So both conventions are over; the first new polls are in and there are 58 days to the election. So some thoughts from your truly:
1) The Palin Pick. I have been a Palin fan for a while. She was not my #1 choice (but there was no way my #1 would have been chosen) nor I did not expect here to be chosen, but am happy she was. That said, let's not go crazy. I don't think McCain was a "genius" for picking her because that implies he knew what would happen after her announcement. I suspect he liked that fact that a) she was reformer and conservative and b) her personal story was as compelling as his...though in a very different way. But no one could have foreseen what happened last week.
2) Who Won the Convention War. This was an odd one. If it were a sports match all the statistics would indicate a Democratic victory. But the score ended up with the GOP winning (I think). Again, chalk it up to the sharpshooter from AK.
3) Rather Redux. Labor Day weekend was the scene of the most vicious media onslaught again a politician that I can recall. And like the fake TANG story promulgated by 60 Minutes in the 2004 election, it backfired. The main stream media simply did not get it. While most of them DID NOT offer stories, enough of the fringe (US Weekly, Atlantic) did to tar them all. Also, notably absent were sane voices on the major networks calling foul. The hue and cry from the Right was "show us a major media story that deeply probes something controversial about Obama..." So rumors about a McCain Affair 20 years ago is fair game, but false. Rumor about an Edwards Affair in the past two years is off limits, but true. Rumors about Palin (some 54 rumors) and her KIDS are fair game, and false. My liberals friends just don't understand the CONSISTENCY of the double standard and the ever shifting reasons for or against coverage that always seems to benefit the Democrats.
4) The New Reagan. Palin, for all of her qualities, is not the New Reagan. It is true she has the ability to connect with average folk, just like Reagan did, but time will tell whether her views are similar to the Gipper's. But I, for one, am not looking for the New Reagan. I am looking for a New Somebody Else. Maybe Palin will be that person.
5) The Obama Mystique. Despite the best efforts of the media to shield Obama from tough issues, at some point, people will start to look at him deeper. I suspect that will happen in the next 45 days and he will be found wanting. His claims have never matched his record. He is not a reformer; he is a guy who rode the wave of the Chicago political machine. He his record is very partisan. And on the "judgment" question, he has never admitted to one area where he has been wrong, such as the surge.
Right now momentum clearly favors the GOP. That can change tomorrow. Stay tuned.
8.13.2008
The Bear
Here is an interesting summary of the state of the Russia-Georgia war.
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/situation-report-russo-georgian-conflict
Kagan is a neocon, but I guess they know war... The most interesting thing I took from this is the personal aspect vis-a-vis Saakashvili. But this makes a lot of sense if you believe that Putin is just a simple kleptocrat - which I do. So this does look like a Genovese v. Gambino mob war. Though, again, its more like the Genovese versus a street pusher encroaching on their turf.
I don't buy the "reduce military capability" reason because a) Georgia just is not a military threat to Russia and b) unless you kill soldiers, weapons are easily replaced.
This is a message...all that is missing is the horse's head.
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/situation-report-russo-georgian-conflict
Kagan is a neocon, but I guess they know war... The most interesting thing I took from this is the personal aspect vis-a-vis Saakashvili. But this makes a lot of sense if you believe that Putin is just a simple kleptocrat - which I do. So this does look like a Genovese v. Gambino mob war. Though, again, its more like the Genovese versus a street pusher encroaching on their turf.
I don't buy the "reduce military capability" reason because a) Georgia just is not a military threat to Russia and b) unless you kill soldiers, weapons are easily replaced.
This is a message...all that is missing is the horse's head.
8.12.2008
Devil Went Down to Georgia
One thing I did not make clear is that I do think that if Georgia were in NATO, Russia may have been deterred. Maybe. The stakes would have been higher, but I still think the Russians would have done it. It is an easy way (and great timing) to send a message. By beating up on Georgia, other nations - Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics - get the message.
NATO is unprepared to defend itself. The Alliance is a near farce in Afghanistan with too many nations refusing to actually engage the enemy. So it comes down to the US; as it always does. We need to do something meaningful and thoughtful to show the world that while we have been caught flat footed in the situation, we will be proactive in the future. Supplying our allies with enough weapons to put a dent in a few columns of tanks would be a good start.
For over 40 years, Russia and the US avoided a direct shooting war choosing to work through smaller proxies, such as the Viet Cong (against the US) and the Afghan Muhajadeen (against the Soviets). It would seem that the Cold War is not over, but has reemerged. We can deny this or accept the reality and deal with it.
NATO is unprepared to defend itself. The Alliance is a near farce in Afghanistan with too many nations refusing to actually engage the enemy. So it comes down to the US; as it always does. We need to do something meaningful and thoughtful to show the world that while we have been caught flat footed in the situation, we will be proactive in the future. Supplying our allies with enough weapons to put a dent in a few columns of tanks would be a good start.
For over 40 years, Russia and the US avoided a direct shooting war choosing to work through smaller proxies, such as the Viet Cong (against the US) and the Afghan Muhajadeen (against the Soviets). It would seem that the Cold War is not over, but has reemerged. We can deny this or accept the reality and deal with it.
Georgia on My Mind
Obama has to be hacked. He was just trying to take a little time off and the freakin' Russians decide to remind us we live in dangerous times. Can we invade our neighbors? Yes, we can!
While McCain sounded more presidential than either Obama or President Bush, what we can actually do is limited. Reading the Responsible Side of the Blogosphere, there seems to be a few thoughts:
Glenn Reynolds is realistic in acknowledging there is nothing much we can do, but he is wrong on preventative measures.
Jerry Pournelle is relieved that Georgia was not in NATO, while John Noonan at the Weekly Standard sees NATO membership as a deterrent.
A few points: no there is nothing we can do. Strongly worded statements run the risk of making us look stupid. Whatever we say needs to communicate something to the Polands and Latvias of the world. Max Boot also suggested shipping Stingers and Javelins to the Georgians, but that, I think, just provokes Russia to reciprocate with the Iranians or Al Qaeda elements in Iraq.
That said, I think we can ship Stingers and Javelins to our allies as a deterrent. Poland, the Baltic States, Georgia (once things settle down) all could buy these from us to discourage future adventures.
As for NATO, it is useless. I am not a huge fan of entangling alliances (see Pournelle above), but I do think there is a place for a League of Free Democracies. The trouble with Georgia is that they can act more recklessly if they "know" NATO Is behind them. Not that they would, but we need a level of trust that I am not sure is or was there.
As for military alliances, I would ask the question: who would we go to war for if that country was invaded? Canada? Australia? Great Britain? Japan? Beyond that...Mexico? France? Taiwan? South Korea?
I hate to think we may be forced to chose.
While McCain sounded more presidential than either Obama or President Bush, what we can actually do is limited. Reading the Responsible Side of the Blogosphere, there seems to be a few thoughts:
Glenn Reynolds is realistic in acknowledging there is nothing much we can do, but he is wrong on preventative measures.
Jerry Pournelle is relieved that Georgia was not in NATO, while John Noonan at the Weekly Standard sees NATO membership as a deterrent.
A few points: no there is nothing we can do. Strongly worded statements run the risk of making us look stupid. Whatever we say needs to communicate something to the Polands and Latvias of the world. Max Boot also suggested shipping Stingers and Javelins to the Georgians, but that, I think, just provokes Russia to reciprocate with the Iranians or Al Qaeda elements in Iraq.
That said, I think we can ship Stingers and Javelins to our allies as a deterrent. Poland, the Baltic States, Georgia (once things settle down) all could buy these from us to discourage future adventures.
As for NATO, it is useless. I am not a huge fan of entangling alliances (see Pournelle above), but I do think there is a place for a League of Free Democracies. The trouble with Georgia is that they can act more recklessly if they "know" NATO Is behind them. Not that they would, but we need a level of trust that I am not sure is or was there.
As for military alliances, I would ask the question: who would we go to war for if that country was invaded? Canada? Australia? Great Britain? Japan? Beyond that...Mexico? France? Taiwan? South Korea?
I hate to think we may be forced to chose.
8.08.2008
Dancin'
I am sorry, but So You Think You Can Dance completely kicks Idol's ass.
The final four are actually REALLY talented and fun to watch.
AND the best dancer won. No disrespecting to the other three, but Joshua was the guy to beat...and no one could.
The final four are actually REALLY talented and fun to watch.
AND the best dancer won. No disrespecting to the other three, but Joshua was the guy to beat...and no one could.
Which Earlier Time Would You Prefer?
Obama, Obama...
From Campaign Spot: "America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."
"No longer what it once was"?
So which America would you like? The America in 1808? In 1908?
The fact remains that, for all our faults, this is the best of times to be an American. There are problems we need to face as a nation, but I am confident my childrens' future will be just fine.
From Campaign Spot: "America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."
"No longer what it once was"?
So which America would you like? The America in 1808? In 1908?
The fact remains that, for all our faults, this is the best of times to be an American. There are problems we need to face as a nation, but I am confident my childrens' future will be just fine.
6.16.2008
Father? Go Figure...
The normally solid Ann Althouse blows it big time. In criticizing here, I will give a shout out to Barack Obama, who called men to task for shirking fatherly duties.
Now I enjoy reading Ann, but knee jerk, shrill psycho feminism is unbecoming. Saying a father is critically important to raising children is like saying having two kidneys is better then just one.
But since modern feminism is deeply committed to an anti-male viewpoint and any expression of the need for a two parent household MUST imply women are worthless, Barack must be stopped.
Now I am hardly a Barack supported, but his statements here are dead on. The fact is single parent households are, statistically, more troubled environments and are a larger problem in the black community. The larger problem of what has become an anti-male society needs to be addressed, but the first step is to get men and women to be more responsible about child bearing.
This is NOT to demean the often Herculean efforts of single parent households - raising kids is tough for two parents let alone one. But I am perfectly capable of issuing a compliment without an implicit put down.
UPDATE: Ann claims she is not endorsing the feminist view. Hmmmm. I am not the only one who read it this way. She seems especially miffed at this, but she should re-read her main comment paragraph. I don't think we are "gnawing on a bone."
Now I enjoy reading Ann, but knee jerk, shrill psycho feminism is unbecoming. Saying a father is critically important to raising children is like saying having two kidneys is better then just one.
But since modern feminism is deeply committed to an anti-male viewpoint and any expression of the need for a two parent household MUST imply women are worthless, Barack must be stopped.
Now I am hardly a Barack supported, but his statements here are dead on. The fact is single parent households are, statistically, more troubled environments and are a larger problem in the black community. The larger problem of what has become an anti-male society needs to be addressed, but the first step is to get men and women to be more responsible about child bearing.
This is NOT to demean the often Herculean efforts of single parent households - raising kids is tough for two parents let alone one. But I am perfectly capable of issuing a compliment without an implicit put down.
UPDATE: Ann claims she is not endorsing the feminist view. Hmmmm. I am not the only one who read it this way. She seems especially miffed at this, but she should re-read her main comment paragraph. I don't think we are "gnawing on a bone."
6.05.2008
The State v. Free Will
Ross Douthat has an intriguing post about - I think - when exactly does an act become immoral enough to warrant state intervention. I think Ross hits the nail on the head when he points out that the disagreement is one of when, not if.
I think everyone agrees that the immoral act of murder should be addressed by state action. "Envy," defined as a sin or vice, should not. Ross says, "we have a disagreement about (surprise!) the nature of abortion - whether, like other acts of violence, it's the sort of crime that the civil as well as the moral law should sanction, or whether it's a sin along the lines of gossip, say, or sloth, which the civil authorities can't and shouldn't regulate."
Not quite. I think you have a legitimate conflict between the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother to control her body. Assisted suicide is another area where there is this conflict between the will of the individual and the law.
I guess, I would ask Ross, "is this this disagreement so clear cut in your mind to warrant state action?" It might be to him, but I am torn on this issue prior to the viability of the baby. So, in my mind, God gave us free will to make these decisions and face Him on judgment day. Same with assisted suicide. It is not so clear in my mind to warrant taking away the choice if the individual to end his or her life.
I think everyone agrees that the immoral act of murder should be addressed by state action. "Envy," defined as a sin or vice, should not. Ross says, "we have a disagreement about (surprise!) the nature of abortion - whether, like other acts of violence, it's the sort of crime that the civil as well as the moral law should sanction, or whether it's a sin along the lines of gossip, say, or sloth, which the civil authorities can't and shouldn't regulate."
Not quite. I think you have a legitimate conflict between the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother to control her body. Assisted suicide is another area where there is this conflict between the will of the individual and the law.
I guess, I would ask Ross, "is this this disagreement so clear cut in your mind to warrant state action?" It might be to him, but I am torn on this issue prior to the viability of the baby. So, in my mind, God gave us free will to make these decisions and face Him on judgment day. Same with assisted suicide. It is not so clear in my mind to warrant taking away the choice if the individual to end his or her life.
5.22.2008
Lori Drew
So we have the tragic story of Megan Meier, the 13 year old girl who committed suicide after a 47 year old woman, Lori Drew, created a fictitious boy on MySpace, tricked Megan into thinking this boy liked her and then turn on her, calling her names, turning Megan's friends against her all of which caused Megan to hang herself.
Read this article.
The Feds are prosecuting her under cyber laws. But I wonder if this is manslaughter? Involuntary manslaughter is generally considered "an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence." The key in this case is that Megan committed suicide, so Lori Drew did not directly kill Megan. But,
I wave an unloaded gun threatening people, one of which has a heart attack.
I put poison in a toothpaste tube, which someone uses and dies.
I yell, "Fire," in a crowded movie theater.
This is clearly getting onto new ground. Road rage, blog rage, people are simply less inclined to be civil if there is some distance or anonymity. Viciousness can have consequences...especially to children. It is time we establish some guidelines. I am completely AGAINST criminalizing insults, but this was not a simple insult: it was a deliberate attempt, over a period of time, to cause (at least) emotional harm. And to be clear, it ONLY stopped because Megan killed herself.
Lori Drew's life is done, she will suffer financially and emotionally. I am concerned about the next time.
Read this article.
The Feds are prosecuting her under cyber laws. But I wonder if this is manslaughter? Involuntary manslaughter is generally considered "an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence." The key in this case is that Megan committed suicide, so Lori Drew did not directly kill Megan. But,
I wave an unloaded gun threatening people, one of which has a heart attack.
I put poison in a toothpaste tube, which someone uses and dies.
I yell, "Fire," in a crowded movie theater.
This is clearly getting onto new ground. Road rage, blog rage, people are simply less inclined to be civil if there is some distance or anonymity. Viciousness can have consequences...especially to children. It is time we establish some guidelines. I am completely AGAINST criminalizing insults, but this was not a simple insult: it was a deliberate attempt, over a period of time, to cause (at least) emotional harm. And to be clear, it ONLY stopped because Megan killed herself.
Lori Drew's life is done, she will suffer financially and emotionally. I am concerned about the next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)