"Check the Transcript"

On the record is forever

When Obama said, "Check the transcript," during last night’s presidential debate, it could have been the big line of the evening, but that will depend on whether Romney or his surrogates use it to advantage. The consensus is that Obama got the better of Romney last night, if only because he actually showed up this time, which was viewed as an infinite improvement over his previous performance. Nevertheless, Obama's imperative to "check the transcript" viz. the Libya 9/11 attack and subsequent cover-up is a potential opening that may make Obama's victory last night a Pyrrhic one.

When you check old transcripts, sometimes you come up with inconvenient quotes. For example, the Weekly Standard notes that Hillary Clinton once said, "The buck stops in the Oval Office" which conflicts with her statement yesterday that responsibility for the security lapses in Benghazi is hers alone. Another example, in the VP debate there was this exchange:

MS. RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because that's exactly what we were told —
MS. RADDATZ: By who?
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.

If Biden was being truthful, then Obama didn't know on September 12 that the Libya attack was an act of terrorism and yet Obama claimed last night that he did know and that in his Rose Garden remarks, he said as much. Well, Mr. President, let's follow your advice to check the transcript on that (emphasis added):

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

The only mention of terror was a banal generality in his closing statement. Worse still, the statement is false. In the very same speech he criticized an American citizen for exercising his freedom and the right to free speech which is one of the "values that we stand for." That citizen is now in jail on trumped-up charges of violating probation for an entirely unrelated matter. So in fact, an act of terror did alter the character of this great nation. We now put citizens in jail for purely political reasons. That's something they do in Venezuela or Cuba or Iran before an "election." Not in America.

Furthermore, the quote that was reported at the time was when the President said, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." That was the storyline that the Obama Administration was pushing with their liberal media allies, not the terror angle.

Ironically, Candy Crowley speaking to the CNN post-debate panel said that the moderator was incorrect when she supported the President's "check the transcript" line. Unfortunately the moderator happened to be herself. More puzzlingly still, Crowley also made statements on the record that directly rebut Obama's and her own assertion that the administration immediately recognized that Libya was a terror attack. At the time she said, “There's a back and forth now about why didn't this administration -- why did it take them until Friday after a [Tuesday] September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved."

Even then, Crowley was being very generous. Even on September 25th, terrorism in reference to Libya was still that-which-must-not-be-named for the President. The Prolix Patriot wrote in these pages several weeks ago about the President’s UN speech:

Just as with the Tucson massacre, the motives of the killers in Libya are very clear. This was not a "protest" against an amateur video. This was an act of pure slaughter in violation of every precept of international law and diplomacy. Despite this, and even though leaders in the intelligence community, the Secretary of State, and his own Press Secretary have all admitted that it was a premeditated and overt act of terror aimed directly at the United States, the President only mentioned the word "terrorism" once in his address—and not even in reference to the violence in Libya.

The most memorable line from that speech was, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Even weeks after the attack, the President was still hanging--nay clinging--to the video protest story, even when it was thoroughly discredited by everyone around him.

There are also other clips out there, for example the President equivocating about the nature of the Libya attack while being interviewed on "The View." [N.B., it's a sad state of affairs in journalism today when the pack of liberal harpies on "The View" are tougher on the President than the moderator of a nationally-televised debate.]

Out of all of this, we have two potential explanations. Either the President knew it was a terrorist attack and deliberately mislead the American people for weeks until the lie started to unravel, or he genuinely did not know even when everyone around him had already admitted it. Both are disturbing prospects. Worse still, given Obama's aloofness from foreign affairs, both are entirely plausible.

Unfortunately, most people in this country are not following the Libya story--which is a shame, because it has very real consequences for the security of our country. Nevertheless, the economy is still the number one issue of this election, and in that area, Romney completely dominated the President last night.

Regardless of whether Romney made an unforced error or cleverly flushed Obama out into the open, it may not even matter. The real question is whether Romney sees this as a potential opening and decides to capitalize on it, or decides to just stay focused on the economy and jobs and let the Libya story fester inside the beltway until it starts to really stink.

That said, foreign policy really should be more of an issue in this election. As a friend observed during the debate, the President has many powers, but he is not able to repeal the laws of supply and demand. Even though the economy stinks, the President can only do so much about it, whereas on foreign policy, the President literally has a sworn obligation to protect the American people.

We live in an increasingly dangerous world. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and others are up to no good. Al Qaeda is rebuilding across the Muslim world. Piracy is still a threat to our shipping off the Horn of Africa and in the Straits of Malacca. The Drug Wars in Mexico continue to spill over into border towns and even deep into the country to places as far north as Denver and Detroit.

The President's handling of the Libya attack can best be described as a fiasco. Instead of just admitting that we were unprepared, this whole cover-up demonstrates that politics no longer stops at the water’s edge, especially when foreign events are inconvenient to the President's political fortunes and aspirations. The last four years under this President have been dark and perilous times. We should recoil in sheer horror when we even begin to imagine what another four years would look like.

Share

Great Expectations

With this week's announcement of "worse than expected" unemployment numbers, it is worth investigating how often the experts have gotten their predictions wrong.  While admittedly an unscientific approach, a comparison of Google search results is a quick and easy way to compare news coverage of the economy.  Below are screen captures of the Google results for the phrases "better than expected" and "worse than expected" plus unemployment.

While both searches show an increasing trend over time, this is probably attributable to better access to recent data with the growth of the Internet.  On the other hand, there is a clear bias in favor of "worse than expected" economic reports by a margin of about 28,300 to 18,100, or roughly three "bad" stories for every two "good" ones.

In is impossible to predict the future with any certainty, so it's hardly newsworthy when reality fails to meet projected targets.  However, we should be concerned when journalists distort uncertain economic predictions in order to manipulate public opinion.  If journalists were honest in their reporting, we would expect an even number of articles for better than expected and worse than expected economic performance.

By consistently favoring bad news which undermines consumer confidence, journalists create a self-fulfilling prophecy of negative feedback that makes it all the more difficult for the economy to recover.  Worse still, this unsophisticated approach to economics also undermines the vital role of the press in maintaining the educated public which is at the core of republican self-government.

Share

The Last Day of Winter

For Catholics and many Protestants, today is the last day before the fasting and penance of Lent. Known variously as Fat Tuesday, Mardi Gras, or Shrove Tuesday, this is a day that started as a celebration and anticipation for the joy of Easter but has lately become another commercialized excuse for bad behavior. However, what many people have forgotten is that today is also the last day of winter--or at least it should be.

A popular urban legend has it that spring does not begin until March 20 this year. In recent years, calendar makers and the mainstream media have popularized the misguided idea that the equinox is the precise moment that winter ends and spring begins even though the changing of the seasons is a natural and gradual process that cannot be exactly predicted from one year to the next.

As the name implies, March is a month of changes, so instead of an abrupt switch at March 20, evidence that the process of spring has already begun is everywhere. That process is reminiscent of the adage that March “comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb.” The high winds and freezing cold of February are already giving way to the verdure of spring.

We now live in an age where, for the first time in the history of the world, a majority of people live in cities and are detached from nature, so it is easy to understand why this urban legend has become so popular. Worse still, we are now subjected to faux-intellectual clichés such as the perennial, “it’s snowing in December but it’s not even winter yet.”

Such oxymoronic statements are evidence that the choice of any particular date for the beginning of each season is at best arbitrary. However, if we must choose a date, Ash Wednesday seems as good a choice as any, especially if we consider that the word “Lent” is derived from the old Germanic word for "spring." In the Mid-Atlantic region, this is a particularly good fit for the reasons below.

From a meteorological standpoint, the coldest and snowiest days of the year run from the first week in December to the first week in March:

1) In the Mid-Atlantic region, the average daily temperature drops to its lowest level almost exactly at the midpoint between December 1 and March 1, not at the midpoint between the winter solstice and the vernal equinox. Although temperatures are different, the midpoint of the temperature curve is similar in other regions.

2) Comparing daily temperatures for December and March, almost every Day in December is colder than the same day in March.

3) Average daily snowfall is highest in the throughout the months of December to February, not from December 20 to March 20.

From a botanical standpoint, deciduous plants start growing in late February and go into dormancy around early December:

4) The first blooms of spring--especially crocuses and daffodils--can be found in early to mid-March, or sometimes even late February, well before the vernal equinox.

5) Depending on location, the changing leaves achieve their peak color in late September through early November and start to fall very soon thereafter.

6) The average date of the last overnight frost of spring, and thus the time for planting crops ranges from mid-February in the South to mid-May in the Mountain West. Thus, the equinox is actually closer to the midpoint of spring from an agricultural standpoint.

From a cultural and historical standpoint, the season of spring has always included most or all of the month of March and possibly even February, whereas Summer is understood to begin in June, May, or even late April depending on who you ask:

7) Groundhog Day (or Candlemas) which is celebrated on February 2 is a tradition which sometimes results in a proclamation of “early spring.” Although the predictions of Punxatawney Phil and his cousins are wildly inaccurate when compared to actual weather data, the tradition is nevertheless a recognition that mild weather sometimes comes before March 1 and certainly long before the vernal equinox.

8) As mentioned above, Lent, which is derived from the Germanic root for "spring," begins between February 4 and March 10, but the average date of Ash Wednesday is on February 21.

9) Especially in the South, Easter is the first day it is considered acceptable to wear white pants, shoes, etc. which are traditionally associated with summer. The average date of Easter is on April 8.

10) Similarly, the feast of the Nativity of St. John is a popular holiday celebrated across Europe in late June which is known as midsummer, implying that spring has already ended and summer has begun long before the summer solstice.

11) The name of March comes from ancient Rome, when March was the first month of the year and named Martius after Mars, the Roman god of war. In Rome, where the climate is Mediterranean, March was the first month of spring, a logical point for the beginning of the year as well as the start of the military campaign season.

12) Data going back to 1974 indicate that retail prices for gasoline are higher on average for the months of May through September because the summer months are traditionally associated with car trips and vacations.

Finally, from a bureaucratic standpoint, no agency or body of the United States government has ever declared the solstices and the equinoxes as the “official” start and end of the seasons:

13) According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration which falls under the U.S. Department of Commerce, Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1 to November 30 and thus coincides exactly with the traditional dates for summer and fall.

14) According to the Energy Information Administration which falls under the U.S. Department of Energy, the “winter heating season” runs from October 1 through March 31 and thus corresponds to the traditional dates for winter, with some extra padding on either end. The midpoint of the winter heating season is December 31.

15)The U.S. Naval Observatory which falls under the U.S. Department of Defense, provides a listing of the exact times for the equinoxes, solstices, perihelion, and aphelion which is titled “Earth’s Seasons” but does not state that these astronomical phenomena are in any way the “official” start or end of the seasons.

16) By law, Daylight Saving Time (DST) now starts on the second Sunday in March and ends on the first Sunday in November. Prior to 2007, when the new law went into effect, DST started on the last Sunday in April and ended on the last Sunday in October. Just as the government definition of “winter heating season” includes padding on both ends of the traditional season, so too does DST includes padding on either end of the traditional summer season. The midpoint of DST is in mid-July.

In summary, the folklore of the equinox as the first day of spring is a modern idea which did not become fashionable until very recently. The idea has been popularized in the last few decades, because the exact times of certain phenomena are variable and can only be noted after they have occurred. At the same time the dates of many phenomena such as the last frost or peak fall leaves vary across the vastness of our continent.

However, instead of relying on the false precision of the astronomical equinox, we should base our understanding of the seasons on natural phenomena that we observe around us. Indeed, at this moment here in Virginia, the first tender green leaves and pink buds are coming out on the trees and shrubberies, the grass is starting to turn green again, and chirping birds are once again heralding the arrival of sunrise. Regardless of what the calendar makers would have you believe, spring is here.

Share

All The News That’s Fit To Print

An example of overheated political rhetoric.

While Congresswoman Giffords struggles for her life at a Tucson hospital, the New York Times carries on the timeless tradition of yellow journalism which was famously summarized by the quote, “You supply the pictures, and I’ll supply the war.” In what purports to be a straight news story, the writer flogs the partisan storyline that the deranged assassin, Jared Loughner, was driven to murder by the tone of political rhetoric—particularly that of the Tea Party (emphasis added):

…Over the past year, Ms. Giffords struggled in a brutal re-election campaign during which her opponent appeared in a Web advertisement holding an assault weapon. The district has become a caldron [sic] of divisions over government spending, immigration, health care and Barack Obama.

Today, the Eighth District stands apart as one of the most emotionally and politically polarized in the nation.

The rampage on Saturday that left six dead and Ms. Giffords gravely wounded may prove to be an isolated act of violence by a mentally disturbed man. The suspect attended at least one of Ms. Giffords’s town meetings before the event Saturday.

Still, the shootings came after a disconcerting run of episodes in this district of mountains and desert, raising temperatures here in a way that some of Ms. Giffords’s friends argue fed an atmosphere that might encourage violence.

According to the New York Times, Jesse Kelly—a former Marine—appeared at a campaign event with an M-16. Although this did not seem to provoke any media comment at the time, liberal pundits are now grasping on the event as proof that the gunman was inspired to kill because of it. Worse still, the use of the weasel-word “may” in the paragraph above suggests that there is some doubt that Loughner is anything but a psychopath who acted alone.

That being said, Jesse Kelly was not the only candidate in Arizona’s eighth district who appeared with a gun during the campaign. As the Washington Times reported last April, Giffords herself was photographed with an assault rifle, which the local media used to tout Giffords' bona fides on border security during the 2010 campaign.

Mr. Kelly challenged the Democrat incumbent [i.e., Giffords] for posing with an AK-47 assault rifle in an Arizona Daily Star article, with a caption that read "Today's been just another day on the border for hard line U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords." The lawmaker wears a dark jacket and brandishes the weapon, with a half dozen fatigues-clad soldiers in the background.

"It turns out the picture has nothing to do with border security and was taken during a trip to South Asia in 2009…"

The Washington Times adds that The Arizona Star removed the photo in question after the reporter who wrote the misleading caption admitted his error.

Of course, the New York Times does not mention this in their coverage of the supposed “climate of hate.” This omission can only be part of a deliberate strategy to promote the storyline that Republicans—and Republicans alone—are the party of extreme rhetoric. This ranks with the standard of “fake but accurate” that the Times employed after the Dan Rather memo scandal. In the end, that sad episode showed the world that the facts are always the Times’ undoing.

The repeated abuse of journalistic integrity suggests that the New York Times’ motto “all the news that’s fit to print” should be amended to include “and much that isn’t.” By using the tragic death of six people and the attempted assassination of a member of Congress to advance a shamelessly partisan agenda, the New York Times proves that they have no quibbles about whether or not their news reporting is fit for publication.

Share

The Irrationality of Evil

Even as the fate of Congresswoman Giffords was still clouded in rumor and uncertainty, with erroneous reports of her death circulating on NPR and CNN, liberal pundits and lawmakers quickly grasped on remarks from the Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, suggesting the assassin was somehow driven to kill by overheated political discourse. As the Washington Post reported yesterday:

"There's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," he said during his televised remarks. "People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."

Calmer voices have noted that the assassin, Jared Lee Loughner, was a deranged sociopath and that his ramblings on MySpace and YouTube have little, if anything, to do with politics. Loughner cited The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf as some of his favorite books, but unlike other historical assassins such as Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth, there is little to suggest that Loughner was acting out in support of any particular ideology.

The rush by liberals to pin the blame for Loughner’s actions on our political system is not new. Pundits always seem to feel qualified to take on the role of amateur psychologist whenever our nation is struck by a tragedy of this magnitude. For example, in his biography of John F. Kennedy, Arthur Schlesinger pinned the blame for the Kennedy Assassination squarely on the shoulders of the American public, and particularly conservatives:

The tension and anonymity of urban life had further sharpened the impulse to violence. Every day the television industry instructed the children of the nation how easily problems could be solved by revolver shots. Fortifying the “Gunsmoke” ethic was a mood of national self-righteousness—the happy conviction of American uniqueness, which smoothed out and washed away the cruelties and sins of the past…

For liberals like Dupnik and Schlesinger, it is impossible to accept that despite our best efforts, good and evil will always exist in the world. One of the tenets of the liberal agenda is that all problems of society and the human condition can be solved by government. Each person is nothing more than a machine, responding to the external stimuli of the world around us. Thus, a deranged killer like Oswald or Loughner is not merely evil, but must be the product of our "culture of violence."

However, the sad truth is that there will never be a rational explanation for what happened this past Saturday. Although many people who interacted with Loughner suspected he had serious mental problems, they could never have known where the unraveling of his troubled mind would lead. Rather than trying to pin the blame on larger forces, we must accept that this tragedy is so supremely evil precisely because of its irrationality.

Share

Another Slice of Pie?

Slate has been running a series about the widening income gap in America. Refreshingly, after almost a century of government policies designed to decrease income inequality, liberals are admitting that these policies do not work. Still, Timothy Noah, the series’ author, cannot resist using the language of class warfare to decry the evils of American capitalism. White-collar office jobs are bad, but unionized blue-collar jobs are good. One quote is particularly telling:

The top was occupied by a group that Clinton's first labor secretary, Robert Reich, labeled "symbolic analyst." These were people who "simplify reality into abstract images that can be rearranged, juggled, or experimented with" using "mathematical algorithms, legal arguments, financial gimmicks, scientific principles, psychological insights," and other tools seldom acquired without a college or graduate degree. At the bottom were providers of "in-person services" like waitressing, home health care, and security. The middle, once occupied by factory workers, stenographers, and other moderately skilled laborers, was disappearing fast.

What about plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, steamfitters, carpenters, train conductors, and all of the other blue-collar trades? These are respectable jobs with good pay and strong growth potential. As long as there are people, these moderately skilled jobs will always be in demand. These jobs are manually intensive so they cannot be automated, and they cannot be outsourced because they depend on a local workforce. The theory advocated by Mr. Noah seems to ignore this segment of the economy.

For insight into how Noah manipulates the data to feed his storyline of the downtrodden proletariat, notice that his analysis relies entirely on the share of aggregate income statistics from the Census. According to these figures, the share of aggregate income for all but the top 20% has decreased. However, at the same time, the economy has also grown. It's not as if millionaires are fighting with the homeless for a slice of a never-changing pie.

If we look at the actual household income figures, we see that all quintiles, even the lowest, saw an increase in income in inflation-adjusted terms. The reason the top quintile has grown more than the others is because the rich are the ones who generate growth in the economy. You don't see very many bums opening factories, shopping malls, or office parks. Contrary to Mr. Noah's polemic about the inherent evils of capitalism, if you take away money from the rich in the pursuit of “equality,” you will only slow economic growth for all.

Share

"Drain the Swamp"

A view of the House chamber during recess.

A month before Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi famously declared that it was time to "drain the swamp." The Democrats' November victory that year was widely seen as a public repudiation of Republican abuses, especially Abramoff's web of corruption.

As a result of widespread scandals, four Republicans--Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, and Mark Foley--were forced out of office and two spent time in jail. Meanwhile, Harry Reid and Patrick Kennedy are still in office despite being caught in their own scandals in 2006.

Today, Democrats Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters are in big trouble over ethics violations, John Kerry is in the news for evading Massachusetts sales and property taxes, and Al Gore is seeking a divorce amid accusations of sexual misconduct. Plus ça change! At least in 2006, none of the public figures embroiled in scandal were former Presidential candidates.

Nevertheless, today's New York Times explains this all away as nothing more than "a heightened sensitivity in Washington to indiscretions by members of Congress." The Times goes on to explain Rangel’s particular "indiscretions:"

...there was an unusually close overlap, the committee contended, between appeals for donations and his intervention on legislative matters, citing in particular a meeting Mr. Rangel held in 2007 at a New York hotel with an executive from an oil drilling company at which he made a bid for a donation and also discussed a tax break the company was seeking.

The executive, Eugene Isenberg, and his company ended up making a $1 million contribution to the educational center, and Mr. Rangel helped the company secure a tax break worth an estimated $500 million.

In addition to soliciting contributions for an educational institution bearing his name, Rangel also failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars of income in Congressional disclosure forms and did not pay any taxes on rental income from his Dominican villa until 2008, after his misconduct had already been made public. Rangel's former Republican colleagues went to jail for similar "indiscretions."

In light of these scandals, Speaker Pelosi seems to have failed on her promise to create the "most ethical Congress in history." It's enough to make one wonder whether Democrats and the liberal press used ethics as a prop for temporary political advantage back in 2006. But lest we jump to any conclusions, Pelosi explained last week that she only meant to drain the Republican side of the swamp. We'll see if voters buy it in November.

Share

"BP Will Pay"

The New York Times reports on President Obama's speech last night with the type of puffery we would expect from the mainstream media. Apparently, the American people--especially the people on the Gulf Coast most directly affected by the spill--are supposed to take solace that the President has appointed a commission.

Until now he has employed most of the tools of his office, imposing a deepwater drilling moratorium, traveling repeatedly to the region, firing an agency director and appointing a commission. He used a few more Tuesday night, summoning the cameras to the Oval Office, appointing a long-term recovery coordinator and demanding that the company responsible, BP, set up a multibillion-dollar escrow account to compensate the victims.

Meanwhile, oil continues to leak from the seafloor despite BP's efforts to bring the well under control. While Obama is busy appointing new oil spill czars, the Associated Press reports that government scientists have increased their estimates of the oil being leaked by a factor of 10, up to as much as 2.5 million gallons per day. Even if BP succeeds in shutting off the flow, there will still be 50-100 million gallons of oil loose out in the Gulf of Mexico, waiting to be washed ashore by the first hurricane that comes through, or worse, to be spread along the entire eastern seaboard by the Gulf Stream current.

In the White House transcript of Obama's speech, one line jumps out as an indicator of how the President is still underestimating the vastness of the spill. While outlining his plan for recovery, Obama took pains to assure the American people that, "BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region," but Obama's $20 billion escrow fund is nothing compared to the mind boggling scale of this disaster.

Even if BP is deemed by the new oil spill czar to be liable for unlimited damage claims, Obama's plan has one major problem: what happens when BP runs out of money? The Washington Post reports that as members of Congress scathe BP's leaders with a withering crossfire of recriminations, they are also selling all stocks related to BP. At the same time, BP's shares have declined by almost 50% since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon on April 20.

Obama is talking tough and is even taking tough actions, but the real measure of his leadership skills is whether his actions actually bring the spill under control and repair the damage. In both cases, he continues to push all responsibility to BP. This may be a good political tactic, but it also comes with a big risk. If BP ultimately fails, the responsibility he now evades will come back to him--with interest.

Share

Come Sail Away

The loss of life in the Gaza blockade incident is tragic.  However, the Times of London has published first-hand accounts which reveal that the organizers of the so-called "Freedom Flotilla" were prepared for violence.  The flotilla entered the blockaded area despite repeated warnings and refused to turn away when confronted by the Israeli navy.  Downplaying the dangers, the organizers of this mission used willing civilians as human shields for a cynical political stunt.

One woman was quoted as saying, "We were aware of the possible danger; in joining the trip, but there are thousands of babies in Gaza.  If we had reached Gaza we would have played with them and taken them food."  Feeding babies is a fine thing, but this same woman also brought her own baby with her to a war zone in an attempt to run a blockade.  One has to question the motives of a mother who would knowingly place her own child in such extreme danger.

The Times also reports that one of the men aboard the flotilla, "told his wife that the journey could be potentially fatal and asked for her blessing."  The people aboard these vessels knew they were going into danger.  They were not going to Gaza in peace, but openly vowing to provoke confrontation with the Israeli Defense Forces.  Whether by running the blockade itself, or otherwise stirring up trouble, the so-called "activists" were not headed to Gaza for a pleasure cruise.

Media accounts which portray the Israeli navy as acting unlawfully are nothing more than political posturing.  Throughout history, navies have always enforced blockades against unlawful civilians with deadly force.  The archives of the New York Times include a contemporary first-hand account from the Civil War of a British blockade runner.  In those days, the U.S. Navy was not afraid of using force--even against a neutral British ship in foreign waters:

The [U.S.S.] Tuscarora fired a plank gun as soon as she left her anchorage to arouse the watch, I suppose, partly, and to call us to stop and as a warning of what was coming.  We kept on as hard as we could but the wretched funnel showed the cruiser our course by a great flame.  Bang, bang, ping, went the shot and shell from the Tuscarora as she overhauled us hand over fist.  She is uncommonly fast, and beat our craft all to nothing.  We thought the game was all up.  One shot passed right under our stern, and the last, a shell from his 11-inch Dahlgren, went in a straight line over us, and luckily fell in the water without bursting, just ahead.

In the account above, the British ship ended up escaping from its American pursuer in a storm, but not every blockade runner was always so lucky.  Although the death of some of the Gaza blockade runners is regrettable to modern sensibilities, those who died were not under any illusion about the risk of their mission.  Worse still, by seeking confrontation, this "humanitarian" mission will only prolong the plight of the Palestinians whom they claim to help.

Share

The Liberal Paradox

Today's New York Times asks the question, why are American politics stuck in the mindset of the 1960's?  To answer this question, perhaps the old grey lady should recall the fable of the crab and its mother:

A CRAB said to her son, "Why do you walk so one-sided, my child?  It is far more becoming to go straight forward."  The young Crab replied: "Quite true, dear Mother; and if you will show me the straight way, I will promise to walk in it."  The Mother tried in vain, and submitted without remonstrance to the reproof of her child.

As with the crab, the liberal-leaning New York Times is trapped in the 1960's by its own nature.  Bai observes, "The choices of our moment are not nearly so neat or so satisfying as they were a generation ago, which makes them less useful as a basis for one’s political identity."  The language there is telling.  Only a liberal would describe the moral choices of the '60's as "neat" and "satisfying."  For the rest of us, the '60's were a dark time of assassinations, riots, and social upheaval that nearly tore the nation apart.

In his analysis, Bai cites two recent examples of this continuing trend.  In both cases, the scandal was created and then whipped up by liberals.  In the first, Blumenthal himself opened the door by "misstating" (i.e., lying about) his service.  Then the liberal-leaning Times obligingly announced the scandal, tearing open the wounds of the Vietnam era once again for the nation to reconsider for the umpteenth time.  Meanwhile, Rand's difficulties with the Civil Rights Act were prompted by an absurd hypothetical posed by a correspondent on MSNBC whose political views are well known.

Similarly, during the Bush Administration, liberals could not resist drawing comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, even though the reality has turned out to be very different.  Hurricane Katrina raised the ghosts of the civil rights movement and the destruction of New Orleans was viewed by many as an example of deep-seated racism, even though the death toll was color-blind.  These perverse comparisons with the liberal myth of the 1960's as a glorious triumph were simply too much for liberals to resist, no matter how crass and misguided.

For liberals, it is much more politically expedient to stoke the last faint embers of those divisive times, possibly to win a few more votes in the next election by reminding aging baby boomers of their guilt and shame.  However, it is worth remembering that after the liberal triumph of Carter in the 1970's, the nation overwhelmingly elected Reagan by a landslide and moved strongly to the right.  If Bush was a repeat of Nixon, a repeat of the subsequent decades would not favor Democrats.

Share

A Victory for Whom?

When news reports first came out this past weekend that an attempted attack on Times Square failed because of the would-be bomber's incompetence, the nation breathed a collective sigh of relief.  The Washington Post however, sees things a little differently:

When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. stepped up to the lectern at 1:30 a.m. on Tuesday, it was more than an unusual middle-of-the-night appearance trumpeting the swift arrest of an alleged terrorist. It also marked a rare moment of glory for the attorney general....

A good week doesn't necessarily make for a turnaround. But with the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in connection with Saturday's attempted bombing in Times Square, Holder and the law enforcement agencies he oversees were able to claim a victory for the administration.

Even though the government failed to prevent the attack and almost bungled the arrest of the prime suspect, only just catching him in nick-of-time before his flight took off for Pakistan, the Post describes the arrest of Faisal Shahzad as a "glorious victory."  This is reminiscent of the Chris Rock comedy sketch about the person who expects you to be proud of them because they didn't go to jail.  "What do you want, a cookie?  You're not supposed to go to jail," he retorts.

Similarly, the American people reasonably expect the Justice Department to swiftly arrest the suspects in major crimes.  This begs the question, does the Washington Post believe that our government is really so dysfunctional that when the government succeeds at something it is supposed to do, it is a "glorious victory?"  Moreover, the Post describes this not as a victory in the war on terror, but for the Obama Administration--that is to say, a political victory.  More to the point, does the Post believe that it is a "glorious victory" when the Obama Administration is only just barely less incompetent than would-be terrorists?

All joking aside, there is something more ominous in this episode.  In both this case and in the failed Christmas Day underpants bombing, the al-Qaeda network clearly did not deploy their A-team.  In both cases, horrific loss of life was only averted by the would-be bomber's own incompetence.  One has to wonder if these attacks were even meant to succeed, or if instead, the terrorist masterminds who still survive in some cave in Afghanistan are using these attempts to probe for weaknesses in our defenses.  If this is true, these failed attempts are victories not for us, but for al-Qaeda.

Share

Looney Tunes

Crazy Islamic radicals are in the news again.  Last Thursday's New York Times reports that the Comedy Central television network heavily censored a recent episode of the satirical cartoon show, "South Park" in response to death threats issued by a radical Muslim group in New York.  Worst of all, as Parker and Stone wrote:

In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind.  We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode.  It wasn't some meta-joke on our part.  Comedy Central added the bleeps.  In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear.  It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too.

Parker and Stone have never been afraid to make lewd jokes and poke fun at historical figures in the past, but as the Times reports, they nevertheless took special care not to actually depict Muhammad, while at the same time making light of the Muslim prohibition of his depiction.

Cognizant that Islam forbids the depiction of its holiest prophet, Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker showed their “South Park” characters agonizing over how to bring Muhammad to their fictional Colorado town.  At first the character said to be Muhammad is confined to a U-Haul trailer, and is heard speaking but is not shown.  Later in the episode the character is let out of the trailer, dressed in a bear costume.

Apparently, Comedy Central doesn't get the joke.  As the Associated Press reported in 2007, Gillian Gibbons, a British teacher, was almost sentenced to death by the Sudanese government for similar reasons.  "Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad."  Fortunately, Gibbons was later released.

As a private entity, Comedy Central is free to air or not air whatever it wishes.  The First Amendment does not compel anyone to give a platform to speech but rather only prevents the government from restricting the right of individuals to speak or not speak as they see fit.  However, in this case it seems disingenuous for Comedy Central to censor the non-depiction of Muhammad while at the same time allowing Parker and Stone a free hand in all manner of lewdness and vulgarity.

Share

Health Care Hangover

Democrats are eager to "pivot" away from the political hangover of health care reform and instead sieze on public anger about the economy.  The Washington Post reports that Democrats in the Senate have passed a major milestone, winning committee approval of language that would implement a massive new regulatory scheme for the derivatives market.

However, the article doesn't mention which kind of derivative is actually related to the financial upheaval of the past several years--namely, credit default swaps.  The credit default swap is a type of derivative which was created by the large investment banks as a hedge on the supposedly "riskless" collateralized debt obligations--especially those consisting of mortgage-backed securities.

Meanwhile, a little-noticed Congressional Budget Office report was released back in January revealed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are predicted to cost taxpayers nearly $400 billion over the next decade.

In its August 2009 baseline, CBO projected that the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have a total budgetary cost of $389 billion between 2009 and 2019.  (That cost includes subsidies for assistance to homeowners under the Administration’s Making Home Affordable plan.)  The bulk of the outlays ($291 billion) were estimated to occur in 2009.  That figure reflects the recognition of substantial losses on the entire outstanding stock of mortgages held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at that time.

The American people are angry and Democrats are more than happy to direct that anger at Wall Street.  Creating new regulations for the derivatives market will certainly punish Wall Street, but as their name implies, the derivatives were not at the root of the crisis.  Rather, the shocking loss in value of the underlying real assets--in this case, risky mortgages underwritten by Fannie and Freddie--caused the upheaval.

Instead of pandering to populist outrage, the Washington Post should educate its readers about the real source of the problem and at the same time hold the politicians accountable for the policies which encouraged Fannie and Freddie to flood the market with so-called "toxic assets" in the first place.  Punishing Wall Street will only hurt the long-term growth potential of the American economy, and by failing to punish Fannie and Freddie, Democrats will only hurt the American taxpayer.

Share

The Media's Credibility Gap

Today, the New York Times asks the question, "Why is good news being received with such doubt?"  Like the boy who cried wolf, the Times and other mainstream media outlets have been gushing praises of President Obama's economic policies and looking for the silver lining in every new unemployment report.  Hilariously, in the very same article, Mr. Norris unintentionally gives us an example of this phenomenon.

The employment report for March, released a week ago, was a milestone that has been little noted.  The household survey, from which the unemployment rate is calculated, showed a gain during the first quarter of this year of 1.1 million jobs, the best performance since the spring of 2005.

True, the more widely reported numbers from the survey of employers are not as good.  But those numbers are subject to heavy revision as better data becomes available.  At the turning points for employment after the last two downturns, those numbers turned out to be far better than was reported at the time.

To hear the Times tell it, we should be optimistic because even though the unemployment numbers are still really bad, they will ultimately be revised by a few tenths of a point.  This must be very reassuring to the millions of unemployed Americans.  By repeating dubious assurances that recovery is just around the corner over the past year, the New York Times has earned a reputation as nothing more than a fatuous tool of the Obama Administration.  It is little wonder that the public remains skeptical.

Share

In Case of Emergency: Blame Bush

The Washington Post reports today that the tragic mine disaster in West Virginia earlier this week could have been avoided.  Management repeatedly ignored government inspections which revealed major safety problems with the mine's ventilation systems.  This is a deplorable revelation which only increases the horror of the terrible loss of life.  However, near the end of the article, the Washington Post tries to place blame elsewhere.

Former federal officials and others who know mining said that [Bush administration mine safety administrator, David] Lauriski initially scaled back mine-safety regulation and that, under the Bush administration, 17 of 26 regulations proposed by the Clinton administration were dropped or withdrawn.

"Lax is not nearly a strong enough word to describe how mine safety was handled in the first part of the Bush administration," said Phil Smith, a spokesman for the United Mine Workers of America.  "It became a lot less about enforcing rules and regulations and more of a touchy-feely thing: It's bad what you are doing, and you need to do better."

Had it not already become a cliché long ago, we might be horrified that the Washington Post is using the suffering of others to score cheap political points.  Still, in this case it is rather surprising given that the government inspectors had done their jobs by issuing citations for the safety violations.  Only the most bitterly partisan liberal could hold the government responsible, and still more so George W. Bush as a private citizen.

Share

Social Security Solvency Shocker!

Surprise!  The New York Times reports that the Social Security Administration will pay out more benefits than it collects in payroll taxes this year, "an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office."  This doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in those CBO scores that we kept hearing so much about during the health care debates.

Of course, nowhere does the article mention President Bush, who in his 2004 re-election campaign vowed to reform Social Security.  Despite gaining seats for his party in a re-election year for the first time in 80 years, Bush could not deliver on his promise of reform.  The political price of touching the so-called "third rail of American politics" is as lethal as it ever was--especially if you're a Republican.  At the time, the New York Times was singing a different tune:

Saying the retirement program is headed for "bankruptcy," a term his opponents say is an exaggeration, Mr. Bush edged tentatively - but for the first time explicitly - into the most politically explosive aspect of the debate over how to assure Social Security's long-term health: the benefit cuts or tax increases needed to balance the system's books as the baby boom generation ages and life expectancy increases.

In today's article, the Times states as a matter of fact that Social Security is on, "a long, slow march to insolvency," which is more or less the same as the prediction of bankruptcy which was placed in scare quotes and derided as an exaggeration only a few years ago.  The Times also does not mention that the Democrats just enacted a massive new entitlement program which will only compound the problem.  It's enough to make one wonder if the New York Times is playing favorites.

Share

But Who's Counting Anyway?

Given the mainstream media's almost deafening silence when protests are against the issues they champion, it is little wonder that Steven Pearlstein over at the Washington Post doesn't know that people are angry with the bill that passed last night:

If, as Republicans would have us believe, Americans are so up in arms about the prospect of "Obamacare," why aren't there angry hordes marching on the Mall or jamming the halls of the Rayburn Building?

As if in answer to Pearlstein's query, several thousand tea-partiers filled the west lawn of the Capitol this Saturday.  Despite the size of the crowd, the mainstream media had difficulty getting an accurate count.  As the AP reported that evening, "Clogging the sidewalks and streets of Capitol Hill were at least hundreds - no official estimate was yet available - of loud, furious protesters, many of them tea party opponents of the health care overhaul."

What does several hundred people look like to the mainstream media?  I went down to the anti-Obamacare protest on Saturday, and took these photos.

While technically true, "hundreds" seems to be an awfully low-ball estimate given the size of the crowd.  Meanwhile, numerous press accounts of other protests this past weekend report numbers in the thousands and even tens of thousands:

• Washington Post - "D.C. antiwar march draws thousands"
• New York Times - "Thousands Call for Immigration Reform in Capital"
• New York Times - "Tens of thousands of immigrants and activists rallied here on Sunday"

To be fair, the Washington Post did run an article on Saturday which reported that "several thousand people" attended the rally pictured above.  However, the article mainly focused on the actions of a few bad people in the crowd who apparently shouted racial epithets later in the day.

During the floor speeches last night, Republicans accused the Democrats of being deaf to the will of the people.  However, if Democrats only get their news from the Washington Post and the New York Times, it's possible they are genuinely unaware of the growing popular anger at this legislation.

Share

Counting Chickens Before They Hatch

CNN reports that five more Democrats have stated they will oppose Nancy Pelosi's mystery bill, which as of noon today still had not been released for public examination.  That means that the bipartisan coalition which opposes a vast new government role in health care is only 11 votes shy of the 216 needed to finally wake the nation from our collective nightmare.

Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House plan in November, 17 have indicated that they will vote against the Senate plan as written, 11 remain uncommitted, and nine did not return repeated calls for comment.

Meanwhile, Ms. Erica Werner writing for the Washington Post reports that the bill is moving forward, as though passage is inevitable.

The Democrats' drive took on a growing sense of inevitability, picking up endorsements Wednesday from a longtime liberal holdout and from a retired Roman Catholic bishop and nuns who broke with church leaders over the bill's abortion provisions.

Given that neither side has a guaranteed 216 votes and that the bill has not even been released, it is difficult to see how Ms. Werner arrived at this conclusion of growing inevitability, unless she already takes it for granted out of personal convictions that health care reform will pass.

Share