Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary, War Commentary

Staged?

23 Comments

When I heard about the effusive response from the military to the president’s visit to Iraq, I was dubious about it. It didn’t make much sense, given the polling of them last fall. So is this why there was so much support among the military?

“We were pre-screened, asked by officials “Who voted for Obama?”, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.”

Take a look at the picture at AP and notice all the cameras are the same models? Coincidence? I think not.

Can you imagine the howls of outrage from the left and the press if the Bush administration had pulled something like this?

Political Commentary, War Commentary

Good Show

17 Comments

This worked out better than I expected:

An American ship captain was freed unharmed Sunday in a U.S. Navy operation that killed three of the four Somali pirates who had been holding him for days in a lifeboat off the coast of Africa, a senior U.S. intelligence official said.

One of the pirates was wounded and in custody after a swift firefight, the official said.

I have to say that I found this grimly amusing:

“The negotiations between the elders and American officials have broken down. The reason is American officials wanted to arrest the pirates in Puntland and elders refused the arrest of the pirates,” said the commissioner, Abdi Aziz Aw Yusuf. He said he organized initial contacts between the elders and the Americans.

Arrest and punish kidnappers? Why, that’s crazy talk. At least in Somalia. Fortunately, now, there’s only one to worry about having to deal with. I would have wrapped the three they killed in pigskin and tossed them to the sharks as an example, but I guess these days, that’s crazy talk, too.

Anyway, congratulations to the US Navy, who did their job. And what the hell was the FBI doing there, anyway?

[Update mid afternoon]

What is a “pirate source“?

Political Commentary, Technology and Society

An Attempt At Common Sense In MO

43 Comments

The Missouri House has passed a bill allowing concealed carry on college campuses in the state. Of course, the universities (or at least U Missouri) respond with the usual idiocy:

“Missouri’s college students should be allowed to learn and exchange ideas in an environment free from the threat of concealed guns,” University of Missouri System President Gary Forsee said in a news release Thursday. “It is hard to imagine that such a proposal could gain support given the magnitude of gun-related tragedies experienced on college campuses across the country.”

Yes, it is hard to imagine, given the illogical hysteria on the subject, much of it fed by the media. And of course, the police are unhappy:

MU Police Chief Jack Watring said at the MU Faculty Council meeting Thursday that he was opposed to the legislation.

“I don’t think most students in an educational environment need a weapon,” he said.

Well, you know what? Most students wouldn’t have one. Most students won’t bother to get the permit. But they’ll be free riders, and safer, because of the few who have one now, or will get one in the wake of this law passing, because they’ll now be able to use it. As Eugene Volokh notes, not allowing students to carry on campus effectively prevents them from carrying much of anywhere, and it’s a violation of a fundamental human right:

Many universities ban firearms, but some research I’ve been doing reveals that some universities ban firearms and stun guns and chemical defensive sprays, either in dorm rooms or in the university as a whole. This basically leaves students entirely without any defensive weapons, and also has the effect of disarming dorm residents when they go off campus property, since they have no place to store the defensive weapons when they’re back on campus.

This strikes me as quite shocking, especially with regard to women students who are in the age range where the danger of rape is at its highest. The university basically leaves them as sitting ducks, unless they’re willing to violate the university policy. Even if the university tries to compensate by offering a good deal of on-campus policing (some do and some don’t), it surely can’t protect the students when they leave campus.

It should be shocking, but it isn’t. And listen to this next excuse:

Watring said…that the biggest concern with the concealed carry provision is the tactical problems it would create, such as the ability for police to identify a suspect in a situation where many people are carrying weapons.

That’s not an argument against allowing guns on campus. There is nothing unique about a college campus in that regard. It’s an argument against allowing concealed carry anywhere. Which is, of course, what many law-enforcement types would like, because it gives them more power over the sheep.

And it’s a stupid argument, to boot. I’m pretty sure that if there’s a mass shooting, it’s not that hard to figure out who the suspect is — it’s the guy shooting lots of people. And if this law passes, in most cases, if history is any guide, by the time the police arrive the shooting will be over, and the suspect subdued or dead, as was the case at the Appalachian University Law School, or the Colorado Springs church shooting, or the numerous other times when there were armed law-abiding citizens present. The only time that the police have to deal with a live, armed shooter is when everyone else has been disarmed (Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc.), because that’s the only circumstance in which he can continue the murder spree for the many minutes that it always takes police to arrive.

And of course, as always, we have the usual slander against CCW permit holders:

But Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, said he was worried about the possible combination of drinking and weapons on college campuses.

“College boys who round up 25 opossums half drunk can do amazingly interesting things with fireworks, bottles of gasoline, with all kinds of interesting devices,” Kelly said.

“Fraternity boys are a very inventive lot, let’s make sure we give ’em guns to play with too,” he added with sarcasm.

I wonder if Rep. Kelly can put together a correlation matrix between people who have been diligent and responsible enough to go through the process of getting a concealed weapons permit, and inebriated pyromaniacal frat boys? Because I’ll bet it’s pretty damned negative. I also wonder why he thinks that people who would engage in such drunken antics would have any qualms about possessing illegal guns on campus?

Stupidity and illogic continues to abound. And if this bill fails, and there is a mass shooting on a Missouri campus, we’ll know just who to blame this time.

[Sunday morning update]

A commenter indicates that I probably painted law enforcement types with too broad a brush, and he’s probably right:

I am a police officer and I would like to clarify a few misconceptions. If you ask any police chief about their position on concealed carry legislation you will get the same answer that you would get if you ask a political appointee. This is because most are elected or appointed by and serving at the pleasure of a politician. Most officers, myself included, support concealed carry. We know better than most how long it takes for us to arrive and just how long each second is in a tragedy such as a school shooting. We also understand that the sick and twisted out there among us won’t leave their weapons at home before a killing spree because they might get in trouble for concealing.

My apologies to any other officers who think I mischaracterized their position on the issue. Most probably are sensible on this issue, even if they can’t publicly say so.

[Update in the afternoon]

Oh, and my answer to frequent inane commenter “jack lee”‘s question is “…none of your goddamned business.”

Business, Economics, Political Commentary, War Commentary

The President’s Distractions

6 Comments

Thoughts from Mark Steyn:

Only a week ago, the North Korean missile test was an “annoying distraction” from Barack Obama’s call for a world without nuclear weapons and his pledge that America would lead the way in disarming. And only a couple of days earlier the president insisted Iraq was a “distraction” — from what, I forget: The cooing press coverage of Michelle’s wardrobe? No doubt when the Iranians nuke Israel, that, too, will be an unwelcome distraction from the administration’s plans for federally subsidized daycare, just as Pearl Harbor was an annoying distraction from the New Deal, and the First World War was an annoying distraction from the Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s dinner plans.

…Er, okay. So the North Korean test is a “distraction,” the Iranian nuclear program is a “distraction,” and the seizure of a U.S.-flagged vessel in international waters is a “distraction.” Maybe it would be easier just to have the official State Department maps reprinted with the Rest of the World relabeled “Distractions.” Oh, to be sure, you could still have occasional oases of presidential photo-opportunities — Buckingham Palace, that square in Prague — but with the land beyond the edge of the Queen’s gardens ominously marked “Here be distractions . . . ”

As it happens, Somali piracy is not a distraction, but a glimpse of the world the day after tomorrow. In my book America Alone, I quote Robert D. Kaplan referring to the lawless fringes of the map as “Indian Territory.” It’s a droll jest but a misleading one, since the very phrase presumes that the badlands will one day be brought within the bounds of the ordered world. In fact, a lot of today’s badlands were relatively ordered not so long ago, and many of them are getting badder and badder by the day.

As I’ve noted in the past, the main thing that finally saved the economy from Roosevelt’s tinkering was the “distraction” of World War II, and then his death. It recovered nicely after the war, once the economic sage of Hyde Park could no longer prevent it. I hope that the current president finds lots of distractions from his own plans for the economy.

Political Commentary, Space

Getting It Half Right

2 Comments

Yes, Congress is a problem for NASA. But not because it doesn’t give it enough money. As Clark notes, NASA has plenty of money, if it wanted to, and were allowed to spend it sensibly. The problem with Congress it that it won’t let NASA do so, even if it wanted to. It will always be more important to Congress where the money is spent than how it is spent, which is why government space programs are so cost ineffective (and that was true going all the way back to Apollo). Apollo succeeded because it did have huge bales of cash thrown at it, but it certainly wasn’t politically sustainable or affordable, any more than redoing it will be.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Prosecutorial Misconduct

8 Comments

Not just for Ted Stevens, but was it also related to Scooter Libby?

[Update a few minutes later]

Who is Brenda Morris?

This just points out that while elections matter, they don’t necessarily matter as much as they should, due to entrenched civil servants below appointment level, which is why the CIA seemed to be at war with the Bush administration for much of the past eight years (not to mention the State Department). And the administration never seemed willing to even try to do anything about it (for instance, no one was ever fired for all of the leaks to the New York Times). I’d be curious to know if Ms. Morris ever prosecuted a Democrat.

History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

The Beginning Of The Myth

3 Comments

I missed noting it yesterday, but it was the fiftieth anniversary of the announcement of the Mercury 7. It set the pattern for the mythology of the NASA astronaut (with two minor variations — the first in the sixties when it was no longer necessary to be a test pilot, and in the late seventies, when women were allowed into the club). I may have more thoughts later, but to me, it was one of the key events that led us off on a very wrong path that has resulted in the space quagmire we’re in to this day.

History, Philosophy, Political Commentary

Speaking Of Pirates

7 Comments

Did you know that they were early incubators of democracy?

Yes, those stereotypically lawless rum-chuggers turned out to be ardent democrats. And in their strange enlightenment, Leeson sees the answer to a riddle about human nature, worthy of “Lord of the Flies” or an early episode of “Lost.” In the absence of government and law enforcement, what becomes of a band of men with a noted criminal streak? Do they descend into violence and chaos?

The pirates who roamed the seas in the late 17th and early 18th centuries developed a floating civilization that, in terms of political philosophy, was well ahead of its time. The notion of checks and balances, in which each branch of government limits the other’s power, emerged in England in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. But by the 1670s, and likely before, pirates were developing democratic charters, establishing balance of power on their ships, and developing a nascent form of worker’s compensation: A lost limb entitled one to payment from the booty, more or less depending on whether it was a right arm, a left arm, or a leg.

The idea of enlightened piracy is strange swill to swallow for those steeped in a pop culture version of the pirate – chaos on the high seas, drinking and pillaging, damsels forced onto the plank. Sure, there’s something about the independence of piracy that still speaks to people today. (Even the founders of International Talk Like a Pirate Day acknowledge that there is, in people who love to say “Aargh,” a yearning for a certain kind of freedom.) But it turns out that pirate life was more than just greedy rebellion. It offers insights into the nature of democracy and the reasons it might emerge – as a natural state of being, or a rational response to a much less pleasant way of life.

Of course, those were largely pirates of the Anglosphere. Somehow, I suspect that Somali Muslims might generate a different kind of pirate society.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Bringing The World Together

27 Comments

Barry and the Pirates:

This is what we have come to. Unilateral action, even if it is as clear cut as defending US interests against pirates, must be avoided. Murderous Jihadist terrorists get civil rights and government lawyers while US taxpayers pick up the bill. Pirates, who board US shipping and threaten American seamen, get treated like simple criminals that do not warrant so much as a mention by the President. One would have thought it was a no-brainer for the Manchurian President, a populist win-win to paint Obama as a decisive leader, a chance to inspire confidence that he was up to the challenge. It was a chance to warn aggressors, pirates or otherwise, away from international shipping. It was also a chance, now squandered, to reassure friend and foe alike that America had not lost her nerve or reneged on her exceptional role as a world leader.

But no, it’s all just a distraction from the greater work of wealth redistribution, “social justice,” and remaking America into the utopian vision of a narcissistic socialist academic with a nice speaking voice. No pompous speeches and meandering lectures this time, the implications of piracy on trade and sovereignty are beyond Obama.

Treacher has similar thoughts:

1) Presidents of the United States don’t tend to go around apologizing for their own country on foreign soil.

2) Pirates don’t tend to attack American ships.

3) When both happen within a week of each other, each one for the first time anybody can remember, there might be loose talk.

Shootings happen more often than we’d like, but people like Oliver Willis and Markos Moulitsas have no problem pinning one on Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or whoever else they want to malign. Whereas pirates kidnapping Americans at sea happens once every 200 years. But I’m not supposed to wonder if President Obama running around the world with a “Kick Me” sign on his back — which almost flew off during his spine-bending bow to a king — has anything to do with America getting, um, kicked.

And President Obama makes a heart-warming outreach to the moderate pirate community:

For too long, America has been too dismissive of the proud culture and invaluable contributions of the Pirate Community. Whether it is their pioneering work with prosthetics, husbandry of tropical birds or fanciful fashion sense, America owes a deep debt to Pirates.

The past eight years have shown a failure to appreciate the historic role of these noble seafarers. Instead of celebrating their entreprenuerial spirit and seeking to partner with them to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

Some of us wonder if our current Overseas Contingency Operation would even be needed had the last administration not been so quick to label Pirates as “thieves,” “terrorists” and worse. Such swashbucklaphobia can lead to tragic results, as we have seen this week.

And I’ll have a scoop this weekend on the new administration’s long-overdue moves to heal the breach with the solar system.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

That’s Awunna Expensiva Pizza

12 Comments

Who paid for this?

When you’re the president of the United States, only the best pizza will do – even if that means flying a chef 860 miles.

Chris Sommers, 33, jetted into Washington from St Louis, Missouri, on Thursday with a suitcase of dough, cheese and pans to to prepare food for the Obamas and their staff.

Short of out of the president’s own pocket, is there any good answer for that question? If it came out of the White House catering budget, how is that justified to the taxpayers? If someone donated the money, who was it, and what did they get for it?

And why doesn’t the The Daily Mail think that’s an interesting question? Would the New York Times? Or is it just news that’s not fit to print?

And, of course, knowing this, what are we supposed to think when the president excoriates the greedy and rich?