging to guns and religion.
re: re: What's Wrong with Conservatism [Andy McCarthy]
Mark's right — conservatism is not the problem, it's conservatives like Gerson.
When Katrina struck, I was horrified by the reports. Of course the voice in my head that said (a) why didn't these people leave when they had the chance, and (b) these people elected the likes of Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco, what did they expect? But like millions of other Americans, I felt an obligation to help less fortunate people who were in need. So I sent money to the Red Cross because the Red Cross is a reputable outfit with a good reputation help to the people who need it.
Afterwards, I got so angry at the boondoggle government spending, which inevitably rewarded (and continues to reward) the worst tendencies, I ended up annoyed at myself for contributing — in the name of "compassion," the government is going to spend goo-gobs of your money anyway, and waste aplenty.
Why does Gerson think that the measure of compassion is whether the government moves when people are hurting? Look at our experience: Katrina, 9/11, or name your overseas catastrophe. Americans pony up more dough than any people on the planet. Government activism causes the dysfunction we saw in Katrina and, at best, it stands in the next Katrina to depress the charitable impulse. That's compassion?
Bjorn Lomborg, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," is not easy to label but very easy to listen to. He makes a lot of sense on Kyoto and other matters — including practical money and cause-and-effect matters. Anyway, I interviewed him in the wake of McCain's climate-change speech and here's a little of what he had to say:
Lopez:What’s the most frequent mistake you see politicians make when talking about climate policy?
Lomborg: John McCain’s daughter recently told GQ magazine that her dad is “freaked out” by climate change.
I think freaking out is the worst thing that any of us can do. There’s a lot of hysteria about this problem, which means that we don’t look at the full picture.
For example, McCain mentions that global warming means that there’ll be more heat-waves which will claim lives. That is correct. But it’s also true that rising temperatures will reduce the number of cold spells. And cold is far deadlier than heat. According to the first complete peer-reviewed survey of climate change’s health effects, global warming will actually save lives. It’s estimated that by 2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths each year. But at the same time, 1.8 million fewer people will die from cold.
When we get “freaked out,” we don’t see the big picture. We don’t have a sensible discussion about dealing with climate change the best way possible — instead, we just reach for answers like massive cuts in carbon emissions, which we know is a very inefficient way of responding.
He also cautioned ...
Lopez: How can John McCain legitimately differentiate himself from the Democratic nominee on climate policy?
Lomborg: I’m no expert on American politics.
I note that Obama and Clinton have called McCain’s plan “too timid” — but I also note that the three of them are all supporting, in varying levels, the Warner-Lieberman Bill on climate change, which looks set to be a massive subsidy-fest that would achieve very little for the environment, at great cost.
McCain could dramatically differentiate himself by being the only candidate acknowledging that promising cuts in the near future just means economic pain for no gain. He could stand out by acknowledging that promising dramatic reductions in the far-off future is simply sweeping the hard choices under the rug for now, for no gain. Wishful thinking is not sound public policy.
We need the technological solutions that will allow our societies to transition cost-effectively to low-carbon energy by mid-century. McCain could recognize that this is a century-long problem which needs century-long, smart solutions.
He should also realize that global warming is not the top concern of the American public. Despite all the attention and attempts to stir up panic, Gallup polls show the American people worry about it as much today as they did in 1989. Moreover, it is one of the lowest-ranked issues across all voters: in a Pew survey of Republicans in 2006, the percentage of respondents rating global warming as “very important,” was the lowest out of all 19 issues presented, and, for Democrats, 13th-lowest. In 2007, the ranking was even lower.
As McCain also knows, because of his promise to cut gas taxes this summer, the voters overwhelmingly reject tax increases as a way of dealing with global warming.
In the May 1 London mayoral election, Ken Livingstone was a high-flying advocate for stringent carbon cuts and made his reelection a referendum on his policies to tackle climate change. His aides claimed it would be the first election in British history to be decided largely on environmental issues. Livingstone lost.
Ohio AG Marc Dann canceled a press statement scheduled for noon today, when many expected him to resign. Now his office is on "lockdown" and state troopers are making sure no documents get removed or destroyed. This guy campaigned against GOP corruption and said he should be held to a higher standard. Now he's the most scandal-ridden Ohio officeholder in years, and he's doing everything he can to cling to power.
Wolverines Return to California, Scaring Bears, Mountain Lions
May 14 (Bloomberg) — There's a sure way to coax a wolverine from hiding: Nail raw chicken to trees, place deer carcasses on the ground and season the area with skunk glands.
Finding enough chicken meat at the local Safeway to keep the wolverine returning is another matter.
``I'd go into the store every Sunday night before they restocked and buy everything they had left,'' said Katie Moriarty, a 26-year-old biology student involved in the effort to track the first wolverine officially sighted in California since 1922.
The Yuccafication of Gitmo, or the Gitmoizing of Yucca Mountain, are two versions of the same story. Political elites passionately declare their commitment to a desired end — victory in this war or that — but are feckless about providing means to those ends.
This has been around the internet for years but I haven't seen it lately: 1943 Guide to Hiring Women. And here's a 1939 Marital Rating Scale for wives.
Re: What's Wrong with Conservatism. [Mark R. Levin]
Yes, Kathryn, that's been the problem with congressional Republicans these last years — their conservatism has "degenerate[d] into an anti-government ideology — rigid, stingy and indifferent to human suffering." Is Michael Gerson living on our planet? A Republican president proposed a $3.1 trillion budget, with the support of his party. We are trillions of dollars in debt, owing mainly to massive entitlement programs supported by both parties. And Gerson thinks that a handful of conservative senators finally drawing a line somewhere is evidence of the inhumanity of their philosophy. I ask Gerson — how much should the government spend on human suffering? Can it ever be enough? And who should decide what kinds of human suffering deserve the government's limited attention and resources? All human suffering? What about people like me, with heart disease? Should we be upset about the disproportionate amount of money spent on researching diseases with fewer sufferers?
Nothing personal, but it is dispiriting to me to know that Gerson was a major player in the Bush White House.
K Lo: Agree with you on Vito. This whole mess is an especially big disappointment because at one time he showed so much promise. Yesterday, fwiw, I had lunch with a member of the House GOP leadership who said he believes that Vito will "do the right thing" before too much longer.
The Hindu-Zionist Alliance Springs to Life [Lisa Schiffren]
Whenever they can't think of anything more urgent with which to frighten the population, the Pakistani media summons up the scariest monster of all: the Hindu-Zionist Alliance. The conspiracy theory driven world view common among illiterate Pakistanis (70 percent of the population?) thrives on this stuff, and once you accept that everyone is against you, that particular alliance of enemies makes perfect sense: Hindus on their border; Zionists in control everywhere. And both focused on innocent Pakistan. Forget that for most of the existence of both (post-colonial) India and Israel, Cold War alliances made their own co-operation unlikely.
But now, here we are. Leading weapons manufacturers from each country have just announced a new partnership. Israel Aerospace Industries and Tata Advanced Systems will be co-operating on building unmanned aerial vehicles for the Indian Army. In fact, the Indian businessman who presided over this deal suggests that this partnership could make his country into a regional defense hub.
Of course, considering the dangers on its own borders, among the highly armed Waziris who are perfectly capable of shooting down Pakistani government planes, and the nice al Qaeda folk hiding in those mountain caves, no one needs unmanned aerial vehicles more than the Pakistani military. Bonding over arms sales has a long history as a way of bringing former adversaries together. Maybe the Pakistanis should give IAI a call themselves.
I've argued in NRODT that teacher's unions are a (not the) big impediment to improving K - 12 education in the U.S. Education reform strikes me as one of the many topics on which traditional conservatives and libertarians ought to be in close alignment.
Get the new May 19, 2008 issue of NR shipped to you pronto, first class. Five bucks covers it all.
What a great issue: Stanley Kurtz’s cover essay, which is a thorough guide to the radical theology of Obama eminence gris Jeremiah Wright, is a profound must read. The back of the book contains some of America’s greatest writers: Ross Douthat contributes yet another smash movie review (this time on Baby Mama), Florence King pokes body language with her “Bent Pin” column, Mark Steyn’s “Happy Warrior” hurls a lance into wacko race theories, Rick Brookhiser expounds from the “City Desk” on young America’s infatuation with “The Show,” and elsewhere there’s Ramesh Ponnuru on Senator Bob Corker, and Andy McCarthy on Gitmo, and John Derbyshire and Byron York and Rob Long and . . . look, if you want a typical (and superior) issue of NR, this is it. Order here.
The flag pin issue is important to, among others, veterans who fought under the flag and, to this day, treat it with respect. It is more than an empty symbol to them (and me). I have talked to many of them. I have lived with some of them. And they don't understand why a candidate for president would draw some kind of "principled" line against wearing it. Obama had said that he shows his patriotism in other ways. It's not as if wearing the flag pin and showing these other ways are mutually exclusive. It's an odd argument. Others may not think this is a big deal. That's fine. But Obama made a point of not wearing the flag pin, knowing that a point would be made of it, just as he makes a point of not placing his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem. I find this perplexing, although I won't obsess over it. This is not the typical behavior of a presidential candidate.
If the GOP can't hold on to a House seat in the Deep South that Bush won by 25 points, it's going to be 1974 all over again. I'm just hoping that Rahm Emanuel has recruited enough pro-sovereignty, Heath Shuler-style Dems so that we can head off amnesty. But even if that happens, next year is going to be bad on taxes and other issues.
There was an important West Virginia primary in 1960, when Hubert Humphrey tried vainly to beat JFK. It takes half a chapter in Theodore H. White's The Making of the President 1960.
White was very tough on West Virginia's political culture, which he called "squalid, corrupt and despicable...[belonging] to that Jukes family of American politics that includes Indiana, Massachusetts and Texas." The reason was poverty. "Posts on local school boards are bitterly contested, from one end of the state to the other. 'Hell,' one local politician answered me, 'curriculum? They don't give a damn about curriculum, half of them don't know what the word 'curriculum' means. School board means jobs....They'll pass the curriculum in five minutes and spend two hours arguing about who's gonna be bus driver on Peapot Route Number One." White's politician surely said Pisspot Route Number One, but the prudery of 1960, and of White, changed this, not even to Peepot, but to a pot for holding peas.
But then White goes on.
To this bleak picture of hunger and politics one should add, in all justice, a condition which most of us who reported West Virginia in the spring found little time to note: that these are...beyond doubt, the best mannered and most courteous [people] in the nation....their relations with their Negroes are the best of any state with any significant Negro population, north or south. The Negroes, being treated with respect and good manners, reciprocate with a bearing of good manners and respect....morever, these are brave people—no state of the union contributed more heavily to the armed forces of the United States in proportion to population that did this state of mountain men; nor did any state suffer more casualties in proportion to its population.
When I read the chatter of pundits about this primary, to say nothing of the snarls of commenters on political blogs, I think how liberals have changed, not for the better.
I sometimes get the feeling Mike Gerson thinks that conservatism is fundamentally flawed. The latest example:
For all of conservatism's evident virtues, it can have one furtive, seedy vice: A justified suspicion of government can degenerate into an anti-government ideology — rigid, stingy and indifferent to human suffering.
This time it's about concerns about PEPFAR — legitimate ones worth debate and attention. The contention that Tom Coburn is rigid, stingy and indifferent to suffering strikes me as very wrong; the senator defends himself here.
I'm not voting for an anti-government ideology. I am voting for conservatives to not fear their big-government skepticism. Nothing wrong with that.
I've always thought the flag-pin controversy was a non-issue, and I had no problem with Barack Obama, like John McCain, not wearing one. But I would like to know why Obama has now started wearing one. He has apparently worn a flag pin in his most recent appearances in West Virginia, Missouri, and Michigan. So what gives? This is the man who said in 2007, "The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."
What has changed?
P.S. Especially since Obama apparently put the pin on after leaving the U.S. Capitol yesterday (below) and before his event in Cape Girardeau, Missouri (above).
