Date-Based Archives
<<May 2008>>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
27282930123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567
Main Page
 
Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis

BLOGROLL QandO

 
Recent Posts
US Army Individual Ready Reserve
How paranoid is Myanmar’s Junta?
Meanwhile in Afghanistan
Democrats - eating their own
The Next Right
Science and models
Respected in the World! [UPDATED]
Clinton - "there’s a pattern emerging here"
Turn about fair play?
King stubbornly refuses to amend his comments
 
Resources
Blogometer
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Capital Integrity
CentCom
CIA Factbook
Daou Report
Economic Freedom Index
Electoral Vote Counter
Finance News
GeographyIQ
Google News
Health Answers
Health Questions and Answers
Legislative Seat Counter
MEMRI
NationMaster
New York Times
Polling Report
Real Clear Politics
Reason Magazine
Tax Facts
TCS Daily
US Military Ribbons
US Military Insignia
US Statistical Abstract
USA Today
Washington Post
Washington Times
White House
 
The Neolibertarian Network

To subscribe to The New Libertarian, click here.

The Neolibertarian Network

If you'd like to submit your blog for membership in the Neolibertarian Network, click here for the submission guidelines. If you would like to submit an article or essay for consideration in The New Libertarian, click here for article submission guidelines.

1492
2 Valuable
Ace of Trump
An American Front Porch
Antivenom
The Art of The Blog
Aggressive-Voice Daily
AlphaPatriot
Area 417
Arktinen Jenkki
American Conservative Daily
The Anti-Jihad Pundit
A Second Hand Conjecture
Atlas Blogged
Atlas Shrugs
autoDogmatic
Baby Troll Blog
Below the Beltway
BitsBlog
Backlog Bob
Dave Budge
Capitalism and Freedom
Christian Libertarian
Church of the Painful Truth
Claudio Tellez
Classical Values
Clowning Glory
Code Blue Blog
Combs Spouts Off
Confederate Yankee
Cold Fury
The Conjecturer
The Cranky Insomniac
Daily Pundit
David M
Damnum Absque Injuria
Dave's Not Here
The Dead hand
Democratic Peace
Dean Esmay
Diminishing Returns
Divided we Stand...
Dodgeblogium
Dog Pundit
Don't Let Me Stop You
The Dumb Ox
Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave
Ethermind
The Everlasting Phelps
Federal Republic
Freedom's Gate
Freedom Watch
Freedom Works
The Freeman's Burden
Free State Blogs
Fresh Politics
From Right 2 Left
Galen's Log
GavPolitics
Gay Orbit
GOP3: The Triumvirate
Hamster Motor
Hydrablog
Impudent Domain
INCITE
Independent Sources
The International Libertarian
The Interocitor
IO Error
Jeff Doolittle
Joe Libertarian
Josh's Weblog
Kapitalismo
Kerfuffles
The Key Monk
Late at Night
Legal Redux
Liberal Cpaitalist
Libertarian Leanings
Liberty 1st
Liberty and Culture
Liberty Cadre
The Liberty Lamp
Liberty Corner
Louisiana Libertarian
Liberty 1st
Medary
Minor Thoughts
The Modern American
MuD and PHuD
Musings, Rants, and Monologues
The Neo-Communist
Neo Warmonger
The New American Revolutionist
Never Yet Melted
New World Man
No Government Cheese
N.O. Pundit
No Speed Bumps
Nothing Could Be Finer
Occam's Carbuncle
Cody O'Connor
Of Punk Rock and Politics
Ogre's Politics and Views
Oil Guru
OK, So I'm Not Really a Cowboy
One Man Bandwidth
The Outside Story
The Owner's Manual
Peace For Our Time
Politicalities
Politics and Pigskins
PolySciFi
Propaganda Machine
Pull Out the Pin
Protein Wisdom
The Quietist
Quotulatiousness
The Q Speaks
The Ranting Kraut
Rife's Torch
The Right Nation
Right On
Right Side of the Rainbow
Right Wing of the Gods
Robinik
Jim Rose
Rossputin
Samson Blinded
Saving Liberty
Seitelplasm
Shaking Spears
Spherical Tones
Rusty Sheridan
The Skeptical Optimist
The Smallest Minority
Squawkbox Noise
Strange Fictions
Stranger in a Strange Land
D.C. Thornton
Tipperography
The Thomas Institute
Unalienable Rights
The Unrepentant Individual
Vox Baby
Wade's World
What Can Brown Do For You?
What's That Smell
White Peril
The Will to Exist
The Wrightwing
The Young Conservatives

 
Blogroll

Categories
Blogging
Business
Congress
Culture
Economics
Education
Elections
Energy
Environment
Foreign Affairs
Freedom and Liberty
Government
Guns and Gun Rights
Health Care
Humor
Immigration
Iraq
iTunes
Legal Affairs
Media
Military Affairs
Miscellaneous
Neolibertarianism
New Media
News
None
Personal
Philosophy
Photoblogging
Podcasting
Politics
Professional Blogging
Project Hero
QuotObama
Race
Religion
Scandals
Science
Security
Taxation
Technology
Terrorism
The Left
The New Libertarian
The War
Trade
Web Development
 
Movable Type Archives
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
 
QandO RSS Feed
Podcast
 
Credits

Powered By

Other Credits:
Blogstreet Blog profile

The TruthLaidBear Blog  Ecosystem

Listed on BlogShares

Idiotvox Podcasting

Technorati Profile

 
Friday, May 09, 2008

US Army Individual Ready Reserve
Posted by: McQ
 
Consider this your continuing education segment on how the Army works.

You've read the stories about "former" soldiers who thought their obligations were complete but had been called back to active duty?

Almost to a man they claim they were sure their obligation was complete and further claim the military was unlawfully calling them back.

Eh, not really.

I had the opportunity to talk with MG Sean Byrne who commands the US Army Human Resources Command about the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). The IRR is a pool of former active duty soldiers who are serving out the rest of their contractual obligation to the military. What most people don't seem to understand, obviously to include some service members, is that the 2 to 4 years you serve on active duty are only a part of the 8 year obligation you sign up for at that time. It is in the contract signed by every enlistee.

One of the common misconceptions is that when they receive that DD 214 at the end of their active service, they are done. The belief that the receipt of that form, which is a release from active duty, ends their obligation, is false. It only separates the soldier from active duty, but does not discharge them from their reserve obligation.

In fact, when they process through the separation transfer point, each soldier signs a form that states he or she is subject to recall to active duty if the need arises and the form also tells them exactly how much time they have left.

How big of a problem has this been in reality? As we all know, newspaper stories only report the plane that crashes and not the thousands of planes that land safely daily.

The present pool of IRR soldiers stands at 72,000. The number recalled to active duty at this moment is 6,500. The number of stories that you've read about? Maybe 50.

We asked MG Byrne if there isn't a better way of ensuring that soldiers are more aware of this obligation to insure that there are fewer such stories. He pointed out that a new emphasis is going to be made in the separation transfer points (where soldiers separate from the Army). I asked if perhaps that couldn't be emphasized at the enlistment stage as well, maybe as a more prominent part of the contract so the soldier understood going in, that he or she was, in actuality, signing up for an 8 year military obligation, of which only 2 to 4 years would be on active duty (unless of course, the reenlisted). He said he thought it was well emphasized but perhaps could use some tweaking there as well.

MG Byrne did mention that exemptions are granted for material change in health or material change in circumstances that can't be overcome and they are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Bottom line - everyone who signs up (enlists) signs up for 8 years. Unless that 8 years from their enlistment date has passed (and there are some contracts, although few, which only have a 6 year obligation) they are subject to recall if necessary - bellyaching and bloviating notwithstanding.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 2 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Military Affairs

 
QandO
 
How paranoid is Myanmar’s Junta?
Posted by: McQ
 
This paranoid:
Myanmar's military leaders seized aid shipments headed for cyclone survivors and told the top U.S. diplomat there Friday that they're not ready to let in American aid workers despite warnings the country is on the verge of a medical catastrophe.

Another 4 inches of rain was forecast to fall next week as more than 1 million people waited for food, clean water, shelter and medicine to reach them. Diplomats and aid groups warned number of dead could eventually exceed 100,000 because of illnesses and said thousands of children may have been orphaned.

The U.N. World Food Program said two planeloads of supplies containing enough high-energy biscuits to feed 95,000 people were seized Friday, prompting the world body to say it was suspending food-aid flights.
When their total control is threatened by catastrophe, their reaction is to tighten control even more. They obviously don't feel secure enough to allow foreign aid workers to be traipsing all over their country spreading such ideas as freedom, liberty and, quite possibly, sparking revolution, do they.

So instead:
Myanmar's government acknowledged taking control of the shipments and said it plans to distribute the aid itself to the affected areas.

In a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press, government spokesman Ye Htut said the junta had clearly stated what it would do and denied the action amounted to a seizure.

"I would like to know which person or organization (made these) these baseless accusations," he said.
Yeah, I bet he would. Of course, if you think about it, the junta's reaction isn't much different than that you might expect from a number of other totalitarian regimes. There's the Sudan, as an example. And can you imagine Robert Mugabe's regime allowing aid workers free access to the necessary areas? Or Hugo Chavez? Iran?

Oh they'll take the aid. Fly it or ship it in, and hand it over. That way the top dogs get their cut and they can control who does or doesn't get what based on their assessment of who is most deserving politically. Of course, for those suffering people in need, the rest of the world is stuck dancing to the dictators tune if they hope to help anyone. Yes, it is sometimes a wonderful world we live in, isn't it?
 

Permalink | Comments ( 8 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Freedom and Liberty

 
QandO
 
Meanwhile in Afghanistan
Posted by: McQ
 
Interesting conversation with COL Michael McMahon who is the Director, CJ7 (Force integration and Training), Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A).

All of that means he's the guy charged with training and equipping both the Afghan Army and the Afghan police.

COL McMahon gave a short update on what their goals were and what their accomplishments have been to this point. Their goal, with the Afghan Army, is to build a force of 80,000 soldiers (78 battalions). It will include a commando brigade and a small air corps, along with the necessary sustainment capability.

To date, they've stood up about 52 battalions. As you might imagine, this is primarily an infantry based army. The air corps will mostly be focused on mobility and medical evacuation. It will have a small attack capability (light fixed wing and HIND attack helicopters). But again, it is a job much like Iraq, where you are converting from a Soviet based system which is highly centralized and almost devoid of NCOs, to a more western system which is decentralized and relies on NCOs to be the first line leaders.

They began the development of the NCO corps in 2002 with about 2,000. They presently have about 18,000 NCOs. The goal is 24,000. But there's also a mindset to change. Per COL McMahon, only about half the units are properly utilizing their NonCommissioned Officers. He said that one Afghan army leader told him privately that it would take about 12 or so years before this is accepted by all units. When asked why he thought that to be the case, he said, "that's when the last of the Soviet era officers will be gone".

But all in all, he's pleased with the army's progress. He says they have no problem recruiting and are very careful to ensure all the units are well integrated with representatives from all of the ethnic groups in Afghanistan.

The police, as we found in Iraq, are a different problem and a more difficult one. They're working both ends of that problem. Like Iraq, they've almost had to start over. Local police were, in the past, almost a warlord patronage job. So it isn't hard to imagine who their loyalty was toward. McMahon said that they are literally rebuilding the police district by district (there are 365 districts in Afghanistan as well as 64 precincts). They take a district and completely start over, hiring and checking out the police recruits and then sending them through 8 weeks of basic training. He said some of the recruits seem surprised to learn they aren't supposed to beat the citizens and/or collect taxes for the local warlords.

Anyway, he says, while it is a slow and methodical way to do this (they're looking at 2012 to finish), it seems to be paying off. As each districts police officers finish their training, a police mentor team is assigned to them to advise, monitor and further train them as necessary.

McMahon also said that a special police force, more of a national police force, is also being trained. About 10 battalions of ANCOPS are being formed and they undergo 16 weeks of training, get a little better pay and a little better equipment. They'll form an elite police force working for the Ministry of the Interior, and per McMahon, they've been getting rave reviews about the ANCOPS bns already deployed.

Of course the MoI is another area being worked. Structured as a Soviet era bureaucracy, it was highly centralized when they began working with it. That has changed and the decentralization has allowed local police commanders much more autonomy to address local situations the best way.

An interesting look into the development of these two entities in Afghanistan. McMahon also mentioned that some of our NATO allies are participating as well in the training of both forces.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 1 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Military Affairs

 
QandO
 
Democrats - eating their own
Posted by: McQ
 
I have been fascinated watching the reaction to Hillary Clinton's words about how the vote seems to be breaking down in the Democratic primary. Apparently noting the race of those she seems to be attracting and noting, simply by their number, they constitute a broader demographic, apparently has racist overtones if you listen to the likes of Joe Conason in Salon.
But this time she violated the rhetorical rules, no doubt by mistake. It was her offhand reference to "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" that raises the specter of old Dixie demagogues like Wallace and Lester Maddox. Was she dog-whistling to the voters of Kentucky and West Virginia?

While I still cannot believe she actually intended any such nefarious meaning, she seemed to be equating "hard-working Americans" with "white Americans." Which is precisely what Wallace and his cohort used to do with their drawling refrain about welfare and affirmative action. This is the grating sound of Richard Nixon's Southern strategy, even though Tricky Dick would never quite stoop to saying such things in public.

Of course, Nixon enjoyed a more commanding position politically than Clinton must now endure. She has been reduced to extolling her support from hardworking white folks — especially those who have "not completed college" — in an effort to prove that she can build a "broader coalition" in November than Obama.
My goodness, in racial terms, can you draw upon two worse stereotypical bogey men than George Wallace and Lester Maddox (both solid Democrats at the time)? And invoking Richard Nixon's name is an obvious attempt to drag the racial implications over to the right side of the spectrum.

The fact remains that the class of voter Hillary Clinton is talking about, or at least a solid portion of that class, has always been Democrat. Its not like she's talking about stealing them from the Republicans. It is, in fact, the Republicans who've managed to steal them, at times, from the Democrats. They were called "Reagan Democrats" for a reason. Whether or not the appeal by both Reagan and Nixon was along racial lines is debatable. What isn't debatable is these voters are and always have been traditionally Democrats.

Black voters make up 25% of the Democratic voter base and 14% of the population. That obviously isn't enough to win an election. So the candidate who appeals to the broadest coalition of voters, one assumes, would be the best candidate for the party. What Clinton often leaves out of her pitch is the 90% support Obama enjoys among blacks. However, when he or his staff note that, no one thinks they're engaging in racial politics. It's a statistic, a way of analyzing how the vote breaks down for the candidate. It's in every exit poll we see.

So why is it, when Clinton does a similar analysis in a pitch to the party to be it's nominee, her noting the race of the supporters generates comments like this:
What she should not ignore, however, is the damage that her increasingly reckless behavior is inflicting on her reputation and that of her husband — especially when she starts to sound like a reincarnation of the late George Wallace.
What an absurd comparison, but at the same time a perfect example of how unable we are to talk about race and its role in politics. If Clinton's discussion is akin to that of George Wallace, then I must not remember the Wallace era as it actually happened.

While some may not like the implication that "white" workers are the "hard-working" Americans, I'm pretty sure that wasn't her intent, and even Conason acknowledges that. But it doesn't stop him from taking her to task for even suggesting some of the voting may be race based - on both sides.

Voters vote for a candidate for a variety of reasons. Noting that a particular group of a particular race and background have a tendency to vote for one Democrat over another doesn't mean that group is doings so based solely on race. Certainly some will. But then with 90% backing by black voters the same can be said in Obama's case, can't it? Why no discussion of "dog whistles" and "reputations" when that stat is thrown around?
 

Permalink | Comments ( 7 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
Thursday, May 08, 2008

Science and models
Posted by: McQ
 
Or hard data vs. assumptions if you prefer:
The new study, detailed in the April 5 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, marks the first time that researchers have been able to give a progress report on Antarctic climate model projections by comparing climate records to model simulations. (These comparisons have already been done for the other six continents.)

Information about Antarctica's harsh weather patterns has traditionally been limited, but temperature records from ice cores and ground weather stations have recently been constructed, giving scientists the missing information they needed.

"This is a really important exercise for these climate models," said study leader Andrew Monaghan of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Co.

Monaghan and his team found that while climate models projected temperature increases of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 degrees Celsius) over the past century, temperatures were observed to have risen by only 0.4 F (0.2 C).

"This is showing us that, over the past century, most of Antarctica has not undergone the fairly dramatic warming that has affected the rest of the globe," Monaghan said.

The gap between prediction and reality seemed to be caused by the models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere.

The cold air over the southernmost continent handles moisture differently than the atmosphere over warmer regions.
Conclusion? Antarctica isn't about to melt away anytime soon, it appears, even if temperatures elsewhere on the globe do rise a bit.

The one bit of good news for the model builders:
The models did, however, correctly capture the increases in snowfall over Antarctica in the late 20th century, followed by a decrease in the last decade.
And, speaking of irony:
One reason that Antarctica hasn't warmed as much as other parts of the globe is the existence of the man-made ozone hole overhead: It alters wind patterns, creating a swirling belt of winds around the landmass that keeps comparatively warm air from seeping in, preserving the continent's frigid temperatures.

One important exception to this rule is the Antarctic Peninsula, which has warmed by several degrees, in part because winds there draw in warmer air from the north.
Well that and the volcano that vents on the Anarctic Peninsula, but you get the idea - there's still a lot to be learned before declarations like this ...
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that sea levels could rise by 7 to 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) globally this century, in part due to ice melt at both poles and from mountain glaciers.
... are taken at face value.

(HT: Looker)
 

Permalink | Comments ( 13 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Environment

 
QandO
 
Clinton - "there’s a pattern emerging here"
Posted by: McQ
 
Yes there is, and I want it noted that it is a pattern among Democratic voters.
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters - including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
As an aside, I've always loved the characterization that blue-collar workers are the only "hard-working" Americans (that's who Clinton appeals too and is talking about).

It should be obvious that there has indeed been a continuing trend in voting in these primaries if you believe the exit polls. Clinton has picked up higher and higher percentages of white votes and Obama had 90% lock on the black vote.

Now, some would like to claim (and they will), that there is a certain level of the "Limbaugh effect" going on for Clinton. Perhaps. But the trend began establishing itself before Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" was ever declared. And it accelerated after the Wright debacle. I'll leave it to you to decide if the shift of white Democratic voters toward Clinton is a matter of race or questions about Obama's character, but another rising exit poll statistic are those Clinton voters who declare they won't vote for Obama (and would instead vote for McCain).

Yes, it's May and such claims are easy to make, but it has to make the kingmakers in the Democratic party a little nervous anyway. And, of course, Democrats don't want to hear these points couched in racial terms:
Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."
And everyone also knows the race of those she's talking about, whether they'll admit it or not.
Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton's comment was a "poorly worded" variation on the way analysts have been "slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms."

However, he said her primary support doesn't prove she's more electable. Either Democrat will get "the vast majority" of the other's primary election votes in a general election, he said.
I mostly agree with the caveat that the "vast majority", in a tight race, may not be good enough. Of course, while the polls say now it may be a tight race, we really won't know until the Democratic nominee is named and the electorate is more focused. But this has to be - in an election year everyone predicted would see the Democratic nominee waltz into the White House - of concern to the party.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 18 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
Turn about fair play?
Posted by: McQ
 
Iran is miffed:
Iranian officials accused the US and Britain of having links to a group responsible for a mosque explosion last month that killed 14 people and injured more than 200, the official news agency reported on Thursday.

Immediately after the April 12 blast in the southern city of Shiraz, Iranian officials said it was caused by a homemade bomb.
Then they said:
The following day, the government changed the account and said it was caused by ammunition leftover from a recent military exhibition in the mosque.
Live ammunition at a military display at a mosque? The religion of peace - how appropriate is that?

Then the story changed again:
But Thursday's report by the official news agency IRNA again suggested the explosion was an attack, not an accident.

"The group that planted the bomb had been in contact with some western countries, particularly Britain and the United States," IRNA quoted Intelligence Minister Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehi as saying.
Of course - why admit incompetence when you can propagandize the event and blame the Great Satan? And if it was actually a home-made bomb, why admit domestic dissatisfaction when you can blame an external enemy?
Ejehi told reporters late on Wednesday that Iranian security agents have detained six suspects in the explosion.
My guess is they'll end up confessing to whatever Iranian security deems most useful for their purposes.

The little dog yaps again.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 4 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Foreign Affairs

 
QandO
 
King stubbornly refuses to amend his comments
Posted by: McQ
 
Funny, we've been pushing support for "Books for Soldiers" and Stephen King is saying, essentially, that poor readers are stuck with going in the military.

The controversy continues with King following up his former remarks with this:
"I see a lot of young people who don't test well and don't read particularly well," he said. "When we ask them what they're going to do, they say go into the service. If you can read, the world is open to you, your opportunities are endless. If you can't read, your options are more limited. For low-income students with low grades, the [Armed Services] is one of their options."
Obviously, to a point, he's absolutely correct. If you can read, your opportunities are much greater than otherwise.

And, just as obviously, if you can't read, your options are drastically more limited.

However, if you can't read, one of those options you'll be unable to exercise is joining the military. Sorry, illiterate need not apply because they're not going to take you.

That's what is so annoying about this repeated mantra from King - it assumes something which simply isn't true, and uses the military as the sole example of this untruth, as if going into the military is the absolute bottom of the barrel as far as choices go.

Well it may be for Stephen King (and I'd guess the military might view him in much the same way) but for any number of young men and women, it is their first choice, even when they're marvelous readers. King can't seem to wrap his head around that point. The military is also an option for high-income students with high grades, and, as statistics have shown, the vast majority of the military comes from the middle class, and as mentioned, have a higher level of high school grads than does the civilian workforce.

Had he just stopped with the claim that being unable to read limits your options while reading and reading well broadens them, he'd have been fine. But his ignorance of the military (against which, it appears, he may hold at some level of disdain), his obvious bias against it and his political views about Iraq seem to have overcome whatever message he was trying to transmit. For those who know better about the military, his original remarks ended up making King seem an ignorant fool. His continued defense of those remarks validates that conclusion.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 15 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: The Left

 
QandO
 
Wednesday, May 07, 2008

The "flexible" Left
Posted by: McQ
 
James Kirchik - game, set and match:
Open the pages of a liberal magazine or peruse the liberal blogosphere, and you're bound to come across denunciations of the religious right, if not religion itself. The "reality-based community," as self-satisfied liberal bloggers call themselves, was a term created in direct response to the "faith-based community," what the Bush administration called recipients of money from its Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Given the religious right's use of "faith" to justify hoaxes such as "intelligent design" and the ruinous attempt to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals, the left had good reason to criticize, and sometimes mock, the absurdities that are the inevitable result of religion mixing with politics.

Yet the left, with its healthy skepticism toward religion, has shown itself to be cynically flexible over the past few weeks in response to the utter insanities emitted from the big mouth of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama's pastor, mentor and friend of 20 years. Suddenly, some liberals have discovered a newfound love for extremists who hide behind the cloth to justify their radical views.
And of course, to observers of this phenomenon, this isn't the first time the left has been "flexible".

Bob Packwood? Run him out of town said the feminists.

The First Groper?

The sound of crickets chirping - still.

[From a parking lot in Brunswick GA with time in between appointments]
 

Permalink | Comments ( 17 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: The Left

 
QandO
 
NC and IN
Posted by: McQ
 
A very bad night for Hillary Clinton. Yes she won IN. But barely. And she was blown out it NC.

So ... what does that mean? Does the dogged and determined Democrat continue the chase, or does she give it up, given the results and bow to the seeming inevitable.

As you might imagine, the pundits and prognosticators are all over the place on this.

Coming up are two primaries in which she should do well given the demographics of each and how well they match up with her other wins. WV and KY should be Clinton country. But to what end? Even if she wins there, after last night, any ground she had made up in the popular vote was pretty much rubbed out and she certainly didn't gain in the delegate count. And, as many are predicting, she's not going to get the cash bounce she got after her more recent and more impressive wins (and there are rumors she's running short of cash again.).

Then come the reports that she's canceled all appearances on the morning shows - the equivalent of turning down free advertising for a cash strapped campaign.

You can't help but believe that the Democratic leadership has been working vigorously behind the scenes to end this bruising primary season. Indications are the Republicans are in line to be beat up rather badly in November, and these primary fights aren't at all aiding that possibility, but, in fact, are distracting from it.

Is she getting ready, finally, to pull a "for the good of the party" concession? Her 2008 political obituary has been written a number of times over the last 15 months, but she's refused to "die." I'm not sure what to make of her cancellations this morning, but for some reason, I just don't think Hillary Clinton has it in her to quit something which has been as much her obsession as it was her husband's. But watching Lanny Davis try to spin what was happening last night in a favorable way was just painful.

That said, the Clintons do seemingly have a self-delusional streak which allows them to ignore reality in favor of pursuing their goals, so, given everything I've mentioned above, I just can't see Hillary Clinton quiting this race until every opportunity and option short of quiting, has been exploited or exercised.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 4 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
Tracking the left’s faltering moral equivalence argument
Posted by: McQ
 
I mentioned the other day how the left was attempting to find McCain's Wright and Ayers. Frank Rich and Steve Chapman have made rather poor attempts. Now, apparently, Roland Martin, a CNN political commenter and journalist, feels inclined to give it a shot.

Michael Wade, at A Second Hand Conjecture, takes a look at Martin's screed and takes it apart quite handily. In the case of Wright, what most of these folks want to do is ignore the relationship of 23 years between he and Obama in order to make the equivalence work. Michael shoots it down while noting that Martin puts a twist on his argument by invoking race:
Martin's analogy makes no sense, of course, which is why he simply waves his hand at the fact that Wright was Obama's pastor for twenty-some years. That's an inconvenient fact for his rant, so it's mentioned without being addressed, and instead tries to turn it into a racial issue. Martin is trying to set up the meme that Rev. Wright became and issue not because of his racist and anti-American utterings, but because he's black. The problem, however, is that picking up an endorsement from a crazy, anti-Catholic preacher is just not the same as sitting in a crazy, anti-American, white-hating, marxist-loving, Farrakhan-embracing preacher for over twenty years, not to mention personally choosing him as your spiritual mentor. The former says something about the state of politics for sure in that a candidate is essentially required to pick up such an endorsement in order to get the job. The latter says something about the candidate's judgment and choice of company and nothing about the state of politics in general (although, I believe it does say something about being in politics in Chicago).
Watch for variations on this theme to continue to emerge from the left as the right continues to hammer the Wright/Obama connection. The left knows that while Democrats may have put this controversy somewhat behind them, it will indeed emerge as an issue again in the general election. And they are going to try all sorts of contorted arguments in the meantime to see if one will gain enough traction to neutralize the problem.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 12 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
Shameless Al Gore
Posted by: McQ
 
From the Business and Media Institute:
Using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming.

Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR's May 6 "Fresh Air" broadcast did just that. He was interviewed by "Fresh Air" host Terry Gross about the release of his book, "The Assault on Reason," in paperback.

"And as we're talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated," Gore said. "And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China - and we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."

Gore claimed global warming is forcing ocean temperatures to rise, which is causing storms, including cyclones and hurricanes, to intensify.
In fact, as we have pointed out, the oceans (as well as the global temperature) have been on a cooling trend.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 8 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Environment

 
QandO
 
Books for Soldiers
Posted by: McQ
 
Go on over to Bithead's blog and read about the needs of "Books for Soldiers", a nonprofit which provides books and other media to members of the US Military who are on active duty.

I can tell you that it is amazing how many soldiers read on deployments. When I was a young soldier I carried a book in a waterproof bag with me everywhere and it stolen moments of rest (out of danger of course), I read. It was an escape. You can go to another place. It is a nice and necessary break.

If you're so inclined, follow the links and hit the tip jar. It is a worthy effort and a worthy cause.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 10 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Personal

 
QandO
 
Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Speaking truth to power ...
Posted by: McQ
 
In a real sense, and at considerable risk for doing so:
Former Iranian president Mohamad Khatami was under fire from hardliners on Monday after comments interpreted as accusing the country's clerical leaders of supporting insurgents in the Middle East.

The hardline Kayhan newspaper accused the reformist Khatami of tarnishing the Islamic republic's reputation by implying it was carrying out "sabotage" work in other countries through insurgent groups.

In his speech, Khatami referred to the ambition of Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to export the 1979 Islamic revolution around the world, but expressed fear this wish was being distorted.

"What did the imam (Khomeini) mean by exporting the revolution?" he asked in the speech Friday to university students in the northern province of Gilan, according to the Kargozaran newspaper.

"Did he mean that we take up arms, that we blow up places in other nations and we create groups to carry out sabotage in other countries? The imam was vehemently against this and was confronting it," he added.

His speech has been seen by some observers as accusing the Iranian authorities of encouraging militants to destabilize the Middle East, in particular Iraq and Lebanon.
You think?! Now I have no idea whether or not Khomeini meant something else besides literally taking up arms and actually blowing up things when he talked about exporting the revolution. But there is a possibility that what he meant had to do with taking up "spiritual arms" and spreading a spiritual revolution through other means than violence. According to many Islamic scholars, that's supposed to be more in-line with the tenets of main-stream Islam.

But that's not the Iran today and the hard-liners are not pleased:
"It is obvious that Mr Khatami must answer for his anti-patriotic comments and explain why he has taken such a stance," said Kayhan, whose editor-in-chief is appointed by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"Its only consequence has been to tarnish the shining reputation of the Islamic republic and its system, and confirm the baseless accusations of the arrogant powers," Kayhan said.
"Shining reputation" indeed.

One of the things that bothers me about Iran is I think that a good portion of the leadership has come to believe its own propaganda. Call it the little dog syndrome. They don't know they're a little dog and don't seem to understand what a big dog could do to them it if got serious about a fight. So the little dog snaps, snips and prances around barking and nipping to the point that the big dog finally turns around, grabs it by the neck and makes it a quiet little dog - forever.

I've come to think that Iran believes it can handle the US in the Middle East. Not necessarily militarily, but Iran believes it has the upper hand there because of the US involvement/investment in Iraq. To a certain extent they're right. Iran believes that should the US make any untoward moves against it, Iran can upset that applecart altogether if it needs too (and it also believes that US wouldn't dare attack Iran because of that). What Iran doesn't seem to understand or comprehend is how overwhelming a reaction to its doing so might be from the US. So it keeps nipping away.

I'm also coming to the conclusion that Iran believes its shared faith with others in the ME is enough to overcome traditional racial biases within the region because the "Great Satan" is seen as a higher threat. I think Iran believes the other countries will either become allied with Iran or at least remain neutral (with obvious exceptions) should there be a confrontation between the US and Iran. And if the Great Satan isn't enough, Iran further believes that all it has to do is throw the "little Satan" (Israel) into the mix to assure cooperation.

I further believe Iran thinks that an attack by the US on Iran would be the catalyst for an Islamic revolution in which Iran would emerge as the center of that universe. I also think that and at some point (after it gains nukes?) Iran would almost welcome such an attack.

And I think it is those delusional beliefs which concern moderate Iranians like Khatami a great deal. Of course, I'm talking about the current Iranian leadership when I lay out my beliefs about Iran, not necessarily the people as a whole.

I think what Khatami foretells is a serious backlash forming among the Iranian people against the confrontational attitude among the present leadership. Khatami, because he is so well know, speaks for thousands, if not millions, who can't afford to say the things he says.

Frankly, I see Khatami's questioning of the current regime in Iran as a good sign. Hopefully he'll continue to speak out. I have no idea whether doing so will have any practical effect legally - I've seen nothing which indicates that the Iranian hard-liners would ever allow an election process that would unseat them, because I'd guess that would happen very quickly if they did. So I wonder if the only remaining way for the Iranians to moderate the leadership of their country is extralegally?

Rest assured of one thing, though - and many people have a tendency to forget this when talking emotionally about what we ought to do there - The quickest way to turn the dissatisfied and disgruntled with their country into patriots is to have their country attacked by a foreign power. Whenever a country and its leadership can point to an external enemy, you'll rarely, if ever, see them clamoring for change internally.

That makes it a tough row to hoe for us, certainly. So we need to be supporting people like Khatami and other dissident groups and get what they say out for others to see and read. We need to find a way to destabilize Iran as Iran is attempting to destabilize much of the ME. That, as far as I'm concerned is eminently fair. That is the way to wage war against that little dog and shut it up for good.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 8 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Foreign Affairs

 
QandO
 
The left’s blindspot
Posted by: McQ
 
Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom is monitoring a bit of femfighting (he labels it a "Fempest") going on in the liberal side of the blogosphere.

It appears Amanda Marcotte has again found herself in a controversy, this time, per Collins allegedly "stealing ideas from women-of-color feminist bloggers and peddling it as her own."

The usual and predictable narratives come into play, including a prominent helping of victimology based solely on color.

It rolls on from there with an often hilarious back-and-forth that, as usual, seems to have no inkling of the ironic nature of the discussion.

Don Surber capsulizes the point that seems to always elude the left:
[I]t is ... another example of how white liberals deal with people of color. We had John Cole and others using the N-word, rationalizing this obscenity as what Republicans "really meant to say" regarding Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

Or the insertion of the N-word into a 15-year-old documentary to make Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign staff sound racist. How un-post-racial.

And of course the reaction to Scooter Libby's sentencing - "don't drop the soap" - is one of the many, many, many examples of lefty homophobia. Check out the first comment. Prison rape is a joke to many liberals.

Too many liberals (far from all) act as if their sexism, racism, homophobia and misogyny do not count because they are liberals and by definition cannot be racist or sexist or homophobes or misogynists. They are rarely further from the truth.
And they always seem totally surprised when someone calls them on their hypocrisy.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 15 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: The Left

 
QandO
 
McCain - jobs Americans won’t do
Posted by: McQ
 
During a campaign stop in NC yesterday:
Several audience members questioned McCain about his stance on immigration, though their perspectives ranged from complaining about immigrants returning to the U.S. after being expelled for criminal activity to arguing Americans do not want the jobs immigrants perform.

"People don't say to their children, 'I want you to get an education so you can grow up and be a roofer,'" said one woman. "We don't have people who want to do those jobs."
In apparent agreement:
McCain said he understood the need for qualified foreign workers, adding he believed the U.S. could only solve this intractable political problem by "securing the borders first" and then moving forward with more comprehensive reform. "I don't think you can take it piecemeal," he told the questioner.
Yes, agreed, there is a need for qualified foreign workers - but not for the reason the woman states or McCain agrees too. Part of any plan to fix immigration must - must - include a vastly streamlined system for allowing foreign workers entry and the ability to ensure they can be tracked.

But I don't know how you agree with the woman's point that "we don't have people who want to do those jobs". If the cards I find in my mailbox weekly are any indication, there are many Americans who would love to put a roof on my house, do any drywall or carpentry work I might have a need for and painting - no job is too small, or so they claim.

While I recognize that what she says about "being a roofer" isn't necessary a parent's dream for their child, it doesn't follow that because that's not their dream, it isn't a job Americans want or won't do.

The larger point about ensuring a supply of qualified foreign labor to fill the gaps where our supply isn't adequate (remember we've had 4% unemployment for a few years even with a illegal immigrant population which numbers in the millions) is valid. But can we get off this rationalization that foreign workers are necessary primarily because they do jobs Americans don't want to do?
 

Permalink | Comments ( 19 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Immigration

 
QandO
 
Are we again getting two for one? (update)
Posted by: McQ
 
Christopher Hitchens asks about the unanswered questions still hanging out there about the Obama/Wright relationship:
What can it be that has kept Obama in Wright's pews, and at Wright's mercy, for so long and at such a heavy cost to his aspirations? Even if he pulls off a mathematical nomination victory, he has completely lost the first, fine, careless rapture of a post-racial and post-resentment political movement and mired us again in all the old rubbish that predates Dr. King. What a sad thing to behold. And how come? I think we can exclude any covert sympathy on Obama's part for Wright's views or style-he has proved time and again that he is not like that, and even his own little nods to "Minister" Farrakhan can probably be excused as a silly form of Chicago South Side political etiquette. All right, then, how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?
Hitchens says he doesn't think or see any indication that Obama actually buys into the Wright poison. So what, or who, kept him in that church for those two decades? Who had the influence to do that if it wasn't Wright.

Hitchens says the answer is fairly clear when you dig into it a bit. And it certainly isn't an answer Obama, and for the most part, reporters, are going to want to explore:
If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company-and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable-then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner?
And why does Hitchens go in that direction? Remember that 1985 thesis Michelle Obama wrote while at Princeton entitled "Princeton-educated Blacks and the Black community?" Hitchens is of the opinion the answer to why Barack Obama stayed in Wright's church may be found there:
Anyway, at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she's much influenced by the definition of black "separationism" offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America.
That, of course, is the sort of black "separationism" which neatly fits in with the Rev. Wright's black liberation theology ala James Cone. And Michelle Obama's campaign rhetoric at certain times has belied a degree of bitterness about her country which many find hard to fathom, given her rather privileged upbringing and schooling.

So it seems rather logical and reasonable -given the evidence- to wonder whether perhaps the influencer here is Michelle Obama and that Wright is just the result of that influence.

Hitchens says:
I have the distinct feeling that the Obama campaign can't go on much longer without an answer to the question: "Are we getting two for one?" And don't be giving me any grief about asking this. Black Americans used to think that the Clinton twosome was their best friend, too. This time we should find out before it's too late to ask.
We'll see, won't we?

UPDATE: Powerline has a variation on the theme.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 13 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
The populist Clinton promises to take on OPEC
Posted by: McQ
 
Great populist rhetoric, but I'd love to know how she plans to "go right at OPEC".
"We're going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they're going to produce and what price they're going to put it at," she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.

"That's not a market. That's a monopoly," she said, saying she'd use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.
She claims she'd use our "anti-trust law", but I don't see that as having any effect on a cartel who would not find any difficulty selling its product elsewhere if we decide to make it difficult to sell it here. And, frankly, it shows a pretty significant ignorance (or she assumes a level of ignorance by voters) of how world markets work - cartel or no cartel.

Secondly, I'm not sure what the WTO can do to a cartel which essentially has functioned under its "watchful eye" for decades. Again, the cartel has all the cards and the WTO, when it gets down to brass tacks, has no real power.

But it certainly is fun stuff to spout when you really don't have any idea of how to have actually have an effect on gasoline prices (well except the obvious - drill, drill, drill, exploit, expolit, exploit) and your sole "plan" is to sell the vapor-ware of 'alternative fuels' and "windfall profits taxes" which will drive the price of gas even higher.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 15 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections

 
QandO
 
Monday, May 05, 2008

A different type of speed reading
Posted by: McQ
 
Have you ever been reading something and hit a line or a phrase that so stuns your sensibilities, that you aren't sure you really read it right? And then, of course, you reread it. You find you were right the first time. But somehow your brain just couldn't accept as credible what this author had said and so made you think you must have misread it.

Here's an example of that. An article entitled "Bill Clinton may be campaign's biggest loser", caught my eye. I was interested to see how the author was going to attempt to make that case.

But before he ever got to Bill, he talked about Hillary. He feels that she still has a future if she isn't the nominee. And it was while talking about her future he made a comparison that just stopped me in my tracks:
In time she will have fresh opportunities; perhaps a Senate leadership role, or she may emulate Edward M. Kennedy as a truly great lawmaker, or, if Obama loses, make another run for the White House with lessons learned.
*blink*

Did he really say that?

[reread]

Oh my. Edward Kennedy as a "truly great lawmaker?" That's a bit like claiming John Kerry was a truly great naval officer. Or Jimmy Carter was a truly great president.

*click*

Website closed - no remaining desire whatsoever to read this guy's opinion on anything else (and yes, I know I'm setting myself up for someone to say "that's mostly what I do with your stuff" - but of course, he or she will have already read to this point in order to make that claim, so I'll live with it). Interestingly enough, I'm finding more and more of these examples as I prowl the net.

Oh, and the fact that this guy was the Washington executive editor for Bloomberg, didn't come as a particularly shocking surprise.
 

Permalink | Comments ( 18 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Media

 
QandO
 
Iraq - picking sides?
Posted by: McQ
 
Michael Yon explains what is happening in Iraq concerning the Mahdi army and our involvement in the fight with them. He explains why it is important, why it is different than fighting AQI and why our determination to help disarm them will most likely pay off in a more peaceful Iraq (although we may see a spike in US casualties).

That prompts Joe Klein to say:
When Michael Yon—who has spent as much or more time on the ground in Iraq as anyone—speaks, I listen, even when I disagree. And while it is undoubtedly true, as Yon argues, that elements of the Sadrist militia have devolved into criminality, it is also true that Sadrism is, arguably, the most popular trend among the Shi'ite majority in Iraq—and that involving ourselves in an intra-Shi'ite struggle is not a very wise course of action. It's difficult to stand by when Sadrist Special Groups are lobbing rockets into the Green Zone, but our current involvement in Sadr City also has the effect of drawing us deeper into an internecine Shi'ite struggle that really ain't our fight. We should finish the battle against Al Qaeda in Iraq up in Mosul while continuing to draw down our troops. Let the Shi'ites settle their own hash.
The premise? We shouldn't pick sides (the implied "civil war" bit) but should let them fight it out themselves.

Would someone, anyone, please inform Mr. Klein we picked sides long ago and for better or worse, chose the side of the shia dominated Iraqi government? Would you also pass along that, whether some like it or not, we have a huge vested interest in their success?
 

Permalink | Comments ( 7 ) | TrackBacks