Some quick vacation blogging, while the Mrs is out fetching Starbucks and I can take advantage of wireless access at my hotel. A quick check on the news shows that General Krugman is back. Done for the time being predicting a depression era scale collapse of the economy, he is predicting a Vietnam era collapse of the US military. I sense a theme.
One of the more bizarre aspects of the Iraq war has been President Bush's repeated insistence that his generals tell him they have enough troops. Even more bizarrely, it may be true - I mean, that his generals tell him that they have enough troops, not that they actually have enough.
Of course in Krugman logic if anyone says anything in support of the administration they are cheats and liars, if they say anything which could be construed as being against the administration’s policies they are truth tellers.
The article tells the tale of John Riggs, a former Army commander, who "publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan" - then abruptly found himself forced into retirement at a reduced rank, which normally only happens as a result of a major scandal.
Of course this phenomenon can be taken to even parts of a sentence. Take this example.
The truth, of course, is that there aren't nearly enough troops. "Basically, we've got all the toys, but not enough boys," a Marine major in Anbar Province told The Los Angeles Times.
According to this, we have plenty of equipment, but not enough troops.
But only a few paragraphs later, apparently this Marine Major does not know what he is talking about. Because now the administration is depriving the troops of equipment in a “pathological” manner.
The other is the way in which the administration cuts corners when it comes to supporting the troops. From their foot-dragging on armoring Humvees to their apparent policy of denying long-term disability payments to as many of the wounded as possible, officials seem almost pathologically determined to nickel-and-dime those who put their lives on the line for their country.
Then to top it all off, Krugman, not being able to rely on the facts, simply speculate once again, that doom is near. He cannot claim that there is an exodus of military professionals, since there isn’t, but he can always hope.
Much more serious, because it would be irreversible, would be a mass exodus of mid-career military professionals. "That's essentially how we broke the professional Army we took into Vietnam," one officer told the National Journal. "At some point, people decided they could no longer weather the back-to-back deployments."
It is Vietnam all over again! Quagmire! Who is this officer, by the way, who claims that back to back deployments broke the professional Army in Vietnam? I have heard a lot of complaints about the way the military was managed in Vietnam, but that is normally not one of them. So General Krugman, stick to the the bad economics, so you can have sycophants like Brad DeLong tell you how brilliant you are, leave the military stuff to people who know what they are talking about. Even if you touch on serious issues that need addressing, your rabid Bush hatred obscures your point.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Chief taking a break
Mrs. Chief and I are going on a short vacation and then I have to spend the weekend defending democracy, so I won't be blogging for a while unless she kicks me out of the hotel room. Keep the heat on the lying left wing profs in my absence.
Orwell in Berkeley
Unbelievable, me and one other person post on Brad DeLong's site simply pointing out out, in a completely polite manner, that it is unprofessional to delete and alter people's posts merely because they disagree with you, and what happens, he deletes those posts, along with several posts refuting his and Krugman's argument, and bans me from the site! It is downright Orwellian. All dissidence will be eliminated, it never existed. I feel sorry for anyone in DeLong's class who takes a view in opposition to the teacher, he had better pack up and transfer to Stanford or something.
Well here at The Chief Brief, we don't just mouth the words of democracy, dissent, openmindness and freedom, we practice it. I have not, and will not delete anyone's post for any reason other than profanity or obscenity. I welcome dissent and criticism. Tell me I am wrong, tell me HOW I am wrong, make me work for every argument I make. Make well thought out counter arguments and post facts that prove I am an idiot. You learn nothing from people just telling you how great you are all day.
It is his website, he can do anything he wants, but how insecure do you have to be to allow posts only from people who agree with you?
UPDATE:
Berkeley sycophant watch
This is one post that will never get deleted from Brad DeLong's site. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he put it on his resume.
James
Please do not be insulting to Brad. This is always uncalled for and makes a mockery of any argument you care to use. I thank Brad every day for the wonderful teacher he has been and is. Please, no more rudeness.
I replied, commenting that I was not being rude, had not called him any names or made any personal comments, my only sin was that I disagreed with him, and it was in fact DeLong who had called Steven Antler a "dork" and his work "intellectual garbage". Of course my post was deleted.
UPDATE: Thinking about the ridiculousness of this whole thing got me thinking about the importance of being able to speak your mind and contradict and debate with others in academia. When I was getting my Russian Studies degree I had a class with Professor Christopher Jones, where through a mistake in posting the course I ended up being the only one in it. So I would go to the professor's office twice a week get some instruction from him, hand in some reports from the reading assignments, and then spend the rest of the time debating the issues with him. To a certain extent it was intimidating, going one on one with with a Harvard PhD, with me as a little undergrad, but it was also one of the best academic experiences of my life. Despite the fact that we didn't agree on many issues, he respected my viewpoint and forced me to organize, research and defend my opinions in a stringent manner. Whether I learned anything about the role of the Soviet military in Eastern Europe is irrelevant, the skills I learned from being able to express myself and defend my views were invaluable.
Well here at The Chief Brief, we don't just mouth the words of democracy, dissent, openmindness and freedom, we practice it. I have not, and will not delete anyone's post for any reason other than profanity or obscenity. I welcome dissent and criticism. Tell me I am wrong, tell me HOW I am wrong, make me work for every argument I make. Make well thought out counter arguments and post facts that prove I am an idiot. You learn nothing from people just telling you how great you are all day.
It is his website, he can do anything he wants, but how insecure do you have to be to allow posts only from people who agree with you?
UPDATE:
Berkeley sycophant watch
This is one post that will never get deleted from Brad DeLong's site. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he put it on his resume.
James
Please do not be insulting to Brad. This is always uncalled for and makes a mockery of any argument you care to use. I thank Brad every day for the wonderful teacher he has been and is. Please, no more rudeness.
I replied, commenting that I was not being rude, had not called him any names or made any personal comments, my only sin was that I disagreed with him, and it was in fact DeLong who had called Steven Antler a "dork" and his work "intellectual garbage". Of course my post was deleted.
UPDATE: Thinking about the ridiculousness of this whole thing got me thinking about the importance of being able to speak your mind and contradict and debate with others in academia. When I was getting my Russian Studies degree I had a class with Professor Christopher Jones, where through a mistake in posting the course I ended up being the only one in it. So I would go to the professor's office twice a week get some instruction from him, hand in some reports from the reading assignments, and then spend the rest of the time debating the issues with him. To a certain extent it was intimidating, going one on one with with a Harvard PhD, with me as a little undergrad, but it was also one of the best academic experiences of my life. Despite the fact that we didn't agree on many issues, he respected my viewpoint and forced me to organize, research and defend my opinions in a stringent manner. Whether I learned anything about the role of the Soviet military in Eastern Europe is irrelevant, the skills I learned from being able to express myself and defend my views were invaluable.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
That 70's Show
Not to beat a dead horse, but regarding Krugman's claim Over the past 25 years the lives of working Americans have become ever less secure. I earlier questioned the legitimacy of claiming that American workers are worse off over this period. Krugman is saying that basically things have been going downhill since around 1980, presumably because the evil Reagan and the father and son Bush team were in charge for much of that time. So logically, based on his statement, the corollary is that American workers were better off and more secure in the 70's. Maybe I am reading too much into this, but since the 70's immediately preceded the 80's, I don't know what other conclusion I could draw. But look at what Mr. Krugman said about the 70's mere weeks ago.
We shouldn't overstate the case: we're not back to the economic misery of the 1970's.
So which is it? Were the 70s a time of prosperity and worker security, or a time of economic misery? I guess the answer depends on what political point he is trying to prove.
We shouldn't overstate the case: we're not back to the economic misery of the 1970's.
So which is it? Were the 70s a time of prosperity and worker security, or a time of economic misery? I guess the answer depends on what political point he is trying to prove.
Fuzzy math?
I was thinking more about Krugman's claim, and something dawned on me.
Over the past 25 years the lives of working Americans have become ever less secure. Jobs come without health insurance; 401(k)'s vanish; corporations default on their pension obligations; workers lose their jobs more often, and unemployment lasts much longer than it used to.
Krugman is claiming both, that people are becoming unemployed more often, and when they are unemployed they are unemployed for a "much" longer period of time. For both of these statements to be true, wouldn't it also be true, one could even say required, that unemployment was not only increasing, but increasing at an exponential rate? This is quite clearly not happening.
UPDATE: On DeLong's site a poster commented that this unexplained phenomenon was caused by a decrease in the participation rate. Although this, if large enough could theoretically explain it, the fact is the participation rate is up significantly over the time period in question. Unfortunately my post was deleted from the site, apparently the free speech movement at Berkeley does not extend to contradicting liberal economists, but here is the data courtesy of the BLS.
UPDATE: DeLong, or someone acting on his behalf, edited my orginal post on his site, deleting some of my text and inserting the following, rather condescending, and factually incorrect remark.
[The "lose their jobs more often" makes a distinction between temporary layoffs and permanent dismissals that you are missing. Paul's fine here.]
First of all, there is nothing in "Paul's" language to indicate he is specifically referring to temporary layoffs versus permanent layoffs, which would be the more common usage of the term, especially since he then mentions the duration of unemployment as increasing, but even if you go to the BLS and look, you find that DeLong is in fact wrong. Temporary layoffs, even in real terms have been going down, relative to the labor force it would be an even larger drop.
Series Id: LNS13023653
Seasonal Adjusted
Seasonal Adjusted
Unemployment Level - Job Losers on Layoff
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Maybe I am looking at this wrong, but I can't come up with any way of making that look like it is going up. But then again I am not a distinguished economics professor, so maybe there is some subtlety that I am "missing".
Roland Patrick also makes a similar point here. I am not expecting a correction, he will probably just delete the evidence.
Over the past 25 years the lives of working Americans have become ever less secure. Jobs come without health insurance; 401(k)'s vanish; corporations default on their pension obligations; workers lose their jobs more often, and unemployment lasts much longer than it used to.
Krugman is claiming both, that people are becoming unemployed more often, and when they are unemployed they are unemployed for a "much" longer period of time. For both of these statements to be true, wouldn't it also be true, one could even say required, that unemployment was not only increasing, but increasing at an exponential rate? This is quite clearly not happening.
UPDATE: On DeLong's site a poster commented that this unexplained phenomenon was caused by a decrease in the participation rate. Although this, if large enough could theoretically explain it, the fact is the participation rate is up significantly over the time period in question. Unfortunately my post was deleted from the site, apparently the free speech movement at Berkeley does not extend to contradicting liberal economists, but here is the data courtesy of the BLS.
UPDATE: DeLong, or someone acting on his behalf, edited my orginal post on his site, deleting some of my text and inserting the following, rather condescending, and factually incorrect remark.
[The "lose their jobs more often" makes a distinction between temporary layoffs and permanent dismissals that you are missing. Paul's fine here.]
First of all, there is nothing in "Paul's" language to indicate he is specifically referring to temporary layoffs versus permanent layoffs, which would be the more common usage of the term, especially since he then mentions the duration of unemployment as increasing, but even if you go to the BLS and look, you find that DeLong is in fact wrong. Temporary layoffs, even in real terms have been going down, relative to the labor force it would be an even larger drop.
Series Id: LNS13023653
Seasonal Adjusted
Seasonal Adjusted
Unemployment Level - Job Losers on Layoff
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Maybe I am looking at this wrong, but I can't come up with any way of making that look like it is going up. But then again I am not a distinguished economics professor, so maybe there is some subtlety that I am "missing".
Roland Patrick also makes a similar point here. I am not expecting a correction, he will probably just delete the evidence.
DeLong chimes in, I chime back
Brad DeLong, a liberal economist from Berkeley (an apparent arch-villian of Don Luskin) posted a rather vituperative (that word seems be used a lot recently) rebuttal of the econopundit piece that I helped start. Geez, I am just causing trouble all over. I posted a response to his piece, which I have repeated here. We have the bears and the Dawgs in an intellectual cage match here sports fans!
I am the blogger who originally started this discussion. Although Mr DeLong did not address my argument, and probably didn’t even read it, I will insert my little bit regarding the original point I was trying to make. As far as Mr. Antler’s analysis I will leave that up to him if he so chooses.
“You should reflect on the fact that Krugman's "unemployment lasts much longer than it used to" is part of a tradition of analysis that contrasts the first post-World War II generation--the 50s, 60s, and early 70s--with today. There's nothing in Krugman to make anyone imagine that "used to" applies to the 1980s only.”
Yes there is, he said so. Mr Krugman stated, “Over the past 25 years the lives of working Americans have become ever less secure.” And then proceeded to list 5 supposed economic indicators of this phenomenon. He did not state “Since WWII the lives of working Americans have become ever less secure.” Maybe Krugman is only guilty of vague sentence structure, but this is the impression he leaves with that statement. My original article was asking why he picked that time period, whether the numbers were accurate was only a follow on issue. I can find no particular significance to this number, other than he probably wanted to blame Reagan for the start of this supposed trend, not for any particular economic reason. This is politics, not science. The whole gist of my original post was that this was a ridiculous time period to compare the present situation with. Although things may not be stellar now, can any serious economist, or layman, look back on the era of 10% unemployment, and 20% mortgage rates, and say people felt better off and more “secure” then?
You should cyclically-adjust the series--after all, we know that the duration of unemployment will be relatively high whenever unemployment itself is relatively high--and calculate what the duration would be if the unemployment rate were six percent, as is shown here:
This is an idiotic way of looking at it. You have to remember Krugman was not merely making a scientific observation of the relation of unemployment rates and unemployment duration, he was trying to make a socio-economic point as to how this factor effects people. Adjusting this to some arbitrary 6% not only obscures this effect, it intentionally distorts it. The fact is (once again as I said in my original blog post) that unemployment has trended down significantly in the last 25 years, something that Krugman intentionally avoided mentioning. Which would effect the “security” of the average worker more, 10,000 workers being unemployed for 50 weeks, or 10 million workers being unemployed for 25 weeks? The latter obviously would have a much greater economic impact, although the “duration” as Krugman selectively cites is much greater in the former. The most accurate way of measuring this effect, in this context, is to measure the amount of long term unemployed in terms of the whole workforce, as I did on my blog, not just in terms of those unemployed. If you look at it in this manner, it is not only not “much longer” than 25 years ago, a claim even you cannot defend, but it trends significantly downward.
If Krugman were, for example, trying to examine the historical trends of unemployment duration in order to study certain factors such as education, workplace mobility, outsourcing, unemployment insurance etc. then such a way of adjusting would make sense, but he is not. Instead he is trying to make a political point, so he handpicks certain data that will back up this point. This is the biggest bone I have to pick with him. He used to be a serious economist, now he is nothing more than a political attack dog, like Michael Moore or Ann Coulter, with a degree. I know economics is called the “dismal science” but it is still a science. You are supposed to observe the data and use that to form theories, not come up with a theory based on a political ideology, and then selectively pick data to back it up, ignoring all common sense and contrary data.
I am the blogger who originally started this discussion. Although Mr DeLong did not address my argument, and probably didn’t even read it, I will insert my little bit regarding the original point I was trying to make. As far as Mr. Antler’s analysis I will leave that up to him if he so chooses.
“You should reflect on the fact that Krugman's "unemployment lasts much longer than it used to" is part of a tradition of analysis that contrasts the first post-World War II generation--the 50s, 60s, and early 70s--with today. There's nothing in Krugman to make anyone imagine that "used to" applies to the 1980s only.”
Yes there is, he said so. Mr Krugman stated, “Over the past 25 years the lives of working Americans have become ever less secure.” And then proceeded to list 5 supposed economic indicators of this phenomenon. He did not state “Since WWII the lives of working Americans have become ever less secure.” Maybe Krugman is only guilty of vague sentence structure, but this is the impression he leaves with that statement. My original article was asking why he picked that time period, whether the numbers were accurate was only a follow on issue. I can find no particular significance to this number, other than he probably wanted to blame Reagan for the start of this supposed trend, not for any particular economic reason. This is politics, not science. The whole gist of my original post was that this was a ridiculous time period to compare the present situation with. Although things may not be stellar now, can any serious economist, or layman, look back on the era of 10% unemployment, and 20% mortgage rates, and say people felt better off and more “secure” then?
You should cyclically-adjust the series--after all, we know that the duration of unemployment will be relatively high whenever unemployment itself is relatively high--and calculate what the duration would be if the unemployment rate were six percent, as is shown here:
This is an idiotic way of looking at it. You have to remember Krugman was not merely making a scientific observation of the relation of unemployment rates and unemployment duration, he was trying to make a socio-economic point as to how this factor effects people. Adjusting this to some arbitrary 6% not only obscures this effect, it intentionally distorts it. The fact is (once again as I said in my original blog post) that unemployment has trended down significantly in the last 25 years, something that Krugman intentionally avoided mentioning. Which would effect the “security” of the average worker more, 10,000 workers being unemployed for 50 weeks, or 10 million workers being unemployed for 25 weeks? The latter obviously would have a much greater economic impact, although the “duration” as Krugman selectively cites is much greater in the former. The most accurate way of measuring this effect, in this context, is to measure the amount of long term unemployed in terms of the whole workforce, as I did on my blog, not just in terms of those unemployed. If you look at it in this manner, it is not only not “much longer” than 25 years ago, a claim even you cannot defend, but it trends significantly downward.
If Krugman were, for example, trying to examine the historical trends of unemployment duration in order to study certain factors such as education, workplace mobility, outsourcing, unemployment insurance etc. then such a way of adjusting would make sense, but he is not. Instead he is trying to make a political point, so he handpicks certain data that will back up this point. This is the biggest bone I have to pick with him. He used to be a serious economist, now he is nothing more than a political attack dog, like Michael Moore or Ann Coulter, with a degree. I know economics is called the “dismal science” but it is still a science. You are supposed to observe the data and use that to form theories, not come up with a theory based on a political ideology, and then selectively pick data to back it up, ignoring all common sense and contrary data.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Ungrateful Bosnians?
An article in Slate asks the question as to whether Bosnians are ungrateful for our role in saving them from Serb genocide in the 90s. In my personal experience I found Bosnian Muslims to be generally appreciative and friendly towards Americans. Yes, this doesn't always mean that they are supportive of our foreign policy, but at least on a personal level. Could they be a little more appreciative of what we did? Yes, probably, but this is a problem throughout the world. The US military intervened to save the lives of Muslims in Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, but we never got any credit for that in the Islamic world or elsewhere. Also one has to keep in mind that in Bosnia, just like in every other country, there is a red/blue mix. The opinion of a poor farmer or shopkeeper in Bijeljina is going to be much different then some politician or journalist in Sarajevo.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Hack and Me
I posted recently about the death of COL Hackworth. As I mentioned, I had the honor of meeting him a couple of years ago. Unfortunately due to a system crash I seem to have lost the original digital version, the best I can do is a scan on my marginal quality scanner.
Paul Krugman gets nostalgic
I found this a bit odd, now Paul Krugman is getting nostalgic for, of all things, the job security of the early 80's in his latest column.
Over the past 25 years the lives of working Americans have become ever less secure. Jobs come without health insurance; 401(k)'s vanish; corporations default on their pension obligations; workers lose their jobs more often, and unemployment lasts much longer than it used to.
Now, I was a bit young at the time, but I don't remember "25 years" ago as a time of comparative prosperity and security. Rather it was a time of economic chaos, high unemployment, inflation and uncertainty.
Unemployment by year
1975 8.48%
1976 7.7%
1977 7.05%
1978 6.07%
1979 5.85%
1980 7.18%
1981 7.62%
1982 9.71%
1983 9.6%
Inflation by year
1975 7.13%
1976 5.04%
1977 6.68%
1978 8.99%
1979 13.26%
1980 12.35%
1981 8.91%
1982 3.87%
1983 3.79%
It would take more research, but I am sure if you looked you would find his statments of "workers losing their jobs more often" and "staying on unemployment longer" false too. Maybe Paul was off by a few years and meant over the last "20 years", intending to compare the current situation with the Reagan boom...
UPDATE: I decided to use my future MBA skills and take a look at the statistics, starting with the claim that "unemployment lasts much longer than it used to".
To give Krugman some credit, the graph does show a slight upwards trend, depending how you measure it, although I do not know how you could call this lasting "much longer"
However, since Krugman's whole point is that people are less secure in their jobs, it is misleading to look solely at the length of unemployment among those who are unemployed. Is it logical to say that workers feel less secure over a small increase in the average duration of unemployment, set against a large drop in the rate of unemployment? The workplace has grown much more complex and technical over the last few decades, this factor alone could account for a slight rise in the time needed to get a new job, not a bad economy. Besides, if there is a low unemployment rate, the chronically unemployed underclass, those who will be unemployed no matter how the economy is, will be a larger proportion of the rate and inflate it. So what happens if we look at the percentage of long term unemployed, in this case those unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percentage of the work force as a whole?
Far from trending upward, it is actually decreasing, from cyclical peaks of 3.1% and 4.2% in 1975 and 1982, to only 2.9% and 2.5% in 1993 and 2003, respectively. This once again shows how the formerly distinguished economist, will go to any means to come up with doom and gloom scenarios for the economy, even ignoring basic facts an average college student would get.
All numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
UPDATE: Econpundit, who knows a lot more about economics than I do, picks this up. He says that the duration of unemployment has been going down, as opposed to before the 80s when it was going up. As I mentioned, it depends how you look at the graph. Regardless, it is apparent that Krugman is misrepresenting the stats to make a political point.
Over the past 25 years the lives of working Americans have become ever less secure. Jobs come without health insurance; 401(k)'s vanish; corporations default on their pension obligations; workers lose their jobs more often, and unemployment lasts much longer than it used to.
Now, I was a bit young at the time, but I don't remember "25 years" ago as a time of comparative prosperity and security. Rather it was a time of economic chaos, high unemployment, inflation and uncertainty.
Unemployment by year
1975 8.48%
1976 7.7%
1977 7.05%
1978 6.07%
1979 5.85%
1980 7.18%
1981 7.62%
1982 9.71%
1983 9.6%
Inflation by year
1975 7.13%
1976 5.04%
1977 6.68%
1978 8.99%
1979 13.26%
1980 12.35%
1981 8.91%
1982 3.87%
1983 3.79%
It would take more research, but I am sure if you looked you would find his statments of "workers losing their jobs more often" and "staying on unemployment longer" false too. Maybe Paul was off by a few years and meant over the last "20 years", intending to compare the current situation with the Reagan boom...
UPDATE: I decided to use my future MBA skills and take a look at the statistics, starting with the claim that "unemployment lasts much longer than it used to".
To give Krugman some credit, the graph does show a slight upwards trend, depending how you measure it, although I do not know how you could call this lasting "much longer"
Average Weeks Unemployed
This is misleading though, because the unemployment rate over that same period has trended downward, as I mentioned before.
Unemployment Rate
However, since Krugman's whole point is that people are less secure in their jobs, it is misleading to look solely at the length of unemployment among those who are unemployed. Is it logical to say that workers feel less secure over a small increase in the average duration of unemployment, set against a large drop in the rate of unemployment? The workplace has grown much more complex and technical over the last few decades, this factor alone could account for a slight rise in the time needed to get a new job, not a bad economy. Besides, if there is a low unemployment rate, the chronically unemployed underclass, those who will be unemployed no matter how the economy is, will be a larger proportion of the rate and inflate it. So what happens if we look at the percentage of long term unemployed, in this case those unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percentage of the work force as a whole?
Percent Of Civilian Labor Force Unemployed 15 Weeks & over
Far from trending upward, it is actually decreasing, from cyclical peaks of 3.1% and 4.2% in 1975 and 1982, to only 2.9% and 2.5% in 1993 and 2003, respectively. This once again shows how the formerly distinguished economist, will go to any means to come up with doom and gloom scenarios for the economy, even ignoring basic facts an average college student would get.
All numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
UPDATE: Econpundit, who knows a lot more about economics than I do, picks this up. He says that the duration of unemployment has been going down, as opposed to before the 80s when it was going up. As I mentioned, it depends how you look at the graph. Regardless, it is apparent that Krugman is misrepresenting the stats to make a political point.
Howard Dean continues his Bin Laden defense
This guy must be a Karl Rove plant, nothing else would explain his constant idiotic rantings.
DR. DEAN: I said I wasn't sure, but I said I thought there probably were. But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9-11 Commission said also wasn't true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false. The 9-11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, said it was false. Is it wrong to send people to war without telling them the truth. And the truth was Osama bin Laden was a very bad person who was doing terrible things, but that Iraq was never a threat to the United States.
I am assuming that this is a misstatement, but Dr. Dean has come to the defense of bin Laden before.
"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."
DR. DEAN: I said I wasn't sure, but I said I thought there probably were. But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9-11 Commission said also wasn't true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false. The 9-11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, said it was false. Is it wrong to send people to war without telling them the truth. And the truth was Osama bin Laden was a very bad person who was doing terrible things, but that Iraq was never a threat to the United States.
I am assuming that this is a misstatement, but Dr. Dean has come to the defense of bin Laden before.
"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."
Friday, May 20, 2005
Premodern meets Postmodern
An even better editorial by Victor Davis Hanson. See, you get all sides here at The Chief Brief. Fair and balanced.
Note also after the riots how few Americans announced their immediate scorn for silly rumors about our own POW center in a time of war — especially when it is housing Afghan terrorists who helped kill 3,000 of our own innocents. Can one imagine fundamentalists in the Bible Belt rioting and shooting should they hear an unfounded rumor that an American prisoner in Riyadh, charged with complicity in killing thousands of Arabs, found his Old Testament trashed by a Saudi guard — or a Saudi official promising to apologize to the Western world should a miscreant guard be culpable?
Note also after the riots how few Americans announced their immediate scorn for silly rumors about our own POW center in a time of war — especially when it is housing Afghan terrorists who helped kill 3,000 of our own innocents. Can one imagine fundamentalists in the Bible Belt rioting and shooting should they hear an unfounded rumor that an American prisoner in Riyadh, charged with complicity in killing thousands of Arabs, found his Old Testament trashed by a Saudi guard — or a Saudi official promising to apologize to the Western world should a miscreant guard be culpable?
Straight Talk
Thomas Friedman weighs in with some wise words on the the Koran flushing thing.
And a few days ago, a group of Iraqi journalists actually went to Jordan and got right in the face of Jordanian columnists and editors, demanding to know why they were treating Muslim mass murderers in Iraq like anticolonial war heroes. It's already changed the tone. That's the war of ideas.
The greatest respect we can show to Arabs and Muslims - and the best way to help Muslim progressives win the war of ideas - is to take them seriously and stop gazing at our own navels. That means demanding that they answer for their lies, hypocrisy and profane behavior, just as much as we must answer for ours.
And a few days ago, a group of Iraqi journalists actually went to Jordan and got right in the face of Jordanian columnists and editors, demanding to know why they were treating Muslim mass murderers in Iraq like anticolonial war heroes. It's already changed the tone. That's the war of ideas.
The greatest respect we can show to Arabs and Muslims - and the best way to help Muslim progressives win the war of ideas - is to take them seriously and stop gazing at our own navels. That means demanding that they answer for their lies, hypocrisy and profane behavior, just as much as we must answer for ours.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Idiotic Filibuster Argument O' the Day
I saw this on Wizbang:
Restricting the ability of Democrats to block final votes on several of Bush's most controversial nominees "would be particularly offensive to people of color," members of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist during the day. "All of the major legislation that today bars racial discrimination in voting, employment and housing was passed after filibusters" were broken, it said.
Let me get this straight, they comment that progress on civil rights began only after filibusters were broken, and then use that as an argument to support filibusters. Ackk, my brain hurts just thinking about it. How did these people get out of high school, much less get elected to Congress?
Restricting the ability of Democrats to block final votes on several of Bush's most controversial nominees "would be particularly offensive to people of color," members of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist during the day. "All of the major legislation that today bars racial discrimination in voting, employment and housing was passed after filibusters" were broken, it said.
Let me get this straight, they comment that progress on civil rights began only after filibusters were broken, and then use that as an argument to support filibusters. Ackk, my brain hurts just thinking about it. How did these people get out of high school, much less get elected to Congress?
Assault on the Senate
I read this editorial in the Seattle Times by David Broder, and I was so annoyed by the repeated mischaracterization of filibusters that I e-mailed this letter to the editor off. We'll see if they print it
David Broder in "Assault on the Senate", and many Democrats, are being disingenuous when they say that filibusters are about "unlimited debate". Historically filibusters are not used because senators want to discuss an issue in more depth, but because a minority of senators want to block a vote on something they know will pass otherwise.During the most famous filibusters, attempts by Southern Democrats in the 50's and 60's to obstruct civil rights reforms, senators did not argue the case on the merits, but would just read off random items such as the bible or their wives's recipe books. One of the most famous cases was a 14 hour marathon by current Democratic SenatorRobert Byrd to block the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. Is this the proud tradition of debate that the Democrats really want to honor?
David Broder in "Assault on the Senate", and many Democrats, are being disingenuous when they say that filibusters are about "unlimited debate". Historically filibusters are not used because senators want to discuss an issue in more depth, but because a minority of senators want to block a vote on something they know will pass otherwise.During the most famous filibusters, attempts by Southern Democrats in the 50's and 60's to obstruct civil rights reforms, senators did not argue the case on the merits, but would just read off random items such as the bible or their wives's recipe books. One of the most famous cases was a 14 hour marathon by current Democratic SenatorRobert Byrd to block the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. Is this the proud tradition of debate that the Democrats really want to honor?
Dude, you are not Indian, give it up
This guy just cracks me up. He is like a case study for the loser left.
DENVER (AP) An Oklahoma Indian tribe said Wednesday embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, whose claim of Indian heritage is under investigation, "could not prove any Cherokee ancestry."
In a statement on its Web site, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians said it gave Churchill an "honorary associate membership" because he promised to write a tribal history.
Churchill, a tenured professor of ethnic studies who could lose his job over allegations he lied about his ancestry and plagiarized others' work, said Wednesday the tribe's statements are false.
DENVER (AP) An Oklahoma Indian tribe said Wednesday embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, whose claim of Indian heritage is under investigation, "could not prove any Cherokee ancestry."
In a statement on its Web site, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians said it gave Churchill an "honorary associate membership" because he promised to write a tribal history.
Churchill, a tenured professor of ethnic studies who could lose his job over allegations he lied about his ancestry and plagiarized others' work, said Wednesday the tribe's statements are false.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Getting Uzbekistan Right
A good article from the Weekly Standard
The bottom line in Uzbekistan is simple and obvious. The people of the Ferghana Valley have Kyrgyzstan next door, just as Wahhabi-ruled Saudi Arabia has newly liberated Iraq next door, and just as 25 years ago, the Soviet Union had Poland next door. Uzbekistan is the most populous and developed of the former-Soviet Central Asian republics. Of all these states, it has the most in common with Ukraine and Georgia, even more than Kyrgyzstan had. The appeal of radical Islam in Uzbekistan is highly overrated; the resentment of local bazaar merchants against unjust taxation and other abuses in the Ferghana Valley is not. It's time for the Uzbeks to definitively join the democracy movement and leave the Soviet era, with its bloodshed and lies, behind.
The bottom line in Uzbekistan is simple and obvious. The people of the Ferghana Valley have Kyrgyzstan next door, just as Wahhabi-ruled Saudi Arabia has newly liberated Iraq next door, and just as 25 years ago, the Soviet Union had Poland next door. Uzbekistan is the most populous and developed of the former-Soviet Central Asian republics. Of all these states, it has the most in common with Ukraine and Georgia, even more than Kyrgyzstan had. The appeal of radical Islam in Uzbekistan is highly overrated; the resentment of local bazaar merchants against unjust taxation and other abuses in the Ferghana Valley is not. It's time for the Uzbeks to definitively join the democracy movement and leave the Soviet era, with its bloodshed and lies, behind.
More brilliance in the Seattle Times
After reading numerous ridiculous Floyd McKay editorials, I have often wondered what the requirements are for writing guest editorials for the Seattle Times. Now apparently it is just being a paranoid WSU student.
THINGS have gone from silly to dangerous in Washington, D.C., folks. But not to worry. This has happened before, and things always get ridiculous again.
Remember in 2003, when the Senate Republicans held a 30-hour, all-night talkathon? It was because, after confirming 168 of President Bush's nominees, the Democrats dared to block a whopping four they felt were too extreme.
Fast forward to today, as Republican leaders once again are whining about Democrats blocking judicial nominations. Funny, in their complaints about obstructionism, I haven't heard the Republicans mention Bill Clinton's 68 nominations that were never "voted up or down," thanks to Republican delaying tactics.
So why are Democrats being difficult? Maybe they missed some new memo from an overzealous Republican staffer explaining that the Republicans control everything (they have a mandate, you know).
Uhh, has he ever heard of "democracy"? There is a vague little concept known as "majority rules". Maybe they don't teach that at WSU? The Republicans do control everything! If you want to control everything then try winning a freaking election every once in a while! I know the Democrats want affirmative action in school admissions, but now they apparently want it in elections too. We are sorry you lost, here, have a couple of extra seats. It will be all right...
Or maybe it is that, as Mario Cuomo recently noted, the "minority" of Democratic senators actually represent more Americans than the majority Republican senators do. Maybe Democrats should have some small influence on the direction our nation is headed?
So what, that is part of the checks and balances written into our constitution. Blame that "moron" Thomas Jefferson. This isn't grade school playground games. Do over!
Meanwhile, their extremist conservative base was seeking domination of both government and our information. The conservatives built a network of radio and television programs, even a 24-hour news channel. After all, if American propaganda is good enough for Iranians, isn't it good enough for Americans? They even began turning churches into recruiting centers, inciting fear and anger over a couple of extreme issues.
Ooh, it is that evil FoxNews rearing its ugly head once again (cue ominous music). I am sorry, the liberals only have CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and PBS to watch now. I guess you will be stuck watching MTV all day. Speaking of "fear and anger" who is writing an editorial saying the Republicans are "scary" and things are "dangerous in Washington D.C."?
But I'm here to tell you, don't cry, there's good news. People can now see that we have a lot of problems, and there are no tax-and-spend, bleeding-heart Democrats running things in the White House, in the House, or in the Senate to blame it all on.
Nope, not a single welfare-loving, tree-hugging liberal in majority control of big government to curse for your lost job, your lack of health care, your polluted environment, your back-door draft, your children's mounting debt, or anything else.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.
This guy is entertaining at least...
THINGS have gone from silly to dangerous in Washington, D.C., folks. But not to worry. This has happened before, and things always get ridiculous again.
Remember in 2003, when the Senate Republicans held a 30-hour, all-night talkathon? It was because, after confirming 168 of President Bush's nominees, the Democrats dared to block a whopping four they felt were too extreme.
Fast forward to today, as Republican leaders once again are whining about Democrats blocking judicial nominations. Funny, in their complaints about obstructionism, I haven't heard the Republicans mention Bill Clinton's 68 nominations that were never "voted up or down," thanks to Republican delaying tactics.
So why are Democrats being difficult? Maybe they missed some new memo from an overzealous Republican staffer explaining that the Republicans control everything (they have a mandate, you know).
Uhh, has he ever heard of "democracy"? There is a vague little concept known as "majority rules". Maybe they don't teach that at WSU? The Republicans do control everything! If you want to control everything then try winning a freaking election every once in a while! I know the Democrats want affirmative action in school admissions, but now they apparently want it in elections too. We are sorry you lost, here, have a couple of extra seats. It will be all right...
Or maybe it is that, as Mario Cuomo recently noted, the "minority" of Democratic senators actually represent more Americans than the majority Republican senators do. Maybe Democrats should have some small influence on the direction our nation is headed?
So what, that is part of the checks and balances written into our constitution. Blame that "moron" Thomas Jefferson. This isn't grade school playground games. Do over!
Meanwhile, their extremist conservative base was seeking domination of both government and our information. The conservatives built a network of radio and television programs, even a 24-hour news channel. After all, if American propaganda is good enough for Iranians, isn't it good enough for Americans? They even began turning churches into recruiting centers, inciting fear and anger over a couple of extreme issues.
Ooh, it is that evil FoxNews rearing its ugly head once again (cue ominous music). I am sorry, the liberals only have CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and PBS to watch now. I guess you will be stuck watching MTV all day. Speaking of "fear and anger" who is writing an editorial saying the Republicans are "scary" and things are "dangerous in Washington D.C."?
But I'm here to tell you, don't cry, there's good news. People can now see that we have a lot of problems, and there are no tax-and-spend, bleeding-heart Democrats running things in the White House, in the House, or in the Senate to blame it all on.
Nope, not a single welfare-loving, tree-hugging liberal in majority control of big government to curse for your lost job, your lack of health care, your polluted environment, your back-door draft, your children's mounting debt, or anything else.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.
This guy is entertaining at least...
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Pictures from Uzbekistan
Since it is in the news I figured I would post a few pics to give people an idea of what the country is like. Sorry for the quality, I didn't have a digital, so these are scans from a disposable. I have some more interesting pictures, if I can find where in my closet I stashed them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)