Day By Day

Sunday, May 08, 2011

The Greatest of All Time


Critics overwhelmingly choose Citizen Kane as the greatest picture of all time. Nigel Andrews explains why.
It storms after us down the corridors of history like its own hero. Bloated, grotesque, tremendous; destroying as it goes; influencing and renewing too. Every fresh decade calls it the best film ever made. Every new generation poses and tries to answer the question, "Why?"

Citizen Kane is 70. Three score years and 10 after its New York premiere in May 1941, it is still everywhere. Not just in its own flesh, as reissue, telecast or DVD, but in the monstrous spell it casts on filmmakers. 
Read the whole thing here.

I've seen the film at least a dozen times and each time I find something new to marvel at. It's not my favorite film [I'm not really sure what that would be], but it certainly is the greatest and most interesting I have ever seen!

Why Mel Gibson Must Be Rehabilitated

Joe Queenan explains why the film industry cannot afford to lose Mel Gibson:
If the year 2010 is the year Gibson goes down for the count, that is not necessarily something to cheer about, at least not from the film buff's point of view.... This is not an industry that can afford to lose talented actors and directors; it doesn't have that many of them. Moreover, you simply cannot talk about the last three decades of motion picture history without talking about Gibson's part in it. He is a linchpin of the industry, the kind of mainstream actor (not unlike John Wayne or Steve McQueen or Clint Eastwood) who does not himself win acting awards, but without whom there would be no actors making films. Whatever you may think of him, Mel Gibson is Hollywood.
Read it here.

He's right. Absent government subsidy, film makers must depend on attracting viewers, and that is something that Mel Gibson, throughout his career, has been able to do. And he has done it very well. What is more, he takes chances and pushes the limits of the medium in interesting ways. He is, for all his embarrassments, a major figure who is still young enough to be making important films. I, for one, would like to see them.


Thursday, May 05, 2011

The Good President (continued) -- Vindication

Christopher Taylor writes in the Washington Examiner:

President Bush was reviled and hated at an almost unbelievable level while in office, with almost no accusation or conspiracy theory untried or unbelieved by the left. Every single action the man took was considered evil and horrible, every single event was an excuse to shower bitterness and spite toward the man and all he did. President Obama's career and political campaign for eight years was largely shaped by how he acted toward President George W. Bush. Now all that has changed.

In one event, on May Day, the entire case against President Bush was demolished by one of his greatest critics: President Obama.
Read the whole thing here.

Of course Taylor is overstating the case, but that is what pundits do. It is true, however, that President Obama's actions with regard to the GWOT have generally confirmed the wisdom of his predecessor's precedents. Moreover, the political Left's case against President Bush has been pretty much demolished and their hypocrisy is prominently on display for all to see. All this is great and good to see, but there is danger here too. If we allow Obama's partisans to redefine the GWOT as a hunt for Bin Laden, we diminish and de-legitimate the far more important elements of our national efforts over the past decade. Operations in Iraq may have revealed important information on al Qaeda and Bin Laden, but that was not their only, or even their most important, purpose. We must not allow the Left to use the assassination of Bin Laden as a means to undermine our accomplishments and efforts elsewhere.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Bin Laden is Dead!

Best news possible. It has little operational significance, but it still is a great and good thing. Congratulations to both Presidents Bush and Obama, and to the men and women of our military.

ABC News reports:
Osama Bin Laden was killed not by a drone strike, but up close during a firefight with U.S. troops. He was not living in a cave when he died, but in a million-dollar mansion with seven-foot walls just 40 miles from the Pakistani capital, where U.S. forces killed him Sunday. 

The U.S. had been monitoring the compound in Abbottabad for months after receiving a tip in August that Bin Laden might be seeking shelter there. He had long been said to be in the mountainous region along the Afghanistan, Pakistan border, hiding in a cave as the U.S. sought to kill him with drone strikes from above. Instead, he was in a house eight times larger than its neighbors, with a seven-foot wall and valued at $1 million. The house had no phone of television and the residents burned their trash. The house had high windows and few points of access, and U.S. officials concluded it had been built to hide someone.
According to U.S. officials, two U.S. helicopters swept into the compound at 1:30 and 2:00 a.m. Sunday morning. Twenty to 25 U.S. Navy Seals under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command in cooperation with the CIA stormed the compound and engaged Bin Laden and his men in a firefight, killed Bin Laden and all those with him.
Read the whole thing here.

CBS News video report here.

Obama's announcement:



Perhaps the best thing about this is the way that the nation is drawing together to rejoice. Sure there are carpers in the blogosphere, but they are of no consequence. This is a great triumph for our nation, our military, and our political leadership, both in the previous administration and the current one.

I am glad to see that Obama makes the point that this is not the end -- that the war continues. All credit to him for his persistence in the face of intense political pressure from elements of his own party to quit.

Note to al Zawahiri -- you're next.

President Bush's statement:
Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001.  I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission.  They have our everlasting gratitude.  This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001.  The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message:  No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.
From NRO Corner

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

S.E. Cupp on "That Rock 'n' Roll Dude"

Superhot S. E. Cupp is promoting Rep. Thaddeus "that rock 'n' roll dude" McCotter for president [here]. The Republicans could do a lot worse. I've seen McCotter in action on Gutfeld's show [S. E. Cupp appears there too] and his intelligence, humor and command of the issues is evident. He is definitely a rising star in the Republican firmament. He won't be the nominee for President, and probably wouldn't want the gig, but he would make an outstanding VP candidate.


Sunday, April 24, 2011

The Continuing Collapse of Scientific Authority





You can't always believe what you read in elite peer-reviewed journals. Even the top journals in medicine frequently publish erroneous or falsified information. And the problem is getting worse over time. The number of articles retracted in major journals has been increasing in recent years. To some extent this is because journal editors, at last awakened to the scope of the problems, have been combing through past publications to root out false and erroneous articles, but the fact that so much misinformation has been published and has gone unchallenged for so long should serve as a reminder that science is a human enterprise and as such subject to all the foibles of humanity.


I Thought She Was Supposed to Be the Dumb One

From the New York Sun:

The big question as Chairman Bernanke gets set for his first quarterly press conference is how Sarah Palin was able to figure out sooner than everyone else that the Federal Reserve’s campaign of quantitative easing wouldn’t work. Disappointment in the Fed’s policies is being reported this morning at the top of page one of the New York Times. It reports that “most Americans are not feeling the difference” from the Fed’s “experimental effort to spur a recovery by purchasing vast quantities of federal debt.” It reports that “a broad range of economists say that the disappointing results show the limits of the central bank’s ability to lift the nation from its economic malaise.”

It’s a terrific story, and well-timed, given that on Wednesday Mr. Bernanke will break tradition and meet with the press. It is part of the Fed’s effort to get ahead of what is emerging as a public relations catastrophe, as gasoline is nearing six dollars a gallon at some pumps, the cost of groceries is skyrocketing, and the value of the dollars that Mr. Bernanke’s institution issues as Federal Reserve notes has collapsed to less than a 1,500th of an ounce of gold. Unemployment is still high. Shakespeare couldn’t come up with a better plot. But how in the world did Mrs. Palin, who is supposed to be so thick, manage to figure all this out so far ahead of the New York Times and all the economists it talked to?

She did this back in November in a speech at Phoenix, which the Wall Street Journal, in a laudatory editorial at the time, characterized as zeroing in on the connection between a weak dollar and rising prices for oil and food. “We don’t want temporary, artificial economic growth brought at the expense of permanently higher inflation which will erode the value of our incomes and our savings,” the Journal quoted Mrs. Palin as saying. “We want a stable dollar combined with real economic reform. It's the only way we can get our economy back on the right track.” Now here is the New York Times quoting a raft of economists who have reached the conclusion that Mrs. Palin’s warning was right down the line.
The past few years should have been a humbling experience for the self-proclaimed "best and brightest" who arrogantly claim on the basis of achieved academic credentials the right to order other people's lives. Time and again they have erred in judgment and made an unholy mess of things. Nowhere has the failure of expertise been more on display than in the official response to our current economic crisis.The fact that the much derided former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, a product of public schools and universities, should have more clearly seen the consequences of Fed action than Chairman Bernanke and a host of highly acclaimed economists should be a sobering reminder that effective governance has little to do with technocracy. Wise governance is learned not in textbooks or academic and administrative settings, but in the hurlyburly of practical political striving. Few politicians in my lifetime have displayed such profound understanding of the needs and aspirations of ordinary people as has Sarah Palin. She understands life in ways that Ben Bernanke and the credentialed elites never will. Hers is a voice that should be heeded, but in their blinkered arrogance the beltway crowd will never understand that. It is up to the voters to teach them that essential lesson. 

The Fracking Debate




Friday, April 22, 2011

McCain's Heroes

More and more I am coming to the conclusion that as bad as Obama is [and he is horrible] McCain would have been worse.

From the WaPo:

Libyan rebels welcomed President Obama’s deployment of armed Predator drones and received praise from their most prominent U.S. visitor Friday, as they expressed hope that increased American support would help turn the tide in a conflict that the top U.S. military officer acknowledged is becoming deadlocked.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an early proponent of helping the rebels in their fight against forces loyal to longtime leader Moammar Gaddafi, arrived Friday in Benghazi, the de facto rebel capital in eastern Libya, and told reporters that the anti-Gaddafi fighters are his heroes.
Read the whole thing here. [emphasis mine]

Were they his heroes when they were trying to kill Americans?

McCain and Obama are indeed chuckleheads, but it is hard to blame them for their follies. They are imprisoned in institutional and ideological formulations that had their origins in the military and economic crises of the mid-twentieth century -- modes of thinking and acting that, in the post-Cold War world, are increasingly obsolete. McCain is a product of the national security state. Obama has embraced the alternative doctrines of liberal transnationalism. Both are irrelevant to the world of the Twenty First Century and attempts to apply them are proving to be destructive.


Wednesday, April 20, 2011

These are Supposed To Be the Good Guys

We have been assured that in the Libya conflict we are on the side of angels. Well..., fallen angels perhaps. Pajamas Media links to videos of blatant human rights offenses perpetrated by the anti-Quaddafi forces we are backing, but about whom we know very little. The more we see of them, though, the less deserving of support they seem.
While the International Criminal Court has announced that it is investigating charges of war crimes against Muammar al-Gaddafi and other members of the Libyan regime, harrowing video evidence has emerged that appears to show atrocities committed by anti-Gaddafi rebels. Among other things, the footage depicts summary executions, a prisoner being lynched, the desecration of corpses, and even a beheading. The targets of the most serious abuse are frequently black African prisoners. The ultimate source of the footage appears to be rebel forces or sympathizers themselves.

Check out the whole thing here.

That's right. They took these videos themselves and broadcast them. They seem to be proud of what they are doing and see a political payoff in advertising their barbarity.

Explain to me again just why we are supporting these guys?

We Have Met the Enemy....





and it is the next generation.

ht: Jonah

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Amazing Undersea Photos


It's easy to take photos like this. Alexander Semenov explains:

It’s simple: Take a camera and macro lens, and encase it in an underwater housing. Connect all the cords, close it, check all edges and buttons, and check your underwater strobes. Then lug all (approximately) 8kg of your high tech photography equipment out on the boat, dive into the sea, and find your creature. Manually set up all parameters of the camera and strobes—then be sure not to move or even breath—and adjust your camera to find the right focus point (no auto-focusing, all manual). Press the shutter button, and that's it. Well, almost. There are always some environmental issues, such as currents, icy cold water (-2*C), total darkness below 20m depth, constant turbidity, and more. But you can get accustomed to it after about two or three hundreds dives. Good luck!  
Check out the whole interview, accompanied by fabulous photos here.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Sarah Hits A Homer


Sarah Palin gave a speech in Madison, Wisconsin and showed just why she has to be taken seriously as a force to be reckoned with in the upcoming election cycle. She takes it to Obama hard, clear, and direct. This is one lady who cannot be ignored. Check her speech out here.

Wow!

Here's how Reuters reported the event:
Sarah Palin rides to the sound of the guns. It was a chilly, wet and blustery afternoon in Madison, Wisconsin — one more appropriate for a late-season Packers game than a springtime political rally. The stirring NFL Films theme,  “The Classic Battle,” would’ve been a more apt musical choice than Van Halen’s “Right Now” to accompany Palin as she entered the stage outside the state capital building to address thousands of Tea Party members, along with a good number of extremely hostile, expletive-hurling government union rowdies.

In the last few months, political professionals and insiders have been writing off the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate, convinced she won’t run for the GOP nomination in 2012 or ever. Then again, even those GOPers who are running can hardly compete with the MSM’s weird, all-consuming fascination with The Donald.

But all it took was one powerful, pugnacious and presidential speech — just 15 minutes long — for Palin to again make herself completely relevant to the current political and policy battles raging across America.

 Read the whole thing here.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Marx and the Academics

Ron Radosh has a nice review of Terry Eagleton's latest whitewash of Marxism over at Pajamas Media. He writes:


For some reason, every time a modern capitalist economy faces a problem such as our current fiscal crisis here in the United States, members of the academy trout out Karl Marx as the solution. The latest example comes from The Chronicle Review, the literary supplement of The Chronicle of Higher Education. It is written by the British activist and writer Terry Eagleton, and is based on his new book, Why Marx was Right.

We all are all too familiar with the fact that while the world is moving away from social democracy, not to speak of Marxism as a philosophy, it always remains alive and well in our institutions of higher learning. Eagleton is too smart to not be unaware of the serious challenges to Marxism, especially the major defeat it suffered after the fall of the Soviet Union. So he acknowledges this at the start. He writes:
“Were not Marx’s ideas responsible for despotism, mass murder, labor camps, economic catastrophe, and the loss of liberty for millions of men and women? Was not one of his devoted disciples a paranoid Georgian peasant by the name of Stalin, and another a brutal Chinese dictator who may well have had the blood of some 30 million of his people on his hands?”

You know what is coming next, if you are even slightly bit familiar with the Left’s fallback position: Marx was not responsible for the wrong interpretations made of his work by the totalitarians of the last century.  Sure enough, Eagleton argues that “Marx was no more responsible for the monstrous oppression of the communist world than Jesus was responsible for the Inquisition.”

Well, that sets up a nice false equivalency. See how Radosh handles it here.


Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Shooting Fish In A Barrel

Add another nail to the coffin of global warming theory and the IPCC report upon which policy recommendations are based. Check out Douglas Keenan's article in the WSJ. He does a pretty good job of explaining just how inadequate was the statistical analysis on which the IPCC relied. Warning: a little familiarity with stat theory is helpful.

Read it here.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

150 Years Ago Today -- War!!!

Today marks the onset of open hostilities in the American Civil War. Here's the news that greeted people in Philadelphia on that day.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

The Beltway Bunch versus America

Mickey Kaus, one of the brightest guys doing political analysis, explains where the real lines of conflict are drawn in the budget debate -- hint, it's not where the media are telling you it is. 
There’s a $1.6 trillion deficit but the feds are still hiring. As of March 23 they were hiring someone to run a Facebook page for the Deparment of the Interior (at up to $115,000 a year). They were hiring equal opportunity compliance officers at the Peace Corps and Department of Interior for $150,000 to $180,000 a pop. They were hiring deputy speechwriters for officials at relatively obscure agencies. …P.S.: The point isn’t so much that these federal employees are overpaid, though they are. The point is that if there were any actual sense of a deficit crisis in Washington these are jobs that would not be filled at all. 
Instead of tightening their belts, denizens of the beltway precincts are attempting to shift attention away from discretionary spending [where their bread is buttered] to entitlements spending [which benefits the public at large]. Kaus admits that entitlements is where the big money is, but the refusal of the beltway crowd to share in the pain is, to him, suspicious.
[I]t looks like a tacit conspiracy of Washingtonians not to sacrifice the jobs of any of their friends, or the local economy, by any kind of actual slimming down (of the sort a private company in similar straits would have undertaken years ago).
He asks, Why not wring the fat out of government first?
 
Good question.

Read the whole piece here

Thursday, April 07, 2011

Stonehenge Close Up

Lies of the Left (continued) -- "The Kingdom of Lies"

Victor Davis Hanson writes:


I am a subject in a kingdom of lies. At 57, I have grown up with decades of untruth — advanced for the purposes of purported social unity, the noble aim of egalitarianism, and the advancement of a cognitive elite in government, journalism, the arts, and the universities.


Alger Hiss really was a communist operative, albeit an elegant and snooty sort of one. The Rosenbergs were tag-team spies. Noble Laureate Rigoberta Menchu did not really write her own memoir. I admire the lives of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, even as I sensed there were large areas of their biographies that simply could not be disclosed and that the censorship was apparently for our own good. I know that if I did what Eliot Spitzer did I would not be hosting a TV show.


I did not quite know how “witch hunt” characterized the often disreputable tactics of Joe McCarthy — cruel and obnoxious were the better adjectives. You see, there were really communists in Hollywood at a time of a dangerous global cold war against communism, in a way there were never any witches at all in Salem.
But then for some reason I sensed that a murderous, camouflaged Fidel Castro killed more innocents than a murderous, gold-braided Augusto Pinochet. I accepted that we were to be silent about the former’s crimes since his ends were said to be good, while the latter’s crimes were for the bad — though economists of no particular political affiliations have shown that Chileans escaped poverty and dictatorship while Cubans were, and are still, plagued by both.

He's just getting started. Read the whole thing here and ponder the magnitude, persistence and pervasiveness of the falsehoods on which our contemporary culture is based, and how profoundly they represent a repudiation of our national experience prior to the 1960's. 


Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Slowly I Turned....

A conversation with an old friend brought to mind this comedy treasure from burlesque theater. Here's Lucille Ball's version of it. Enjoy!

Monday, April 04, 2011

Obama's Fantasyland

The great debate continues -- are the many and manifest failures of the Obama administration attributable to sheer incompetence, or are they informed by guiding principles?

Nile Gardiner, writing in The Telegraph, thinks it is the former. He sees "a clueless presidency adrift in a sea of confusion" of which the Libya misadventure is only the most recent instance. [here]. Steven Metz, over at the New Republic, disagrees. He strives mightily to discern within the seemingly random impulses generated from the White House a coherent strategy. He writes:
Put simply, Obama’s Libya strategy is designed to avoid the most undesirable outcomes rather than optimize the chances of a desired outcome, to do something without “owning” the conflict, to maintain maximum flexibility as the situation evolves, and to do all of this in the face of powerful constraints. The question is whether this strategy can actually work.
Read it here.

I will give Metz credit for ingenuity. He alone seems to have some idea of what is going on in Obama's mind. I, on the other hand, think the wise course is never to ascribe to conspiracy what can just as easily be explained as incompetence. At least I hope so. Responding to Metz' article Richard Fernandez notes that if he is right then Obama has fled the real world for a fantasyland of legal fictions.
In that strategic world, no matter the galaxy it inhabits, neither victory nor defeat exist.  It’s gone. Poof. Finished. Kaput. America can tag along on expeditions which it pays for, but cares not where it leads. Best of all, it isn’t war, repeat: it isn’t war. Therefore the President doesn’t have to ask Congress for permission to make it.
....
[S]uch a strategy, if accurately described by Metz may really represent the ultimate triumph of lawfare over common sense. Of fantasy over reality. Of the cartoon network over the news channel. Strategy becomes ultimately an affair of words, perceptions and formulations. There is no objective correlative between these fancy concepts and physical events like death, the occupation of cities, looting, curfews, the forced movement of persons or things of that sort.
But Fernandez notes fantasies are not innocuous. They do have real world consequences.
You may tell a man that if he feels a boot in his face or a bayonet in his gut to imagine it isn’t there. Unfortunately he still feels it, but so long as all the gunpowder and blood remain overseas, and only ink and talking points are shed domestically, then a boot isn’t a boot and a bayonet isn’t a bayonet.
Read the whole thing here.

So in the end it really doesn't matter whether the failed policies are attributable to incompetence or malfeasance. What matters is that the failures have real world consequences from which millions of people are and will be suffering. As I have pointed out in a number of posts, the objective state of the world became much better during the Bush presidency. I doubt that we will be able to say the same of his successor.

Film Studies 101 -- The Future of Film

"The Future of Film" by Joseph Susanka
Film is not dead.
 
Well, film as a format might be dead. When such cinematographic greats as Dante Spinotti, John Seale, and the criminally underappreciated Roger Deakins begin proclaiming the extraordinary technical and artistic benefits of shooting digitally, the writing is definitely on the wall.

But film as an art form? As an exciting, engaging way to tell stories; to explore human nature in its many fascinating facets; to communicate with others and challenge them to consider great truths? Borrowing from Twain's immortal words, the rumors of film's death have been greatly exaggerated.
Read the whole thing here.

Film may have a future, but does Hollywood?

Mark Harris writes:
[L]et's look ahead to what's on the menu for this year: four adaptations of comic books. One prequel to an adaptation of a comic book. One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a children's book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title.
Can Hollywood continue to survive churning out such crapola?

Harris thinks so. Read why here.

Burning the Koran

Yes, Terry Jones act of book burning was provocative, offensive, and irresponsible.

No, he should not be prosecuted, investigated, or the subject of any official response. We do have rights, and he was exercising his.

Jones is a moron, but he is in no way worse than those infantile "artists" who deface or offensively represent Christian symbols. They are offensive, irresponsible morons too.

Nor is he any worse than Bill Ayres or any of the other creeps who deface or destroy the American flag.

In no way is Pastor Jones responsible for the deaths of people in Afghanistan. If you wish to condemn him, then you must assign equal responsibility to the news media who publicized his actions, to Hamid Karzai who exploited those reports for political gain, and to the Muslim religious zealots who instigated riots. But, in the final analysis, the only responsible parties are those sub-human wretches who carried out the murders.

The most dangerous and dismaying aspect of the whole affair is the opinion expressed by various government and media figures to the effect that Pastor Jones should be investigated, the subject of other official actions, etc.

That's all I have to say on the subject.

I leave further comment to Christopher Hitchens [here].


The Good President (continued) -- Guantanamo

Well, it took a while, but our fine young President, on the very day he announces his re-election bid, finally admits that President Bush was right on Guantanamo, he just can't bring himself to say the worlds. Instead we get [from the NYT]:
WASHINGTON — In a major reversal, the Obama administration has decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for his role in the attacks of Sept. 11 before a military commission at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and not in a civilian courtroom. 

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to announce on Monday afternoon that Mr. Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the attacks, and four other accused conspirators will face charges before a panel of military officers, a law enforcement official said. The Justice Department has scheduled a press conference for 2 p.m. Eastern time. 
Read it here.

Another tacit admission that on all the things that really matter, Bush was right.


Things Fall Apart

The liberal-progressive synthesis that has dominated our political culture through most of the past century is rapidly disintegrating. Jonah Goldberg points out some of the most prominent instances:
For the last two years, the old ways of Washington have been crashing down like pillars of Mordor at the end of The Lord of the Rings.

Then-candidate Obama was himself fond of noting that the conventional wisdom — or “CW” — was that a black guy with a funny name could never be elected president.  
....

Coming into office during a wrenching financial crisis, the conventional wisdom was that the American people would rally around New Deal policies. At least that’s what liberal historians and political scientists said they should do.

The experts were wrong.
He discusses a number of other areas in which the 

The reason, of course, that the conventional expert opinion has regularly, and sometimes spectacularly, been wrong in its assumptions is that the political culture is changing. In hindsight you can see the harbingers -- the tax revolt, Perot, the success of anti-Washington candidates, etc. but intellectual habits die hard. It will take a real shock to the system to finally convince the political class that the old progressive nostrums no longer apply.

Now who is going to administer that shock.

Sunday, April 03, 2011

The Good President (continued) -- TARP

In the avalanche of anti-Bush hysteria ginned up by political opportunists and journalistic know nothings in the past few years every one of his actions has been subject to intense criticism -- none more so than TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] created by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, signed into law back in October, 2008. Variously attacked as a "bailout" for Wall Street, a "takeover" of the banking industry, and a mean-spirited and limited failure to respond effectively in the face of economic collapse, TARP has actually been one of the most successful government responses to an economic crises in history. At least that is what Robert Samuelson has argued. He writes:
It isn’t often that the government launches a major program that achieves its main goals at a tiny fraction of its estimated costs. That’s the story of TARP — the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Created in October 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, it helped stabilize the economy, using only $410 billion of its authorized $700 billion. And most of that will be repaid. The Congressional Budget Office, which once projected TARP’s ultimate cost at $356 billion, now says $19 billion. 

This could go lower.

One lesson of the financial crisis is this: When the entire financial system succumbs to panic, only the government is powerful enough to prevent a complete collapse. Panics signify the triumph of fear. TARP was part of the process by which fear was overcome. It wasn’t the only part, but it was an essential part. Without TARP, we’d be worse off today.
Indeed we would! One might quibble with some ways in which the Obama administration has administered the program -- I certainly would -- but as originally conceived and signed into law by President Bush it has been a stunning accomplishment. It is important to appreciate this. TARP is one of the few examples in which the government has responded effectively to economic crisis. There will be other such crises and it will be to nobody's benefit if the shining example set by President Bush should be buried under a cloud of politically-inspired acrimony.

Read Samuelson's column here.

Saturday, April 02, 2011

Film Studies 101: Gone With the Wind as a Postapocalyptic Epic






An interesting take on one of the greatest films of all time. A world destroyed and then the saga of survivors' attempt to rebuild their ruined lives.

Friday, April 01, 2011

Obama and the "Three Graces"

Victor Davis Hanson, the great summarizer, asks the question:
how did Obama, the archetype war critic, find himself bombing—in optional and preemptive fashion, and without congressional authority — an Arab Muslim oil-exporting country, and one that posed no immediate threat to American national security, despite being governed by a monster who, nevertheless, had been recently courted by Western intellectuals, academics, universities, and diplomats?
His answer is the best, most coherent, short summary of the crisis I have seen yet.

Read it here.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Goldberg on Conservatism and American Exceptionalism

Jonah Goldberg recently published a short piece in which he criticized Western feminists for their apparent indifference to the plight of women in the Muslim world. It's an excellent and well-reasoned argument, but it has roused a storm of criticism from people on the Left. In today's NRO Corner he responds to his critics and in doing so makes some very perceptive observations regarding American conservatism and how it differs from European varieties.

America is ideologically and politically syncretic. What is fundamentally American is a mix of ideas that are both on the “right” and “left” in other countries. A French conservative might hold positions shared by an American leftist, and a French liberal certainly holds positions shared by American conservatives. To say that conservatism must, of necessity, reject anything, anywhere, solely because at a specific point in time it can be dubbed “leftist” is absolutely ridiculous. So many ideas born on the left have come to be embraced on the right and for good reason. We on the right now champion governmental colorblindness, for example.

Conservatism isn’t about teams and hoarding ideological chips. It is about figuring out what is right and wrong, discriminating between the enduring and the transitory. This means, as Lincoln said, that conservatism will tend toward adhering to the old and tried over the new and untried. But eventually the new and untried become the old and tried, and there’s no reason for conservatism to reject ideas proven by time simply because of their embarrassing leftist parentage.
As I’ve been writing here for years (with all credit due to Friedrich Hayek and Sam Huntington), American conservatives are the only self-described conservatives in the world who defend a classically liberal revolution. That means something very special, indeed it is a great wellspring of American exceptionalism. A conservative in America doesn’t conserve theocracy or monarchy. He conserves the institutions of liberty. Perhaps not solely, for there are other things worth conserving as well. But a conservatism that does not conserve those institutions is not worth conserving. And in that fight, foreign and domestic, the Right should look for allies wherever it can.


Liberal Paranoia and the Press

Writing in the Weekly Standard, Matthew Continetti illuminates the latest of many conspiracy theories advanced by the political Left.

David Koch’s secretary told him the news. This was in February, during the rowdy standoff between Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and demonstrators backing 14 Democratic legislators who’d fled to Illinois rather than vote on a bill weakening public employee unions. Koch’s secretary said that an editor for a left-wing website, the Buffalo Beast, had telephoned the governor posing as David Koch and recorded the conversation. And Walker had fallen for it! He’d had a 20-minute conversation with this bozo, not once questioning the caller’s identity. But then how could Walker have known? Sure, David Koch was a billionaire whose company had donated to his campaign. But Koch (pronounced “Coke”) had never talked to Walker in his life. 

Yet here were the media reporting that he and his brother Charles were behind Walker’s push against public employees. Anger washed over David like a red tide. He’d been victimized by some punk with a political agenda.
Read the whole thing here.

Two obvious points to make -- First, this explains how Governor Walker could be so easily taken in by the hoaxer -- he has had no contact with his supposed co-conspirators. The Left's conspiracy theory makes no sense. Walker could not be hoaxed if he knew and had  dealt with David Koch in the past, and the success of the hoax therefore invalidates its premise. Second, despite this the Left's bizarre claims that the hoax proved conspiracy were widely accepted and disseminated by the mainstream media which then used the allegations to launch a deep and widespread investigation of the Koch brothers.

Faugh!

Continetti then goes on to detail the wild accusations launched against the Kochs.
Liberals in the media turned into Koch addicts. They ascribed every bad thing under the sun to the brothers and their checkbooks. Pollution, the Tea Party, global warming denial—the Kochs were responsible. The liberals kneaded the facts like clay until the Kochs resembled a Lovecraftian monster: the Kochtopus! Its tentacles stretched everywhere. “Their private agenda is really the eradication of the federal government in almost all of its forms, other than the parts of it that protect personal rights,” New Yorker writer Jane Mayer told NPR’s Terry Gross. Anonymous, the hackers’ collective, accused the Kochs of attempting to “usurp American Democracy.” The Koch brothers manipulated the Tea Partiers, according to Keith Olbermann, by “telling them what to say and which causes to take on and also giving them lots of money to do it with.”
And so it goes, and so it goes. Time and again liberals in the media construct and market insane conspiracy fantasies, and the bizarre nature of these efforts goes largely unnoticed. Liberals are widely portrayed as exponents of reasonable analysis while conservatives are associated with a "paranoid style" of political discourse. Such has been the case ever since half a century ago Columbia historian Richard Hofstader, in a deeply dishonest essay informed by warmed over Frankfort School nonsense,  identified the political right with conspiratorial thinking. Hofstader's essay has ever since been a staple of liberal thought and its application permeates the liberal media. Yet, as Continetti notes, expressions of the "paranoid style" on the Left are largely unremarked on and are even endorsed by the mainstream press. Such is the state of our current political discourse.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

At the Movies

"She Who Must Not Be Named" occasionally goes on a movie kick. This week, for instance, at her insistence we have seen three movies. The first was "The Lincoln Lawyer" starring Matthew McConaughey. It's a silly little trifle in which Matt plays a street smart lawyer who operates out of the back seat of a Lincoln Town Car [hence the title] who is challenged by a rich pretty-boy, played by Ryan Philippe, who likes to assault women. It is pitched at about the level of a weekly TV drama and never aspires to anything higher. Readers might be interested to know that Matt keeps his streak intact -- he takes his shirt off, just as he has done in every other of his films. Instantly forgettable, LL is a waste of both time and money.

The second film was truly atrocious. It was "Limitless" starring Bradley Cooper. It's about a non-productive writer who takes a pill that boosts his intelligence and makes him into a super-genius. Eventually things begin to go wrong and he starts to have problems..., big problems. At first I thought this might be an updated version of the Faust legend, but it soon became apparent that it was much less profound than that. Then I hoped that it might have some of the clout of Cliff Robertson's 1968 SF classic, "Charly", but by the end it had morphed into Charlie Sheen's fantasy world where appropriately administered medication can turn you into a "winner" rather than a corpse. Again, it is not worth your time or money. Skip it.

The third flick was a real winner. "Battle: Los Angeles" stars Aaron Eckhart and state of the art CGI in a SF tale pitting evil aliens against doughty American marines. On a technical level -- the use of sound, CGI, shakeycam, etc. it is as contemporary as you can get, but in terms of theme, characterization, and plotting it is a throwback to the military dramas of half a century ago. I loved it! The queasycam was a bit too much -- it always is -- and the sound effects were a bit annoying, but the story [essentially a love letter to the USMC] was a lot of fun. You had a small, ethnically mixed, squad of marines, led by a vet on the brink of retirement, who face danger and overcome their fears and limitations to [and I'm not spoiling anything here] fight on to victory. There's not much characterization and every cliche of the old battle stories is prominently and unapologetically portrayed. It was a relief to see a film that didn't wink at or parody the old conventions and for me the whole thing worked beautifully. It's my recommendation for this week -- check it out!


Saturday, March 26, 2011

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Michelle Malkin's Cousin is Missing


 If you live in or visit the Seattle area, here's the basic information. For more go here.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

What the West Looked Like



Check out this terrific collection of photographs taken along the western frontier between 1887 and 1892. The pictures really bring the past to life.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Rubbing It In

Instapundit links to this, calling it the blog comment of the week. It's devastating.


What I like about Obama
Obviously, the biggest problem with Bush was sending the military into an Arab Muslim country that hadn't even attacked us. Among the several things that made that offensive were
* the rush to war - it was only several months after the possibility of military involvement was raised that combat operations began
* lack of United Nations sanction - only 17 relevant resolutions were ever passed before they were enforced
* lack of Congressional oversight - the President authorized the use of military force based on the flimsy pretext of a bill passed by Congress titled "Authorization of the Use of Military Force", rather than seeking a document that had the words "declaration of war" in it; that's every bit as bad as getting no Congressional approval at all
* obvious financial motives - clearly no one approved of the murderous dictator or sought a normal working relationship with him besides the French; at the same time, one couldn't help but be suspicious of the fact that the population we were ostensibly protecting was located conveniently near the oil fields
* stretching our military - we were overburdened as it was, and our brave military despite its courage lacked the resources for yet another operation
* inflating our military - the only way to keep the bloodthirsty Pentagon beast fed was to give it the hordes of jobless young men who had no prospects in an economy that saw unemployment skyrocket above 4% in most states
* ignoring our generals - the decision to go to war was made by political hacks who had never worn a uniform
* inflaming the Arab Street - despite some touchy-feely talk about Islam, it was impossible for the Muslim world not to notice how the President made repeated, insistent proclamations of his Christianity, how he only ever used the military against Muslim targets, and how at the time the war started he'd kept the concentration camp at Guantanamo open for over a year
* wasting money - it was completely irresponsible to commit the military to an expensive mission when the President's fiscal mismanagement had resulted in a budget deficit of over $150 billion in 2002
But anyway, what I really like about Obama is that he's gone 29-3 in his bracket picks over the first two days. You have to spend a lot of time watching college basketball to be that good.
Wow, just wow! The snark doesn't get any more vicious than that. I have to admit that I'm really, really enjoying this.


Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Pretending to be President

Jim Geraghty writes:

It's also worth recalling that [George W. Bush] was demonized endlessly, for A) continuing to listen to a teacher read My Pet Goat after being informed of the 9/11 attacks, refraining from causing a panic among children before him; B) holding a guitar, somehow showing he ignored Hurricane Katrina C) saying "now watch this drive," supposedly showing he was lazily golfing while the War on Terror raged. In other words, our friends on the left already established the standard that a president dare not be seen doing anything less than fully appropriate focus while a crisis is occurring, anywhere in the world.

 
In the past week, as the budget negotiations, the deteriorating situation in Libya and the Japan crisis have been big issues one, two, and three, the president has found time for not just bracket picks and a DNC fundraiser but the bullying summit, a ceremony with the Chicago Blackhawks, a round of golf, the Gridiron dinner, a meeting with "student finalists of the Intel Science Talent Search 2011 competition", a speech at a school in Arlington, a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen of Denmark in the Oval Office, discussing "the close ties between the United States and Denmark," and a weekly presidential address focusing on "Women's History Month." Wednesday, he's got another fundraiser.

It's almost as if he's looking for things to do other than deal with these big pressing issues.
Indeed!

How to Live on 10 Billion Dollars a Day

Iowahawk's latest, and as usual hilarious, commentary.


Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion  of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners.  What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9....

Read the whole thing here.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Who Is Obama Most Like?

Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln. Republicans look at him and see Jimmy Carter. Don Surber thinks he is most like Richard Nixon.

Maybe it is the fund-raising.
Maybe it is the enemies list.
Maybe it is the many wars on Fox News.
Maybe it is his friends, although Bebe Rebozo never said “God Damn America” or tried to blow up the Pentagon.
But there is something about Barack Obama that reminds me of Richard Nixon.

He notes that public confidence in the government is at the lowest point since the Nixon administration and ties that to the fecklessness of our commander in chief.

Read it here.

As for me -- I think he's most like Obama. Each president is unique.

Beware


Don't forget -- Brutus, Cassius and the crowd were all Republicans.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

The Danger of Liberalism

The Christian Science Monitor recently published a piece on the repressive nature of modern liberalism that contains one of my favorite quotes from one of the great liberal icons of the Twentieth Century -- Lionel Trilling.

"Some paradox of our nature leads us," Trilling wrote in "The Liberal Imagination," "when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them objects of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion."

Trilling's observation succinctly outlines the process by which liberal reform rapidly degenerates into tyranny. The article goes on to outline a number of areas in which liberal policies serve to radically restrict the freedom of individuals and it contains links to a number of other sources on the subject. It's worth spending a little time on. Check it out here.


Ignoring the Elephant

Tom Friedman wrote another of his supremely silly columns the other day in which he listed what he considered to be the non-obvious factors that underlay the revolutionary impulse in the Arab world. They included:
The fact that Obama is now President of the United States has inspired Muslim youth to think that they can achieve anything.


Google Earth has revealed to urban proles the vast inequalities in land distribution throughout much of the Arab world.


Israel has shown that democracies can punish politicians who violate the public trust.


China's success stands in sharp contrast to Egypt's failure to compete in the modern world.


The new Palestinian leadership has promised to be more accountable than in the past.
I'll say! They really are non-obvious, even to the point of being totally implausible. He does make passing mention to the obvious, and far more plausible, factors underlying Arab discontent: tyranny, youth unemployment, rising food prices, and social media. What I find interesting, though, is the fact that he did not see fit to include President Bush's liberation of Iraq which created a functioning Arab democracy. But then, that's not surprising. He works for the New York Times.

Read the article here.

As a counterpoint to Friedman's nonsense, Charles Krauthammer notes the immense importance of Bush's accomplishments in Iraq:


Now, it can be argued that the price in blood and treasure that America paid to establish Iraq's democracy was too high. But whatever side you take on that question, what's unmistakable is that to the Middle Easterner, Iraq today is the only functioning Arab democracy, with multiparty elections and the freest press. Its democracy is fragile and imperfect - last week, security forces cracked down on demonstrators demanding better services - but were Egypt to be as politically developed in, say, a year as is Iraq today, we would think it a great success.

For Libyans, the effect of the Iraq war is even more concrete. However much bloodshed they face, they have been spared the threat of genocide. Gaddafi was so terrified by what we did to Saddam & Sons that he plea-bargained away his weapons of mass destruction. For a rebel in Benghazi, that is no small matter.
Yet we have been told incessantly how Iraq poisoned the Arab mind against America. Really? Where is the rampant anti-Americanism in any of these revolutions? In fact, notes Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, the United States has been "conspicuously absent from the sloganeering." 

It's Yemen's president and the delusional Gaddafi who are railing against American conspiracies to rule and enslave. The demonstrators in the streets of Egypt, Iran and Libya have been straining their eyes for America to help. They are not chanting the antiwar slogans - remember "No blood for oil"? - of the American left. Why would they? America is leaving Iraq having taken no oil, having established no permanent bases, having left behind not a puppet regime but a functioning democracy. This, after Iraq's purple-fingered exercises in free elections seen on television everywhere set an example for the entire region. 
 Read the column here.


Wednesday, March 09, 2011

David Broder Is Gone

He was, until quite recently, an  important figure in the beltway commentariat and could usually be relied upon to provide sober and thoughtful, if often conventional, perspectives on national political silliness. I always enjoyed reading his columns and will miss him.

Read the WaPo obit here.

Will's Wisdom

I haven't been paying much attention to George Will lately. Maybe I should. He has some questions that should be considered by the administration before they decide if and how to react to the ongoing crisis in Libya. To wit:

  • The world would be better without Gaddafi. But is that a vital U.S. national interest? If it is, when did it become so? A month ago, no one thought it was.
  • How much of Gaddafi's violence is coming from the air? Even if his aircraft are swept from his skies, would that be decisive?
  • What lesson should be learned from the fact that Europe's worst atrocity since the Second World War - the massacre by Serbs of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica - occurred beneath a no-fly zone?
  • Sen. John Kerry says: "The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention. And I don't consider the fly zone stepping over that line." But how is imposing a no-fly zone - the use of military force to further military and political objectives - not military intervention?
  • U.S. forces might ground Gaddafi's fixed-wing aircraft by destroying runways at his 13 air bases, but to keep helicopter gunships grounded would require continuing air patrols, which would require the destruction of Libya's radar and anti-aircraft installations. If collateral damage from such destruction included civilian deaths - remember those nine Afghan boys recently killed by mistake when they were gathering firewood - are we prepared for the televised pictures?
  • The Economist reports Gaddafi has "a huge arsenal of Russian surface-to-air missiles" and that some experts think Libya has SAMs that could threaten U.S. or allies' aircraft. If a pilot is downed and captured, are we ready for the hostage drama?
  • If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gaddafi fighters, how do we get them there?
  • Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gaddafi forces. Who are they?
  • Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?
  • Because of what seems to have been the controlling goal of avoiding U.S. and NATO casualties, the humanitarian intervention - 79 days of bombing - against Serbia in Kosovo was conducted from 15,000 feet. This marked the intervention as a project worth killing for but not worth dying for. Would intervention in Libya be similar? Are such interventions morally dubious?
  • Could intervention avoid "mission creep"? If grounding Gaddafi's aircraft is a humanitarian imperative, why isn't protecting his enemies from ground attacks?
  • In Tunisia and then in Egypt, regimes were toppled by protests. Libya is convulsed not by protests but by war. Not a war of aggression, not a war with armies violating national borders and thereby implicating the basic tenets of agreed-upon elements of international law, but a civil war. How often has intervention by nation A in nation B's civil war enlarged the welfare of nation A?
  • Before we intervene in Libya, do we ask the United Nations for permission? If it is refused, do we proceed anyway? If so, why ask? If we are refused permission and recede from intervention, have we not made U.S. foreign policy hostage to a hostile institution?
  • Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fears Libya becoming a failed state - "a giant Somalia." Speaking of which, have we not seen a cautionary movie - "Black Hawk Down" - about how humanitarian military interventions can take nasty turns?
  • The Egyptian crowds watched and learned from the Tunisian crowds. But the Libyan government watched and learned from the fate of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. It has decided to fight. Would not U.S. intervention in Libya encourage other restive peoples to expect U.S. military assistance?
  • Would it be wise for U.S. military force to be engaged simultaneously in three Muslim nations?
Read the whole thing here. Given all these unknowns it is easy to understand the confusion and hesitancy of the One and his advisers as the situation in North Africa seems to be changing hourly, What is sickening is watching them treat the whole thing as a PR problem as they try to catch up to and exploit the latest journalistic postings from the region while at the same time trying to pretend that they have a coherent policy. The irony, of course, is that the harder they try to pretend that they are competent and on top of things, the more they reveal their incompetence and ignorance.

Faugh!

Saturday, March 05, 2011

Street Work


Getting ready for the race. On Labor Day Baltimore will be hosting a formula one event at the Inner Harbor so crews have been busy for the past several months resurfacing and grading all the streets downtown. At times it makes driving near the harbor a nightmare, but since they are also upgrading and repairing water and sewage facilities at the same time, it is for the long-term benefit of those of us who are fortunate enough to live in the neighborhood. As it turns out I will be able to watch the race from my living room. How cool is that?

Responding to the Prophets of Doom

For as long as I can remember commentators on America's future have been spewing an endless stream of doom and gloom. We were always on the verge of being buried by the Soviet Union, or a resurgent Europe, or Japan, or somebody. Today the somebodies are China and India and, in the midst of the current economic crisis, the doom mongers are out in full force.

So far the doomsters have been wrong every time, and there is good reason to expect that they will be wrong again. Shika Dalmia, writing in Reason, explains why. She argues that, although China, and to a lesser extent India, have made extraordinary strides, the benefits of economic growth are largely concentrated within a relatively small stratum of their societies. In both countries hundreds of millions of people still live in abject poverty and the great mass of the population is afforded few of the opportunities produced by economic growth. Because of the narrow and shallow nature of Asian economic growth America is still far and away the land of opportunity.

America maximizes the talents of its population to a much greater extent than does either India or China.

Americans of all classes also have access to vast amounts of "intangible wealth" in the form of good roads, clean water, efficient sewage removal and a variety of social services that are not available to most of the population in Asian countries.

The American education system, if considered in toto, is superior to those of Asian countries. It seeks to serve the entire population whereas in Asian countries good education is available only to the elites.

Because of the depth and breadth of its prosperity America still offers immigrants from Asia far better opportunities than they could find in their home countries.

Americans, unlike Asians, have a profoundly critical perspective on their own country, a point of view that is reflected in the constant, but never realized, assertions of imminent collapse. This pessimism means that in America social and economic problems are more quickly identified, recognized and addressed than in China and India. Moreover, and this is important, when faced with problems Americans still tend to look for solutions outside the government rather than waiting for authorities to address them.

It's an interesting argument and it does contain certain truths. Studies of American and Asian economies we are often comparing apples and oranges in ways that mask the deep strengths of the American society and economy. Still, there is no reason to indulge in complacency. As Asian economies mature the benefits they generate will begin to reach more of their populations, creating opportunities comparable to those Americans have long enjoyed. And, in America, there has been in recent decades a very disturbing development -- the emergence of a relatively closed pseudo-meritocratic credentialized elite that perpetuates itself from generation to generation. In the future disparities between American and Asian societies may diminish, but for now Shika Dalmia is right -- the American advantage is not likely to disappear for a long time.

Read the article here.

Thursday, March 03, 2011

Spring Is Coming

The Snowdrops are up! Spring is on the way. Every year these are the first of my wife's flowers to bloom.


But the bulbs are not far behind. Already the leaves are poking up through the soil. Soon come the flowers. Soon, soon, soon. I can hardly wait.


Lies of the Left -- Student Achievement and Unions

Iowahawk demolishes the argument, advanced by liberals, that students in unionized States get better instruction than those who attend school in non-unionized ones. Yes, Wisconsin ranks near the top on national surveys of student achievement, as do several other unionized States in the Midwest and Northeast, while non-unionized states in the South. But, as Iowahawk points out when standardized by ethnic group, the discrepancies disappear and are even reversed. When compared to students in the same ethnic category, the scores of students from non-unionized States are actually higher than they are in the high-ranking unionized States. It's a brilliant, straightforward, and devastating rebuttal to liberal sophistry.

Read it here.


Wednesday, March 02, 2011

The Collapse of "Realism"

Leon Wieseltier writes in the New Republic:
As the dictators fall, the clichés fall, too. Cairo and Tunis and Tripoli are littered with the shards of platitudes about what is possible and what is impossible in Arab societies, in closed societies. Civilizational analysis lies in ruins. Idealism, always cheaply mocked, turns out to be a powerful form of historical causation, as disruptive of the established order as any economic or technological change, and even more beneficent. Stability, the false god of hard hearts, has been revealed to be temporary, chimerical, provisional, hollow, where the social arrangements are not decent or fair: the stability of injustice, though it may last a long time, is essentially unstable.
It certainly is, as Weiseltier puts it, "delicious" to watch hard-headed foreign policy "realists" have to swallow their previous positions on the Middle East, but it is far too early for such triumphalism. Yes, President Bush and the much-reviled "Neo-Cons" were right to assert that the brutal dictatorships, which realists held to be the natural, if not exactly proper, state of affairs in the region, were in fact unstable and thin reeds upon which to base our diplomacy, but the consequences of the latest round of revolutions to sweep through the region have yet to be established and may [as turned out in Lebanon and Gaza] be extremely problematic.

Weiseltier is right to assert that the current administration is operating on assumptions and ideas that are hopelessly out of date, but that is not to say that the Neo-cons were right in all things. It does, however, support the idea that the much-reviled President Bush and his advisors had a far better, and more sophisticated, grasp on the dynamics of Middle East affairs than their successors have so far displayed.

The Best Of Times

You would never know it by listening to the news, but we are living in the Best Decade Ever. Sure there are a lot of problems, but as Charles Kenny notes in the latest edition of Foreign Policy:
For all its problems, the first 10 years of the 21st century were in fact humanity's finest, a time when more people lived better, longer, more peaceful, and more prosperous lives than ever before.
Global per-capita income is today at the highest level in history and has risen quickly in the past decade. The global middle class is expanding rapidly. The proportion of the world's population that is undernourished has been halved since the 1970's and every day, even despite recent rises in food prices, more and more people have access to adequate nutrition. Major infectious diseases are on the wane. Between 2000 and 2008 infant mortality mortality around the globe dropped 17 percent and life expectancy increased by two years. Literacy levels, especially for women, are at all time highs and women are better represented today in government positions than at any time in the past.

We are also living in a time of unprecedented peace. Between 2000 and 2008 the death toll from conflicts worldwide dropped by 40 percent and since 1990 the amount spent on military budgets has been cut in half. This past decade has been the most peaceful in the past century and it is quite possibly the most peaceful ever.

Put it all together and you realize that we are living in the best time ever. As Kenny writes, in the past decade: More people lived lives of greater freedom, security, longevity, and wealth than ever before.

And that is certainly something to be proud of. 


Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Boids

For the past few weeks "She Who Must Not Be Named" and I have been traveling along the East Coast, and everywhere we have gone it has felt as if we were trapped inside a Hitchcock movie.


A lonely red tail keeps watch along the roadside.


Migrating Canada geese, just one of dozens of flocks that overflew us that afternoon.


Another, much smaller, flock overflew the parking lot. Noisy critters, they are.


A couple flocks of Canada geese circled over this field, but the Snow Geese had already taken possession of it.


An immature snowy egret takes wing right in front of us.


A pair of pelicans cruising by.


A snakebird dries its wings after a quick dip.


Here we are really in Hitchcock territory. At sundown flocks of crows fight for the best perches.


The winnahs!!!!