Eight US soldiers were killed in a Taliban attack on a NATO outpost in Nuristan province on Saturday. Here is part of the reaction of Veterans for Bush operative Pete Hegseth, posting at National Review's The Corner --
The big difference between the Surge violence in Iraq in 2007 and the increase in violence in Afghanistan today, is that in 2007 our troops knew reinforcements were coming, and would be added to the fight wherever necessary. Men like Eric Geressy fought in enemy strongholds, knowing that additional forces were coming and would be all around them — squeezing al-Qaeda like a pimple.
Right now, I can’t imagine our troops in Afghanistan feel the same way. Our Soldiers and Marines are manning remote combat outposts, surrounded by enemy fighters, with no idea whether the reinforcements they so desperately need will ever come. Nonetheless, our troops are bravely following orders and taking the initial steps necessary to implement the counter-insurgency strategy President Obama approved in March and General McChrystal has been implementing aggressively.
A casual reader might conclude that Hegseth is claiming that the soldiers got stranded at the outpost because of some new Obama strategy. But that wouldn't be true and we know it can't be true because the Saturday attack bears striking resemblance to one in July 2008 in the same province in which 9 US soldiers was killed.
The circumstances that led to the latter incident, the so-called Battle of Wanat, are still unresolved. Dumped into last week's news was a statement from General David Petraeus that he has ordered another inquiry into the battle, which apparently will be the 3rd such investigation. This one will will "also address circumstances beyond the tactical level." Which sounds like an investigation of strategy.
So the point is that a major attack happens in July 2008 and the investigations are still going on. A repeat attack happens in October 2009 and Hegseth is wondering "Where Is the Urgency on Afghanistan?" A question better addressed to the commander-in-chief for 2008 who at the time was being hailed as a genius by Hegseth for the surge in Iraq. The one that kept Afghanistan short of troops.
UPDATE: Max Boot, on an Afghanistan-Iraq tour, has an interesting couple of lines on the Nuristan incident --
One of those "impertinent questions" concerns the deployment of small coalition outposts in remote regions of Regional Command-East along the border with Pakistan. Here small numbers of soldiers were isolated and subject to daily attack in bases that could be supplied only by air. What was the point of having soldiers so far from population centers, [General Stanley] McChrystal demanded? Previous commanders had asked the same question, only to hesitate to remove them because they knew that this would represent a propaganda boost for the Taliban. McChrystal went ahead with the consolidation even after insurgents nearly overran Combat Outpost Keating in Nuristan Province in early October, killing eight American soldiers, just days before it was to be dismantled. He insists, rightly, that a successful counterinsurgency strategy must be focused on the people, not on terrain, and that's where he's putting his troops.
This makes clear that Hegseth has the situation pretty much backwards. It was the old strategy to have thinly-defended combat outposts. Obama wants to implement a new strategy.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
All Oppressed People Ever
U2 did their Bonosaurus Rex 360 concert just outside Washington DC last night. Apparently the traffic delays were monumental, which calls into question how the Capital of the Free World would ever be evacuated in a real emergency.
But anyway, National Review's John Miller has a complaint: the politics was awful. And such small portions. Yes, he sounds annoyed both that Bono espoused any political causes, and then having picked some, didn't espouse all political causes. Or at least the ones that Miller would agree with --
The strangest moment came during "Sunday Bloody Sunday" — dedicated to the Iranian democracy protestors. The stage was awash in green lights, a nice tribute to the Green Revolutionaries. Bono invited a man on stage. He was a Sikh, judging from the turban. He carried an American flag, which he waved as he lip-synched the words of the song. During the final verse, Bono put the microphone in his face and they sang, duet-style: "The real battle yet begun/To claim the victory Jesus won." As they say, only in America.
"Walk On" was basically a public-service announcement for Burma's Aun San Suu Kyi. Bono encouraged the audience to help Amnesty International's campaign for her.
... Yes, the Iranian democracy protestors are important and deserve our support. But what about the voters in Afghanistan, who will either keep the vote or lose it based on decisions that world leaders (especially just a few miles from FedEx Field) are making right now? If Bono said a single word about them, I didn't hear it. But then public support of that would have been a little more controversial, no? The same with Aun San Suu Kyi. What a brave lady. She also deserves our support. But how about some words for jailed dissidents in Cuba? Unfortunately, as causes go, theirs is not as politically safe.
One more thing: When you're getting all preachy about freedom and democracy around the world, how about a word of thanks for American soldiers, especially the ones who have died trying to spread it?
Really. Bono is supposed to have a position on respective merits of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan. An Irish band is supposed to thank American soldiers. And if you're going to do Cuba, why stop there. There are lots of jailed dissidents in "our sonofabitch" countries.
Incidentally, and speaking of rebel songs, there was another band in the stadium with U2 whose lyrics include
Rise up and take the power back, it's time that
The fat cats had a heart attack, you know that
Their time is coming to an end
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend
Shouldn't the Right's daily quest for "outrage" be focused on Muse?
UPDATE: Here's an actual musical review of the concert.
FINAL UPDATE: The populist right in the form of Glenn Beck embraced Muse until the band demanded a retraction!
But anyway, National Review's John Miller has a complaint: the politics was awful. And such small portions. Yes, he sounds annoyed both that Bono espoused any political causes, and then having picked some, didn't espouse all political causes. Or at least the ones that Miller would agree with --
The strangest moment came during "Sunday Bloody Sunday" — dedicated to the Iranian democracy protestors. The stage was awash in green lights, a nice tribute to the Green Revolutionaries. Bono invited a man on stage. He was a Sikh, judging from the turban. He carried an American flag, which he waved as he lip-synched the words of the song. During the final verse, Bono put the microphone in his face and they sang, duet-style: "The real battle yet begun/To claim the victory Jesus won." As they say, only in America.
"Walk On" was basically a public-service announcement for Burma's Aun San Suu Kyi. Bono encouraged the audience to help Amnesty International's campaign for her.
... Yes, the Iranian democracy protestors are important and deserve our support. But what about the voters in Afghanistan, who will either keep the vote or lose it based on decisions that world leaders (especially just a few miles from FedEx Field) are making right now? If Bono said a single word about them, I didn't hear it. But then public support of that would have been a little more controversial, no? The same with Aun San Suu Kyi. What a brave lady. She also deserves our support. But how about some words for jailed dissidents in Cuba? Unfortunately, as causes go, theirs is not as politically safe.
One more thing: When you're getting all preachy about freedom and democracy around the world, how about a word of thanks for American soldiers, especially the ones who have died trying to spread it?
Really. Bono is supposed to have a position on respective merits of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan. An Irish band is supposed to thank American soldiers. And if you're going to do Cuba, why stop there. There are lots of jailed dissidents in "our sonofabitch" countries.
Incidentally, and speaking of rebel songs, there was another band in the stadium with U2 whose lyrics include
Rise up and take the power back, it's time that
The fat cats had a heart attack, you know that
Their time is coming to an end
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend
Shouldn't the Right's daily quest for "outrage" be focused on Muse?
UPDATE: Here's an actual musical review of the concert.
FINAL UPDATE: The populist right in the form of Glenn Beck embraced Muse until the band demanded a retraction!
Shrinking Violet
Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Michael Ledeen --
The Reagan administration—driven by a desire to gain the release of the American hostages—famously sought a modus vivendi with Iran in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War during the mid-1980s. To that end, the U.S. sold weapons to Iran and provided military intelligence about Iraqi forces. High-level American officials such as Robert McFarlane met secretly with Iranian government representatives to discuss the future of the relationship. This effort ended when the Iran-Contra scandal erupted in late 1986.
Question: Who was the crucial intermediary between the US, the Iranians, and the Israelis (who actually supplied the weapons to Iran)?
Answer: Michael Ledeen!
The Reagan administration—driven by a desire to gain the release of the American hostages—famously sought a modus vivendi with Iran in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War during the mid-1980s. To that end, the U.S. sold weapons to Iran and provided military intelligence about Iraqi forces. High-level American officials such as Robert McFarlane met secretly with Iranian government representatives to discuss the future of the relationship. This effort ended when the Iran-Contra scandal erupted in late 1986.
Question: Who was the crucial intermediary between the US, the Iranians, and the Israelis (who actually supplied the weapons to Iran)?
Answer: Michael Ledeen!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Who was the source?
Statement from Saudi Press Agency --
Jeddah, September 29, SPA -- An official source denied a report published in the British Sunday Express on September 27, 2009 corresponding to 8/10/1430 H. alleging that the Head of British External Security Agency accompanied by the Chief of the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations (Mossad) held a meeting with Saudi officials in London and that, during the meeting, they agreed that should Israel attack the new Iranian nuclear facility, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would overlook the Israeli fighters flying over the Kingdom's territories, according to the British newspaper.
The source described the report as categorically false and untrue, demanding that the editors of the British newspaper deny the baseless news in compliance with press credibility.
Besides the assumption that the Express would care about "credibility", one question is whether this story was planted to smoke out such a denial. There's probably a lot about the latest Iran crisis where things don't mean what they appear to mean. Note that there is a vague attribution in the Express story -- to John Bolton.
Jeddah, September 29, SPA -- An official source denied a report published in the British Sunday Express on September 27, 2009 corresponding to 8/10/1430 H. alleging that the Head of British External Security Agency accompanied by the Chief of the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations (Mossad) held a meeting with Saudi officials in London and that, during the meeting, they agreed that should Israel attack the new Iranian nuclear facility, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would overlook the Israeli fighters flying over the Kingdom's territories, according to the British newspaper.
The source described the report as categorically false and untrue, demanding that the editors of the British newspaper deny the baseless news in compliance with press credibility.
Besides the assumption that the Express would care about "credibility", one question is whether this story was planted to smoke out such a denial. There's probably a lot about the latest Iran crisis where things don't mean what they appear to mean. Note that there is a vague attribution in the Express story -- to John Bolton.
Not for lack of effort
The USA's shadow national security advisers Frederick W. & Kimberly Kagan writing in the Weekly Standard --
Above all, al Qaeda does not see itself as a terrorist organization. It defines itself as the vanguard in the Leninist sense: a revolutionary movement whose aim is to take power throughout the Muslim world. It is an insurgent organization with global aims ... In this respect, al Qaeda is very different from terrorist groups like the IRA, ETA, and even Hamas. Those groups used or use terrorism in pursuit of political objectives confined to a specific region--expelling the British from Northern Ireland, creating an independent or autonomous Basque land, expelling Israel from Palestine. The Ulstermen (sic) did not seek to destroy Britain or march on London; the Basques are not in mortal combat with Spaniards (sic); and even Hamas seeks only to drive the Jews out of Israel, not to exterminate them throughout the world.
It's very hard to fit the Brighton Bomb into that narrative.
Note by the way that the Brighton Bomb unintentionally spawned one of George Bush's favourite War on Terror catchphrases.
Above all, al Qaeda does not see itself as a terrorist organization. It defines itself as the vanguard in the Leninist sense: a revolutionary movement whose aim is to take power throughout the Muslim world. It is an insurgent organization with global aims ... In this respect, al Qaeda is very different from terrorist groups like the IRA, ETA, and even Hamas. Those groups used or use terrorism in pursuit of political objectives confined to a specific region--expelling the British from Northern Ireland, creating an independent or autonomous Basque land, expelling Israel from Palestine. The Ulstermen (sic) did not seek to destroy Britain or march on London; the Basques are not in mortal combat with Spaniards (sic); and even Hamas seeks only to drive the Jews out of Israel, not to exterminate them throughout the world.
It's very hard to fit the Brighton Bomb into that narrative.
Note by the way that the Brighton Bomb unintentionally spawned one of George Bush's favourite War on Terror catchphrases.
Monday, September 28, 2009
She would, wouldn't she
Washington Post's Anne Applebaum --
But [Roman] Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.
AP* -- Meanwhile, Poland and France intend to make a joint appeal to Switzerland and the United States to have Polanski released from his detention, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told the Polish news agency PAP. Sikorski said he and French counterpart Bernard Kouchner also plan to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to offer Polanski clemency.
The Polish foreign minister is Mr Anne Applebaum.
[post prompted by thread at Crooked Timber]
UPDATE: See also Patterico. We're at the point where a Washington Post media issues reporter might be useful. Incidentally, judging from the Patterico thread, the connection is viewed as something that happens in the liberal elite. It's worth checking out Sikorski's pre-ministerial CV before coming to that conclusion.
*A similar quote appears in the Washington Post.
FINAL UPDATE: Applebaum responds --
"I have disclosed that [husband is Polish minister] before, more than once. Also, when I wrote the blog I had no idea that my husband, who is in Africa, would, or could do anything about it, as Polanski is not a Polish citizen. I am not responsible for his decisions and he is not responsible for mine."
Would a reader consider knowing about the connection to be potentially useful information in evaluating the opinion expressed? Probably.
But [Roman] Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.
AP* -- Meanwhile, Poland and France intend to make a joint appeal to Switzerland and the United States to have Polanski released from his detention, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told the Polish news agency PAP. Sikorski said he and French counterpart Bernard Kouchner also plan to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to offer Polanski clemency.
The Polish foreign minister is Mr Anne Applebaum.
[post prompted by thread at Crooked Timber]
UPDATE: See also Patterico. We're at the point where a Washington Post media issues reporter might be useful. Incidentally, judging from the Patterico thread, the connection is viewed as something that happens in the liberal elite. It's worth checking out Sikorski's pre-ministerial CV before coming to that conclusion.
*A similar quote appears in the Washington Post.
FINAL UPDATE: Applebaum responds --
"I have disclosed that [husband is Polish minister] before, more than once. Also, when I wrote the blog I had no idea that my husband, who is in Africa, would, or could do anything about it, as Polanski is not a Polish citizen. I am not responsible for his decisions and he is not responsible for mine."
Would a reader consider knowing about the connection to be potentially useful information in evaluating the opinion expressed? Probably.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Needs better talking points
National Review's Stephen Spruiell tries to play conservative backstop on the circumstances leading to the death of Kimberly Young in Oxford, Ohio. The death has gotten attention because she initially delayed seeing a doctor due to lack of health insurance. So --
The median starting salary for Miami University (Ohio) graduates is $47,100.
• A healthy 22-year-old female in Oxford, Ohio can purchase serviceable health insurance ($30 co-pay for office visits) for $55 a month, according to ehealthinsurance.com.
This young woman's death is indeed tragic, but it is not an indictment of the U.S. health-care system, cheap left-wing moralizing to the contrary notwithstanding. Many capable young people forgo stable careers in order to try their hands at starving-artistry. The rest of us are under no obligation to subsidize that choice.
First, his stated data source is from a highly selected sample:
Typical (median) starting graduates were 25 years old and had two years of experience ... All those surveyed were full-time employees of U.S. companies ... PayScale.com combined base annual salary or hourly wage, bonuses, profit sharing, tips, commissions, overtime and other forms of cash earnings, as applicable ...
It's pathetic to have to spell it out, but you can't compare the economic fortunes of a 22 year old just-graduated with a median 25 year old in a sample of people with full time jobs. Especially in 2009, when there's like, a recession and stuff!
So his economics is shite. What about the "starving artist" bit? Apparently this comes from her interest in human rights and photography. She had two part-time jobs. His resentment appears to relate to her interests rather than her income. And those online health insurance policies get more expensive quickly once you get into the specifics of an individual quote and finding a policy with accessible doctors. And the companies selling them have to impose restrictions on when the policies can start because otherwise people would only buy them when they're sick. This isn't difficult stuff. But some people want to make it that way.
The median starting salary for Miami University (Ohio) graduates is $47,100.
• A healthy 22-year-old female in Oxford, Ohio can purchase serviceable health insurance ($30 co-pay for office visits) for $55 a month, according to ehealthinsurance.com.
This young woman's death is indeed tragic, but it is not an indictment of the U.S. health-care system, cheap left-wing moralizing to the contrary notwithstanding. Many capable young people forgo stable careers in order to try their hands at starving-artistry. The rest of us are under no obligation to subsidize that choice.
First, his stated data source is from a highly selected sample:
Typical (median) starting graduates were 25 years old and had two years of experience ... All those surveyed were full-time employees of U.S. companies ... PayScale.com combined base annual salary or hourly wage, bonuses, profit sharing, tips, commissions, overtime and other forms of cash earnings, as applicable ...
It's pathetic to have to spell it out, but you can't compare the economic fortunes of a 22 year old just-graduated with a median 25 year old in a sample of people with full time jobs. Especially in 2009, when there's like, a recession and stuff!
So his economics is shite. What about the "starving artist" bit? Apparently this comes from her interest in human rights and photography. She had two part-time jobs. His resentment appears to relate to her interests rather than her income. And those online health insurance policies get more expensive quickly once you get into the specifics of an individual quote and finding a policy with accessible doctors. And the companies selling them have to impose restrictions on when the policies can start because otherwise people would only buy them when they're sick. This isn't difficult stuff. But some people want to make it that way.
The Sarkozy-Obama row
You didn't hear about it? Glenn Reynolds did --
SARKOZY MOCKS OBAMA at U.N. Security Council
Here's the full transcript (see p12) of the meeting along with Sarko's remarks as prepared in French. It's hard to see the mockery. Sarko is of course blunt and both he and Obama by then knew of the Iranian bombshell that would be coming the next day. And French foreign policy is fairly hawkish on Iran; remember it was the Socialist candidate in the last election who thought that Iran shouldn't be allowed even a civilian nuclear program.
Maybe some read it as mockery because the remarks were delivered in French but read in translation by Anglophone newspapers. Not everything said in French is going to be flattery. Sometimes they will be saying actual tough stuff.
SARKOZY MOCKS OBAMA at U.N. Security Council
Here's the full transcript (see p12) of the meeting along with Sarko's remarks as prepared in French. It's hard to see the mockery. Sarko is of course blunt and both he and Obama by then knew of the Iranian bombshell that would be coming the next day. And French foreign policy is fairly hawkish on Iran; remember it was the Socialist candidate in the last election who thought that Iran shouldn't be allowed even a civilian nuclear program.
Maybe some read it as mockery because the remarks were delivered in French but read in translation by Anglophone newspapers. Not everything said in French is going to be flattery. Sometimes they will be saying actual tough stuff.
It isn't Show and Tell
Jennifer Rubin at the All-Obama-hating-All-the-time blog of Commentary magazine --
Obama concealed whatever information he had about this [Iranian nuclear] facility–information that could have been used to move domestic and international opinion. He could have gone to the UN with some visual aids–like Bibi Netanyahu did with the Holocaust documents–to make the case to the international community.
Perhaps she has in mind Hillary Clinton waving around a vial of uranium or Obama showing a picture of a pipe, such as above, as evidence of Iran's nuclear program. The picture is taken from Colin Powell's Iraq-WMD presentation of 5 February 2003. The Iraq shambles still has consequences, even if the neocons would rather forget.
Getting his ducks in a row
In a meeting that didn't get much attention at the time, Barack Obama met with the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi 2 weeks ago. We now know that Obama has known for nearly a year that Iran had a secret nuclear facility and in what looks like a clever bit of multilateral diplomacy, he used his UN Security Council session to get Russia and China to renew the principle of nuclear non-proliferation before springing the news yesterday. Anyway, that puts the Abu Dhabi meeting in a new light. Since the knee jerk response to the Iranian duplicity is to demand stringent sanctions, the people making such demands are either unaware of or are choosing to ignore the severe implications that sanctions on Iran would have for the United Arab Emirates. As it is, much of Iran's gray economy (and worse) is run through the UAE and a shutdown of international trade with Iran would put the UAE in a very difficult spot. It's not unreasonable to wonder whether Obama decided to "consult", if you will, with the country whose cooperation he'd need for sanctions before doing anything too hasty. For the people yelling "Faster, Please", that's not enough.
White House photo by Pete Souza
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
We'll allow it for "Motörhead"
There's a word that must be in the right-wing talking points for Barack Obama --
More Naiveté (Max Boot)
It was a very naïve, Wilsonian speech (John Bolton)
Staggering Naïveté (Brett D. Schaefer)
The 3rd one is a real classic since he's got both the accent and the diacritical. Some of us plain speaking freedom-fry eaters will settle for naive and even the slightly ugly naivety. But how seriously should we take people whose need to show their seriousness involves fussing over the script for a particular word. Of course, it could be that they're all just cutting and pasting it from the same source.
More Naiveté (Max Boot)
It was a very naïve, Wilsonian speech (John Bolton)
Staggering Naïveté (Brett D. Schaefer)
The 3rd one is a real classic since he's got both the accent and the diacritical. Some of us plain speaking freedom-fry eaters will settle for naive and even the slightly ugly naivety. But how seriously should we take people whose need to show their seriousness involves fussing over the script for a particular word. Of course, it could be that they're all just cutting and pasting it from the same source.
Maybe the First Dude was an economist
We've noted before that Sarah Palin's ghostwriter shows signs of being an economist. Consider now part of her warm up material for her speech in Hong Kong today --"Maybe you’re hoping to hear me discuss the derivations of the formula for effective rate of protection, followed by a brief discussion of the monetary approach to the balance of payments,” she said. “If time allows, a quick summary of factor price equalization. Maybe some thoughts on quantitative easing, but that’s for next time. Because I have spent my life closer to Main Street. That’s what I want to talk about is that view from Main Street,” she said.
Whoever is whispering the lines is getting weary of being the behind the scenes player. They want to be caught.
UPDATE: Rich "starbursts" Lowry -- Palin is an authentic, powerful voice of the populist right
His evidence is drawn from a speech given for a rumoured 6 figure sum to a brokerage firm in Hong Kong. Populist, indeed.
FINAL UPDATE: The ghostwriter on the autobiography is Lynn Vincent. Which doesn't explain where Palin is getting her economics material.
Only 11 more years of pointless war to go
John McCain says a lot of stuff. Here's an interesting remark made to an audience at PNAC 2.0 --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a question about Afghanistan's government. How should we encourage the Karzai Administration or another successor if he is booted out in August, to be more effective, to be less corrupt and to generally improve their the country? What are your thoughts?
SENATOR MC CAIN: I think we all know that right now, anyway, there is not a viable opponent or strong opponent to President Karzai. Now, one may emerge. There is certainly great dissatisfaction in parts of Afghanistan towards the government, and we all know about the corruption situation.
So, I don't envision a scenario right now where President Karzai would be defeated. A lot of things happen in politics.
But if he were, then I think we would obviously forge -- try to forge a new and productive relationship.
I would like to remind you that -- again, going back to the one of my former experiences, if you look at Vietnam, the assassination of Diem was a seminal moment. And it meant really a lack of support for the government, a lack of an effective government. We had a revolving door of generals running Saigon.
So we want to be careful about how we approach the Karzai situation and certainly not, in my view, interfere in what is really a domestic election in Afghanistan.
He's referring to the 1963 assassination that ousted South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in a military coup. McCain seems to read it as saying that the US is stuck with Karzai because any alternative would be more destabilizing. But now Karzai is there as the winner of a dodgy election. Hence a major change in circumstances that has Barack Obama looking again at the overall strategy in Afghanistan. What if the US had pulled out of Vietnam in 1963 on the ground that it had no reliable domestic political partner?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a question about Afghanistan's government. How should we encourage the Karzai Administration or another successor if he is booted out in August, to be more effective, to be less corrupt and to generally improve their the country? What are your thoughts?
SENATOR MC CAIN: I think we all know that right now, anyway, there is not a viable opponent or strong opponent to President Karzai. Now, one may emerge. There is certainly great dissatisfaction in parts of Afghanistan towards the government, and we all know about the corruption situation.
So, I don't envision a scenario right now where President Karzai would be defeated. A lot of things happen in politics.
But if he were, then I think we would obviously forge -- try to forge a new and productive relationship.
I would like to remind you that -- again, going back to the one of my former experiences, if you look at Vietnam, the assassination of Diem was a seminal moment. And it meant really a lack of support for the government, a lack of an effective government. We had a revolving door of generals running Saigon.
So we want to be careful about how we approach the Karzai situation and certainly not, in my view, interfere in what is really a domestic election in Afghanistan.
He's referring to the 1963 assassination that ousted South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in a military coup. McCain seems to read it as saying that the US is stuck with Karzai because any alternative would be more destabilizing. But now Karzai is there as the winner of a dodgy election. Hence a major change in circumstances that has Barack Obama looking again at the overall strategy in Afghanistan. What if the US had pulled out of Vietnam in 1963 on the ground that it had no reliable domestic political partner?
Unfunny Ireland is alive and here
The Celtic Tiger is dead. We had hoped that it would take a particular Irish strand of "comedy" with it, that being the assumption that Irishness was a license to make remarks that would otherwise be offensive. Sure we've never done anything to anybody and all that.
Step forward idiot "comedian" Tommy Tiernan --
But these Jews, these f**king Jew c**ts come up to me. F**king Christ-killing bastards. F**king six million? I would have got 10 or 12 million out of that. No f**king problem! F**k them. Two at a time, they would have gone. Hold hands, get in there. Leave us your teeth and your glasses.
If you're not laughing already, then we proceed to a follow-up Q&A at the same event about a complaint he had received for another anti-Semitic joke (sic) --
Have you ever seen people whose eyes are so aflame with righteousness… The whites of their eyes are so pure and f**king white. They're just one-stream people, they're not people that have gaps for more than one train of thought. This one train of thought f**king purifies them. And these people were just that 'the Israelis are a hounded people'. And God, Olaf might have more to say about that than me, but... You know, whatever, I'm not here to hound anybody, but these people come up to me afterwards…
The audience was laughing.
Tiernan has provided further comedy with his "apology" --
In a statement earlier yesterday Mr Tiernan said he was “greatly upset by the thought that these comments have caused hurt to others as this was never my intention”.
He continued: “the things that I said in front of a live audience were in an attempt to explain my belief that one of the duties of the comic performer is to be reckless and irresponsible and that the things that they say should NEVER [his emphasis] be taken out of context.”
At the event he had prefaced “my rant by saying that it should not be taken seriously and as such, the rant took place as an example of my argument. While it is out of context, which it most definitely is now, it seems callous, cruel and ignorant,” he said.
The obvious flaw in this argument, such as it is, is that the comedian's supposed duty to be reckless and irresponsible actually involves finding a safe zone where both he and the crowd can have a good laugh. In Tiernan's case, it further involves believing that of all the things he could be reckless and irresponsible about, he just happened to pick the Holocaust, an event about which he appears to have read quite a bit. He's not in Harlem telling racist jokes. He's not at Ibrox singing The Fields of Athenry. Instead he found a smug crowd and played to their shallowness. Can't we just use some of that bad bank money to pay these people to shut up?
UPDATE: David Adams has more.
FINAL UPDATE: The editor of the rag that had the interview -- and apparently didn't see how explosive it would be -- outdoes Tiernan in the pathetic excuse department:
Hot Press editor Niall Stokes comments ... "The way I see it, he is satirising anti-Semitism, while making a more general point that we should all be able to laugh at ourselves."
Note: Tiernan has gigs in California and Canada in October.
Step forward idiot "comedian" Tommy Tiernan --
But these Jews, these f**king Jew c**ts come up to me. F**king Christ-killing bastards. F**king six million? I would have got 10 or 12 million out of that. No f**king problem! F**k them. Two at a time, they would have gone. Hold hands, get in there. Leave us your teeth and your glasses.
If you're not laughing already, then we proceed to a follow-up Q&A at the same event about a complaint he had received for another anti-Semitic joke (sic) --
Have you ever seen people whose eyes are so aflame with righteousness… The whites of their eyes are so pure and f**king white. They're just one-stream people, they're not people that have gaps for more than one train of thought. This one train of thought f**king purifies them. And these people were just that 'the Israelis are a hounded people'. And God, Olaf might have more to say about that than me, but... You know, whatever, I'm not here to hound anybody, but these people come up to me afterwards…
The audience was laughing.
Tiernan has provided further comedy with his "apology" --
In a statement earlier yesterday Mr Tiernan said he was “greatly upset by the thought that these comments have caused hurt to others as this was never my intention”.
He continued: “the things that I said in front of a live audience were in an attempt to explain my belief that one of the duties of the comic performer is to be reckless and irresponsible and that the things that they say should NEVER [his emphasis] be taken out of context.”
At the event he had prefaced “my rant by saying that it should not be taken seriously and as such, the rant took place as an example of my argument. While it is out of context, which it most definitely is now, it seems callous, cruel and ignorant,” he said.
The obvious flaw in this argument, such as it is, is that the comedian's supposed duty to be reckless and irresponsible actually involves finding a safe zone where both he and the crowd can have a good laugh. In Tiernan's case, it further involves believing that of all the things he could be reckless and irresponsible about, he just happened to pick the Holocaust, an event about which he appears to have read quite a bit. He's not in Harlem telling racist jokes. He's not at Ibrox singing The Fields of Athenry. Instead he found a smug crowd and played to their shallowness. Can't we just use some of that bad bank money to pay these people to shut up?
UPDATE: David Adams has more.
FINAL UPDATE: The editor of the rag that had the interview -- and apparently didn't see how explosive it would be -- outdoes Tiernan in the pathetic excuse department:
Hot Press editor Niall Stokes comments ... "The way I see it, he is satirising anti-Semitism, while making a more general point that we should all be able to laugh at ourselves."
Note: Tiernan has gigs in California and Canada in October.
Friday, September 18, 2009
It's the Friday work crew
White House -- President Obama will welcome President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain to the White House on Tuesday, October 13 ... The President looks forward to consulting with President Zapatero
Now, we're still further along than last year, when John McCain seemed confused about whether Zapatero might be a Zapatista. But he's Prime Minister of Spain. Above, the coat of arms of Spain's head of state,, "the only good Bourbon", King Juan Carlos.
UPDATE: A full week later and it's still there. The mistake appears to be due to the title that Zapatero (and e.g. Silvio Berlusconi and the Irish PM in the pre-1937 days) have: they are president of the council (i.e. the Cabinet).
FINAL UPDATE: The title persisted into Zapatero's Q&A with Obama. Note that the Spanish reporters correctly referred to him as president of the government.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
In power but not in office
There's a little row over the UK Equalities Office list of milestones for women in power. For every milestone involving the participation of a particular woman in politics, the person is named -- except for Maggie Thatcher. There is a 2nd issue. Consider this milestone --
1918 Parliamentary Qualification of Women Act passed - enabling women to stand as a Members of Parliament
1919 First woman to take a seat in Parliament - Nancy Astor
It's thus carefully written the exclude the obvious milestone of the first woman elected to the House of Commons, Constance Markiewicz (née Gore-Booth), elected for a Dublin constituency as a Sinn Fein candidate in 1918. One wonders what the calculation was in leaving out the Irish nationalist.
1918 Parliamentary Qualification of Women Act passed - enabling women to stand as a Members of Parliament
1919 First woman to take a seat in Parliament - Nancy Astor
It's thus carefully written the exclude the obvious milestone of the first woman elected to the House of Commons, Constance Markiewicz (née Gore-Booth), elected for a Dublin constituency as a Sinn Fein candidate in 1918. One wonders what the calculation was in leaving out the Irish nationalist.
We'll make this as simple as possible
Suppose that there are 10 boys. Suppose that their names are Jack, Sean, Conor, Daniel, James, Ryan, Adam, Dylan, and 2 named Mohammed.
"Mohammed is the most popular boys' name."
Discuss.
Note: The first 8 names are the top 8 registered boy names in Ireland in 2008
"Mohammed is the most popular boys' name."
Discuss.
Note: The first 8 names are the top 8 registered boy names in Ireland in 2008
The War on Chickens
One might think that the fact that the UN and NGOs on the one hand and the Israeli government on the other are arguing about whether it was 1100 people or 1400 people who died in Gaza last December-January is proof enough that whatever went on there is very troubling. But since the Israeli government and its supporters have highly rehearsed and impervious-to-evidence positions where human fatalities are involved, how about this one from the deeply depressing Goldstone/UN report into the impact on civilians of "Operation Cast Lead" --
The chicken farms of Mr. Sameh Sawafeary in the Zeitoun neighbourhood south of Gaza City reportedly supplied over 10 per cent of the Gaza egg market. Armoured bulldozers of the Israeli forces systematically flattened the chicken coops, killing all 31,000 chickens inside, and destroyed the plant and material necessary for the business. The Mission concludes that this was a deliberate act of wanton destruction not justified by any military necessity and draws the same legal conclusions as in the case of the destruction of the flour mill.
This should be a simple one, right? Either 31,000 chickens were bulldozed or they were not. Since this is a serious UN report, one assumes that they were. So the only issue should be the Israeli Defence Force justification for bulldozing 31,000 chickens. Don't let the inevitable yelling and screaming about Geneva Conventions technicalities distract from the basic details. If we can sort out what happened to the chickens and why, it might be informative about the broader concerns about that operation.
UPDATE: In a pretty tired set of pseudo-sarcastic talking points, Max Boot includes --
The report’s findings on the actual Gaza conflict are no more convincing. It amounts to one-sided, after-the-fact second-guessing of difficult targeting decisions made in the heat of battle by Israeli soldiers.
What heat of battle decision required bulldozing 31,000 chickens?
FINAL UPDATE 2 JUNE 2010: Chickens apparently remain part of the Iran-Hamas arsenal. They are banned for import to Gaza under the blockade.
The chicken farms of Mr. Sameh Sawafeary in the Zeitoun neighbourhood south of Gaza City reportedly supplied over 10 per cent of the Gaza egg market. Armoured bulldozers of the Israeli forces systematically flattened the chicken coops, killing all 31,000 chickens inside, and destroyed the plant and material necessary for the business. The Mission concludes that this was a deliberate act of wanton destruction not justified by any military necessity and draws the same legal conclusions as in the case of the destruction of the flour mill.
This should be a simple one, right? Either 31,000 chickens were bulldozed or they were not. Since this is a serious UN report, one assumes that they were. So the only issue should be the Israeli Defence Force justification for bulldozing 31,000 chickens. Don't let the inevitable yelling and screaming about Geneva Conventions technicalities distract from the basic details. If we can sort out what happened to the chickens and why, it might be informative about the broader concerns about that operation.
UPDATE: In a pretty tired set of pseudo-sarcastic talking points, Max Boot includes --
The report’s findings on the actual Gaza conflict are no more convincing. It amounts to one-sided, after-the-fact second-guessing of difficult targeting decisions made in the heat of battle by Israeli soldiers.
What heat of battle decision required bulldozing 31,000 chickens?
FINAL UPDATE 2 JUNE 2010: Chickens apparently remain part of the Iran-Hamas arsenal. They are banned for import to Gaza under the blockade.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Fewer chances to blow up stuff
In an announcement that will trigger further criticism of Barack Obama's alleged lack of enthusiasm for reining in rogue states --
The President has asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to lead the U.S. delegation and deliver the U.S. national statement at the Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), to be held on September 24 and 25 in New York City. Since 1999, this conference has been held every other year to provide a forum for discussions on how best to encourage states to sign and ratify this important nonproliferation treaty, especially those states listed in Annex II that are required to ratify the Treaty before it can enter into force.
While the United States sent a delegation to the initial conference in 1999, it has not attended the subsequent four conferences.
Those naughty Annex II states are China, North Korea (DPRK), Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and the USA. While 6 have signed but not ratified, North Korea, India and Pakistan still have to sign the Treaty.
It's worth recallling that while George Bush was in a de facto boycott of the ratification efforts, he was cutting a side deal -- mangos for nukes -- with India in which they got access to American nuclear technology without having to regularize their nuclear program. So they need nukes because Pakistan has nukes and then we worry about Islamo-nukes so one would have thought a test ban treaty might actually be a good thing but that's the crazy world of "serious" foreign policy thinkers in which it's much better to yell and scream about Iran and North Korea having nukes than actually trying to push forward processes that would encourage them to see that it's in their best interest to get rid of them. Not to mention Israel's nukes which of course we can't mention.
So anyway, Obama is trying to cut the knot both with this and his closely related UN Security Council summit. Let the neocon rage begin.
The President has asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to lead the U.S. delegation and deliver the U.S. national statement at the Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), to be held on September 24 and 25 in New York City. Since 1999, this conference has been held every other year to provide a forum for discussions on how best to encourage states to sign and ratify this important nonproliferation treaty, especially those states listed in Annex II that are required to ratify the Treaty before it can enter into force.
While the United States sent a delegation to the initial conference in 1999, it has not attended the subsequent four conferences.
Those naughty Annex II states are China, North Korea (DPRK), Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and the USA. While 6 have signed but not ratified, North Korea, India and Pakistan still have to sign the Treaty.
It's worth recallling that while George Bush was in a de facto boycott of the ratification efforts, he was cutting a side deal -- mangos for nukes -- with India in which they got access to American nuclear technology without having to regularize their nuclear program. So they need nukes because Pakistan has nukes and then we worry about Islamo-nukes so one would have thought a test ban treaty might actually be a good thing but that's the crazy world of "serious" foreign policy thinkers in which it's much better to yell and scream about Iran and North Korea having nukes than actually trying to push forward processes that would encourage them to see that it's in their best interest to get rid of them. Not to mention Israel's nukes which of course we can't mention.
So anyway, Obama is trying to cut the knot both with this and his closely related UN Security Council summit. Let the neocon rage begin.
The last year of life can be deadly
The Wall Street Journal is busy today campaigning against Barack Obama's healthcare reform. Rupert Darwall ("a London-based strategist ... currently writing a book on the history of global warming") argues that the NHS is essentially a scheme to divert the national healthcare budget away from old people. Among the allegations --
a group of senior doctors and health-care experts wrote to a national newspaper expressing their concern about the Liverpool Care Pathway, a palliative program being rolled out across the NHS involving the withdrawal of fluids and nourishment for patients thought to be dying. Noting that in 2007-08, 16.5% of deaths in the U.K. came after "terminal sedation," their letter concluded with the chilling observation that experienced doctors know that sometimes "when all but essential drugs are stopped, 'dying' patients get better" if they are allowed to.
The letter was to The Telegraph. The problem is that he's devoting one paragraph to the issue of "end-of-life" care, the critical issue being the judgment of doctors (not politicians) about whether a patient is so close to death that the medical regimen should be changed accordingly (e.g. by not giving food that the body can't handle). But it seems that the Republicans have decided that the death panel talking point works for them.
On then to an editorial which says Barack Obama is mixed up about the virtues of the Dutch healthcare model because he just praised it even though it doesn't have a public health insurer like he has called for in the US. What the Dutch system does have is compulsory insurance (everyone must buy), no screening (everyone gets the same price), tight regulation, free insurance for children, and a specific payroll tax to cover the excess costs of insurance companies with a lot of bad risk patients. It's good to know that the Journal would be OK with those things.
a group of senior doctors and health-care experts wrote to a national newspaper expressing their concern about the Liverpool Care Pathway, a palliative program being rolled out across the NHS involving the withdrawal of fluids and nourishment for patients thought to be dying. Noting that in 2007-08, 16.5% of deaths in the U.K. came after "terminal sedation," their letter concluded with the chilling observation that experienced doctors know that sometimes "when all but essential drugs are stopped, 'dying' patients get better" if they are allowed to.
The letter was to The Telegraph. The problem is that he's devoting one paragraph to the issue of "end-of-life" care, the critical issue being the judgment of doctors (not politicians) about whether a patient is so close to death that the medical regimen should be changed accordingly (e.g. by not giving food that the body can't handle). But it seems that the Republicans have decided that the death panel talking point works for them.
On then to an editorial which says Barack Obama is mixed up about the virtues of the Dutch healthcare model because he just praised it even though it doesn't have a public health insurer like he has called for in the US. What the Dutch system does have is compulsory insurance (everyone must buy), no screening (everyone gets the same price), tight regulation, free insurance for children, and a specific payroll tax to cover the excess costs of insurance companies with a lot of bad risk patients. It's good to know that the Journal would be OK with those things.
Monday, September 14, 2009
The government shield
Once Barack Obama was through with the name-checks at his Wall Street speech, the applause lines were few and far between. In fact, there was just one --
First, we're proposing new rules to protect consumers and a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to enforce those rules. (Applause.)
So why, despite occasional noises to the contrary, would the financial industry support a consumer financial protection agency? There are simple, but cynical, explanations. For one thing, they may be confident that they can capture it once it's set up. But let's suppose that's not the case and there really is an agency can issue stark rulings on financial products. Then we're into the analogy with the greatest legal gift from governments to tobacco companies: the health warning on a pack of cigarettes. Because once that's there, the consumer excuse about not realizing the costs of smoking is gone.
When there's a consumer agency certifying financial products, the companies are off the hook for selling them.
First, we're proposing new rules to protect consumers and a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to enforce those rules. (Applause.)
So why, despite occasional noises to the contrary, would the financial industry support a consumer financial protection agency? There are simple, but cynical, explanations. For one thing, they may be confident that they can capture it once it's set up. But let's suppose that's not the case and there really is an agency can issue stark rulings on financial products. Then we're into the analogy with the greatest legal gift from governments to tobacco companies: the health warning on a pack of cigarettes. Because once that's there, the consumer excuse about not realizing the costs of smoking is gone.
When there's a consumer agency certifying financial products, the companies are off the hook for selling them.
The War on Acronyms
With conservatives having declared that non-government organizations like ACORN are the latest threat to the Republic, one must scrutinize the attendance list for Barack Obama's financial sector speech in Manhattan very closely. In addition to noting that there seem to be no Congressional Republicans in attendance (presumably not for lack of invitations), one sees down the list a bit --
James H. Lewis, Director of Policy and Organizing, Communities Homeowners and Neighbors Gaining Economic Rights Inc. (C.H.A.N.G.E.R.)
This of course will be a red rag to the Glenn Beck bull. Hopefully the CHANGER people are ready for the onslaught.
James H. Lewis, Director of Policy and Organizing, Communities Homeowners and Neighbors Gaining Economic Rights Inc. (C.H.A.N.G.E.R.)
This of course will be a red rag to the Glenn Beck bull. Hopefully the CHANGER people are ready for the onslaught.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Last Conquest of Ireland
For some reason, right-wingers are taking the death of Norman Borlaug, Green Revolution pioneer, badly. Or rather, they're taking it as usual -- an event which can be used to be drive home a talking point. The talking point apparently being that technology removes any obligation to think about constraints on growth. Kinda handy when the evidence on climate change gets more overwhelming by the day.
But anyway, here's the Wall Street Journal paying tribute to the Green Revolution --
Today, famines—whether in Zimbabwe, Darfur or North Korea—are politically induced events, not true natural disasters.
There's a technical issue here about whether African soil is as suited to high-yielding varieties as that of India but leave that aside. Note the implied view of the Wall Street Journal editorial page that pre-1950s famines were natural disasters.
Maybe such an outlandish claim will provoke Amartya Sen into a more authoritative rebuke, but consider that two of history's most notorious pre-Green Revolution famines, those in Bengal (1943) and Ireland (1847-49) occurred in food exporters and were characterized by an extremely sluggish policy response. Maybe market economy failures and governments asleep at the wheel are things that the Journal includes as part of the "natural disaster" definition. After all, Katrina was a "natural disaster".
But anyway, here's the Wall Street Journal paying tribute to the Green Revolution --
Today, famines—whether in Zimbabwe, Darfur or North Korea—are politically induced events, not true natural disasters.
There's a technical issue here about whether African soil is as suited to high-yielding varieties as that of India but leave that aside. Note the implied view of the Wall Street Journal editorial page that pre-1950s famines were natural disasters.
Maybe such an outlandish claim will provoke Amartya Sen into a more authoritative rebuke, but consider that two of history's most notorious pre-Green Revolution famines, those in Bengal (1943) and Ireland (1847-49) occurred in food exporters and were characterized by an extremely sluggish policy response. Maybe market economy failures and governments asleep at the wheel are things that the Journal includes as part of the "natural disaster" definition. After all, Katrina was a "natural disaster".
We haven't heard the last of this
Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif meets Saudi King Abdullah in Mecca. Also at the meeting was Prince Miqren bin Abdulaziz, Chief of General Intelligence. This is the latest in a string of meetings between anyone who's anyone in Pakistan and King Abdullah. And follows claims in the Pakistani media via a possibly unreliable source that Osama bin Laden was the first introducer of Nawaz Sharif to the Saudi royal family. Something is cooking. Let's hope it's good.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
It reads better in an English paper
Note: this post has evolved a little from its original topic so we lay out the sequence for clarity: On DC Tea Party "9/12" Eve, conservative bloggers rubbish 2 million crowd prediction as liberal mindgames. But then lazy editors at Daily Mail (UK) use the 2 million estimate in a wire service compilation report; the Mail story is sent to National Review and Glenn Reynolds as a "why is this only in the British media" talking point, and it becomes an actual crowd estimate. Read on.
National Review Online's Mark Hemingway --
But [tea party] crowd estimates aside, I'm almost incredulous at that Daily Mail report. It's a fairly straight report, and it's fair! What American media outlet would print this:
"Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam War veteran and former Teamster, came from Michigan. He said health care needs to be reformed - but not according to President Barack Obama's plan."
Much as with the tea party crowd numbers, one can conservatively estimate that hundreds of American media outlets will print it. It's just the standard AP wire service report picked up by many papers, including the Daily Mail.
For some reason, the Corner people spend a lot of time reading the Daily Mail, or at least reading links that someone sends them from it.
Incidentally, Mark Steyn falls for the trick that he had just been warning us about, lazy foreign newspaper reporting based on unverified American sources. So he presents the Daily Mail's preposterous 2 million attendance figure ("You may be underestimating the numbers ... That's some astroturf") despite warnings from his own side that the 2 million estimate was just liberal prophylactic hype.
And Glenn Reynolds --
and this is priceless: “Many protesters said they paid their own way to the event – an ethic they believe should be applied to the government.” Why is the British press more honest in its reporting on this stuff than the American press?
That sentence comes straight from the AP. So they're all using the same Daily Mail cut-and-paste without checking it against any other source. That FreedomWorks news link service is pretty bad!
UPDATE: This 2 million thing is a media recycling classic. It's sourced to a memo from a US House of Representatives Democratic staffer, but he only presented it as the upper range of predictions that he had seen on the web. In advance of the event, conservatives were warning that the 2 million was hype. But then the Daily Mail sub-editors ("Mail Foreign Service") sitting in London included it in their story, and because Freedom Works (or other organizers) then sent around the Mail link to sympathetic bloggers, they're all now citing it as the actual number --
[Glenn Reynolds] HEADLINE: Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama’s spending in ‘tea-party’ demonstration.
So maybe I was wrong to be so skeptical. But cut it in half and it’s still a huge number.
Isn't that the same indifference to zeroes that they complain about when it's concerning deficits?
FINAL UPDATE: The first claim of 2 million was from Michelle Malkin. That was the first instance of someone finding yesterday's junk and thinking it was new stuff.
National Review Online's Mark Hemingway --
But [tea party] crowd estimates aside, I'm almost incredulous at that Daily Mail report. It's a fairly straight report, and it's fair! What American media outlet would print this:
"Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam War veteran and former Teamster, came from Michigan. He said health care needs to be reformed - but not according to President Barack Obama's plan."
Much as with the tea party crowd numbers, one can conservatively estimate that hundreds of American media outlets will print it. It's just the standard AP wire service report picked up by many papers, including the Daily Mail.
For some reason, the Corner people spend a lot of time reading the Daily Mail, or at least reading links that someone sends them from it.
Incidentally, Mark Steyn falls for the trick that he had just been warning us about, lazy foreign newspaper reporting based on unverified American sources. So he presents the Daily Mail's preposterous 2 million attendance figure ("You may be underestimating the numbers ... That's some astroturf") despite warnings from his own side that the 2 million estimate was just liberal prophylactic hype.
And Glenn Reynolds --
and this is priceless: “Many protesters said they paid their own way to the event – an ethic they believe should be applied to the government.” Why is the British press more honest in its reporting on this stuff than the American press?
That sentence comes straight from the AP. So they're all using the same Daily Mail cut-and-paste without checking it against any other source. That FreedomWorks news link service is pretty bad!
UPDATE: This 2 million thing is a media recycling classic. It's sourced to a memo from a US House of Representatives Democratic staffer, but he only presented it as the upper range of predictions that he had seen on the web. In advance of the event, conservatives were warning that the 2 million was hype. But then the Daily Mail sub-editors ("Mail Foreign Service") sitting in London included it in their story, and because Freedom Works (or other organizers) then sent around the Mail link to sympathetic bloggers, they're all now citing it as the actual number --
[Glenn Reynolds] HEADLINE: Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama’s spending in ‘tea-party’ demonstration.
So maybe I was wrong to be so skeptical. But cut it in half and it’s still a huge number.
Isn't that the same indifference to zeroes that they complain about when it's concerning deficits?
FINAL UPDATE: The first claim of 2 million was from Michelle Malkin. That was the first instance of someone finding yesterday's junk and thinking it was new stuff.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
What's the frequency Gordon
It's interesting to compare the Downing Street and White House versions of the Barack Obama -- Gordon Brown phone call. White House --
The President expressed his disappointment over the Scottish Executive’s decision to release convicted Pan Am 103 Bomber al-Megrahi back to Libya.
This is not mentioned in the Downing Street version.
Incidentally, here's the official Libyan account of a visit to al-Megrahi by representatives of the pan-African Parliament. It was pitched as revenge for a visit by Bulgarian nurses to the gallery of the European Parliament on 10 October 2007.
The President expressed his disappointment over the Scottish Executive’s decision to release convicted Pan Am 103 Bomber al-Megrahi back to Libya.
This is not mentioned in the Downing Street version.
Incidentally, here's the official Libyan account of a visit to al-Megrahi by representatives of the pan-African Parliament. It was pitched as revenge for a visit by Bulgarian nurses to the gallery of the European Parliament on 10 October 2007.
Afghanistan
One hopes that the New York Times is aware of the ethical shambles that it has on its hands with the rescue of journalist Stephen Farrell. His translator, a British soldier, and God knows who else are dead as a result of his rescue. Here's Farrell's account of his days in captivity. It's a little oblique in explaining whether or not he was where he was against government advice. Note also that he appears to be using his Irish passport, as the Taliban assumed he was Irish. Other Irish people might want to bear in mind the decreasing utility of an Irish passport in these situations, although the UK one seems helpful in getting a raid on your behalf.UPDATE: Strong echoes of the Daniele Mastrogiacomo case. Different methods, same outcome.
FINAL UPDATE: The dead soldier is Corporal John Harrison, pictured above. A woman in the house where the hostages were being held was also killed. As Farrell explains, the residents of these shelter houses have little choice in the matter.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
The Sarah Palin ghostwriter
It seems that Sarah Palin's coherent and wonky Wall Street Journal columns are not fooling anyone. These are not the words of the woman who brought you "Denali, the great one", which does make one wonder about the media ethics of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. But here's a clue --
A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber
Watson Wyatt helpfully has a link up to the paper --
Productivity Rewards and Pay Illusions Caused by Health and Retirement Benefit Cost Increases
Steven A. Nyce and Sylvester J. Schieber
Whoever wrote Palin's column is familiar enough with Sylvester Schieber to call him Syl. So the pool of suspects likely narrows to the list of Republican-leaning labour market experts, probably based in Washington and with stints in the Bush administration. There aren't that many of those people.
UPDATE: Tom Maguire wonders if Sarah has been reading Mickey Kaus, which can be taken as another hint of the reading habits of whoever actually wrote the piece.
A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber
Watson Wyatt helpfully has a link up to the paper --
Productivity Rewards and Pay Illusions Caused by Health and Retirement Benefit Cost Increases
Steven A. Nyce and Sylvester J. Schieber
Whoever wrote Palin's column is familiar enough with Sylvester Schieber to call him Syl. So the pool of suspects likely narrows to the list of Republican-leaning labour market experts, probably based in Washington and with stints in the Bush administration. There aren't that many of those people.
UPDATE: Tom Maguire wonders if Sarah has been reading Mickey Kaus, which can be taken as another hint of the reading habits of whoever actually wrote the piece.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Again with the Lucazado-Fascists
So the Times (UK) now has sources willing to go on the record with what was widely assumed and indeed reported at the time that the Heathrow liquid bomb was uncovered -- that the White House in general and Dick Cheney in particular nearly destroyed the investigation by pushing for an overly early arrest of Rashid Rauf, the Scarlet Pimpernel of terrorism, the alleged mastermind of the plot.
It's important to be reminded of the political environment of August 2006 and how convenient the plot was for short-term political objectives. So rather than make you wade through our old posts, go read this New York Times article from the time -- and remember that it standard political correspondent fashion, it will reflect the off-the-record thinking of people mentioned in the article.
It's important to be reminded of the political environment of August 2006 and how convenient the plot was for short-term political objectives. So rather than make you wade through our old posts, go read this New York Times article from the time -- and remember that it standard political correspondent fashion, it will reflect the off-the-record thinking of people mentioned in the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)