Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it...
BLOGS I REALLY LIKE...
OxBlog
Volokh Conspiracy
ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico
QandO
Powerline
RightWingNutHouse
Ace
Lorie Byrd
PoliPundit
LGF
Wizbang
INDCJournal
JustOneMinute
RightWingNews
Three Sheets
LaShawn
XRLQ
Betsy's Page
OTHERS NICE ENOUGH TO LINK ME...
SortaPundit
Don Luskin
California Yankee
Let It Bleed
TechieVampire
SecureLiberty
BenedictBlog
StopTheACLU
ProteinWisdom
Election Projection
The LiberalWrong
Autonomoussource
RatherGate
HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit
AND EVEN THOUGH HE'S USUALLY WRONG...
Mark Kleiman
HE WHO DOESN'T LIKE BEING CALLED A HYPOCRITE The Moderate Voice
Email Steve
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Just thinking...
...about how fortunate we are to have bin Laden. I know that sounds like a poor choice of a word, but I'm thinking that, with or without bin Laden, there would still be thousands of Islamic terrorists throughout the world trying to kill Americans. For all I know, the 9/11 hijackers would still have thought of and carried out their attack. Traditionally, Americans like having a face to fight, an actual country to go to war against (if we weren't squabbling with Spain back at the end of the 19th century, how exactly would we have sought revenge for the Maine having blown up?). Having a bin Laden allows us to personalize the fight against terror, it gives us a face to fight. Our anti-terror efforts are directed not only against him, but also those groups that have common cause with him. Without him, who exactly would Bush threaten in his speeches? There is no country that serves as command central for the terrorists. We're already fighting against a stateless enemy, without a bin Laden we would also be fighting against a faceless enemy - not exactly the easiest thing for Americans to rally around. Whose face would have been put on target-themed T-shirts? Whose face would have been in editorial cartoons? It wouldn't have been the stereotypical Muslim - that wouldn't have been P.C.
...that killing bin Laden is likely to provide false comfort to America and the rest of the world. While killing or capturing bin Laden would be a blow to the terrorists, it won't make them go away (in fact, according to what passes as philosophy of the Democratic left, killing bin Laden would only encourage more terrorist attacks against the US). Yet, I can see much of America treating bin Laden's death as 'VT-day', victory in the war on terror (in the same way many thought Iraq was a done deal once Hussein was captured). I can see demands for an end to the anti-terror measures that were put into place at airports, seaports and the like. I see demands for repealing the Patriot Act (yes, those demands already are there but would likely get even larger). I can see Kerry reissuing his call to cut the CIA's budget. All of which would be wrong and/or premature, all of which would leave us less safe.
...about how idiotic and/or delusional the Taliban were. Had they just told Bush "yes, harboring terrorists is wrong and we'll do what we can to rid our country of these scoundrels", Bush would never have been able to muster support for going into Afghanistan. The Taliban wouldn't have actually had to do anything, wouldn't actually have had to go after bin Laden. Just the Taliban promising to do something about bin Laden would have been enough for the UN, Old Europe and the Democrats to have dug their heels in - and probably enough that Bush would have backed down.
...about exactly what Clarke is basing his assertion that invading Iraq has made us less safe, that it has set back our efforts to combat terror. Didn't he quit a while back now? Isn't he now definitely out of the loop? What information is he basing his claims on, what he reads in the paper? He's no longer getting access to classified material, is he? Isn't he just one of us now - entitled to have an opinion on just about anything, but known to have no real position of authority or knowledge on which to base it?
...that the demand for Rice to testify in public is nothing more than another Democratic-led attempt to somehow embarass the Bush Administration? She's met with the committee for a number of hours... are there questions she wasn't already asked? So, it will be public and she will be under oath. Does anybody expect what she is going to say to be different from what she has already said? Does anybody expect that she'll look stupid answering questions? Unless the Democrats are smarter than I usually give them credit for being, I'm wondering if they shouldn't be worried about getting what they wished for.
...that Bush needs to name a replacement for Iraq on the 'axis of evil'.
...that Bush needs to do something about Iran, that charter member of the axis of evil, which seems determined to continue its nuclear programs. It's a shame that Bush thinks that either nothing needs to be done, or that the IEAA and the UN are the vehicles for taking action. It'd be worse if Bush realizes that the US needs to step up and take action, but is afraid to call for doing that.
...that supposedly Libya's disarming was a result of our having gone into Iraq. Yet, isn't Iran's going in the other direction likely attributed to the same thing? Why the different course taken by the two countries? Why would Khaddafi have caved, in that he wasn't even one of the big three? Why wouldn't he have waited until it was closer to his turn. And, given Bush's inaction against going after Iran, it's possible that we would never have gotten to Khaddafi.
As I said, just wondering....
|
...about how fortunate we are to have bin Laden. I know that sounds like a poor choice of a word, but I'm thinking that, with or without bin Laden, there would still be thousands of Islamic terrorists throughout the world trying to kill Americans. For all I know, the 9/11 hijackers would still have thought of and carried out their attack. Traditionally, Americans like having a face to fight, an actual country to go to war against (if we weren't squabbling with Spain back at the end of the 19th century, how exactly would we have sought revenge for the Maine having blown up?). Having a bin Laden allows us to personalize the fight against terror, it gives us a face to fight. Our anti-terror efforts are directed not only against him, but also those groups that have common cause with him. Without him, who exactly would Bush threaten in his speeches? There is no country that serves as command central for the terrorists. We're already fighting against a stateless enemy, without a bin Laden we would also be fighting against a faceless enemy - not exactly the easiest thing for Americans to rally around. Whose face would have been put on target-themed T-shirts? Whose face would have been in editorial cartoons? It wouldn't have been the stereotypical Muslim - that wouldn't have been P.C.
...that killing bin Laden is likely to provide false comfort to America and the rest of the world. While killing or capturing bin Laden would be a blow to the terrorists, it won't make them go away (in fact, according to what passes as philosophy of the Democratic left, killing bin Laden would only encourage more terrorist attacks against the US). Yet, I can see much of America treating bin Laden's death as 'VT-day', victory in the war on terror (in the same way many thought Iraq was a done deal once Hussein was captured). I can see demands for an end to the anti-terror measures that were put into place at airports, seaports and the like. I see demands for repealing the Patriot Act (yes, those demands already are there but would likely get even larger). I can see Kerry reissuing his call to cut the CIA's budget. All of which would be wrong and/or premature, all of which would leave us less safe.
...about how idiotic and/or delusional the Taliban were. Had they just told Bush "yes, harboring terrorists is wrong and we'll do what we can to rid our country of these scoundrels", Bush would never have been able to muster support for going into Afghanistan. The Taliban wouldn't have actually had to do anything, wouldn't actually have had to go after bin Laden. Just the Taliban promising to do something about bin Laden would have been enough for the UN, Old Europe and the Democrats to have dug their heels in - and probably enough that Bush would have backed down.
...about exactly what Clarke is basing his assertion that invading Iraq has made us less safe, that it has set back our efforts to combat terror. Didn't he quit a while back now? Isn't he now definitely out of the loop? What information is he basing his claims on, what he reads in the paper? He's no longer getting access to classified material, is he? Isn't he just one of us now - entitled to have an opinion on just about anything, but known to have no real position of authority or knowledge on which to base it?
...that the demand for Rice to testify in public is nothing more than another Democratic-led attempt to somehow embarass the Bush Administration? She's met with the committee for a number of hours... are there questions she wasn't already asked? So, it will be public and she will be under oath. Does anybody expect what she is going to say to be different from what she has already said? Does anybody expect that she'll look stupid answering questions? Unless the Democrats are smarter than I usually give them credit for being, I'm wondering if they shouldn't be worried about getting what they wished for.
...that Bush needs to name a replacement for Iraq on the 'axis of evil'.
...that Bush needs to do something about Iran, that charter member of the axis of evil, which seems determined to continue its nuclear programs. It's a shame that Bush thinks that either nothing needs to be done, or that the IEAA and the UN are the vehicles for taking action. It'd be worse if Bush realizes that the US needs to step up and take action, but is afraid to call for doing that.
...that supposedly Libya's disarming was a result of our having gone into Iraq. Yet, isn't Iran's going in the other direction likely attributed to the same thing? Why the different course taken by the two countries? Why would Khaddafi have caved, in that he wasn't even one of the big three? Why wouldn't he have waited until it was closer to his turn. And, given Bush's inaction against going after Iran, it's possible that we would never have gotten to Khaddafi.
As I said, just wondering....
|
Friday, March 26, 2004
Is it just me who thinks so, or is Kerry just plain stupid if he thinks his tax plan will do anything to address the issue of outsourcing?
According to the story, "Kerry would require companies to pay taxes on their international income as they earn it rather than being allow to defer it" and "would allow companies to defer taxes when they located a business in a foreign country that serves that nation's markets".
Yet,
A company that is now paying $1,000 to have the work done in the US gets a $1000 deduction on its return.
If that company pays a foreign vendor $750 to perform that work, it still would get a deduction equal to its expense.
If that company sets up a foreign based subsidiary to perform that work, pays this subsidiary $800, it still would get an $800 deduction. The subsidiary would only pay tax to the extent that it made a profit on the $800 it received. If the fee were established to only cover expenses, then there would be no foreign profit and nothing for the Kerry plan to go after.
In any event, a company that decided to outsource work because it was cheaper to do so would continue to do so - despite the Kerry plan.
|
According to the story, "Kerry would require companies to pay taxes on their international income as they earn it rather than being allow to defer it" and "would allow companies to defer taxes when they located a business in a foreign country that serves that nation's markets".
Yet,
A company that is now paying $1,000 to have the work done in the US gets a $1000 deduction on its return.
If that company pays a foreign vendor $750 to perform that work, it still would get a deduction equal to its expense.
If that company sets up a foreign based subsidiary to perform that work, pays this subsidiary $800, it still would get an $800 deduction. The subsidiary would only pay tax to the extent that it made a profit on the $800 it received. If the fee were established to only cover expenses, then there would be no foreign profit and nothing for the Kerry plan to go after.
In any event, a company that decided to outsource work because it was cheaper to do so would continue to do so - despite the Kerry plan.
|
Thursday, March 25, 2004
I think the Bush team ought to welcome a debate with the Kerry camp over who has the better approach for the economy...
The Bush team wants to put/keep as much money in your pockets and in the economy as possible. Money to spend, invest, to grow the economy. Money that will be used to hire additional workers. The Kerry team wants to take money out of your pockets and out of the economy which can only reduce consumer and business spending and investment. How can that be good for America's economy?
Kerry's stated rationale for raising taxes is that it will 'lower' the deficit and provide more money for federal spending. Ignoring that the two goals are for the most part mutually exclusive, neither will boost economic growth to the same extent as the Bush plan. A lower deficit will not spur economic growth - consumer and business spending decisions are NOT driven by the size of the deficit. Nor will government spending boost economic growth in the same way and to the same extent as will consumer and business spending and investment - I wouldn't want to be the one arguing for a 'government knows best how to spend your money' approach to growing the economy. One might have other reasons for wanting to lower the deficit OR increase government spending, but doing so is inconsistent with boosting the economy. The Bush team has the opportunity to put Kerry on the side on wanting to hold down consumer spending and investment in order to pursue two goals that don't matter so long as the American people remained focused on the economy.
However, the Bush team is currently attacking Kerry as a tax raiser, which he is, but without providing the above context. This line of attack will not be as effective as it could be. While many Americans do have somewhat of a knee-jerk revulsion against raising taxes, the Kerry team will seek to blunt the attack by talking about the benefits of such hikes. The Bush team needs to keep the discussion focused on the costs of such tax hikes - not just to those who have had their taxes raised, but to all of us. That is a debate well worth having. I hope the Bush team is up to the challenge.
|
The Bush team wants to put/keep as much money in your pockets and in the economy as possible. Money to spend, invest, to grow the economy. Money that will be used to hire additional workers. The Kerry team wants to take money out of your pockets and out of the economy which can only reduce consumer and business spending and investment. How can that be good for America's economy?
Kerry's stated rationale for raising taxes is that it will 'lower' the deficit and provide more money for federal spending. Ignoring that the two goals are for the most part mutually exclusive, neither will boost economic growth to the same extent as the Bush plan. A lower deficit will not spur economic growth - consumer and business spending decisions are NOT driven by the size of the deficit. Nor will government spending boost economic growth in the same way and to the same extent as will consumer and business spending and investment - I wouldn't want to be the one arguing for a 'government knows best how to spend your money' approach to growing the economy. One might have other reasons for wanting to lower the deficit OR increase government spending, but doing so is inconsistent with boosting the economy. The Bush team has the opportunity to put Kerry on the side on wanting to hold down consumer spending and investment in order to pursue two goals that don't matter so long as the American people remained focused on the economy.
However, the Bush team is currently attacking Kerry as a tax raiser, which he is, but without providing the above context. This line of attack will not be as effective as it could be. While many Americans do have somewhat of a knee-jerk revulsion against raising taxes, the Kerry team will seek to blunt the attack by talking about the benefits of such hikes. The Bush team needs to keep the discussion focused on the costs of such tax hikes - not just to those who have had their taxes raised, but to all of us. That is a debate well worth having. I hope the Bush team is up to the challenge.
|
Some (belated) thoughts on the Clarke affair...
Does anybody really believe the foreign policy team in the Bush Administration chose to degrade the Al Queda threat from the threat level the Clinton team had established? That somehow the Clinton team actually took the Al Queda team more seriously? That would seem improbable: the Clinton team's lack of action was consistent with having treated Al Queda more as a nuisance than as a serious and credible threat (or is that the way Clinton dealt with credible threats?). Or is the more likely scenario that the Bush team did no worse than maintain the threat level left by the Clinton team while the Bush team discussed making changes in strategy?
Does anybody believe that had Bush launched an attack on Afghanistan on the first day of his Presidency that 9/11 would have been prevented? If so, why? Atta and his cohorts were not in Afghanistan then (if ever) and it's silly to think that they would have disbanded and not continued with their efforts had we attacked bin Laden.
Has anybody been able to point to anything that happened in the first eight months of Bush's presidency that should have resulted in an upgrade of the terrorist threat from Al Queda, either abroad or at home?
Has anybody been able to point to anything that has happened since we invaded Iraq to indicate that our anti-terror teams have suffered from a lack of manpower, financial resources or intelligence? If not, why should one think that invading Iraq has hurt the war against terror?
For those who think US troops, had they not been sent into Iraq, would have been able to be used in the search for bin Laden, what can you point to that would demonstrate how those additional troops would have helped that search? Would we have sent in tanks into the mountains of Afghanistan? Since much of the search is taking place in Pakistan, would we have sent US combat troops into Pakistan?
Has anybody been able to point to anything that would indicate that the United States (not including US troops in Iraq) is more at risk of another terror attack as a result of our having invaded Iraq?
While Clarke is probably correct that he would have been fired if he had been publicly critical of the Bush team while employed at the White House, why hasn't anybody asked him why he thought it necessary to lie during that 2002 interview? Was he threatened with being fired if he didn't say what he did?
|
Does anybody really believe the foreign policy team in the Bush Administration chose to degrade the Al Queda threat from the threat level the Clinton team had established? That somehow the Clinton team actually took the Al Queda team more seriously? That would seem improbable: the Clinton team's lack of action was consistent with having treated Al Queda more as a nuisance than as a serious and credible threat (or is that the way Clinton dealt with credible threats?). Or is the more likely scenario that the Bush team did no worse than maintain the threat level left by the Clinton team while the Bush team discussed making changes in strategy?
Does anybody believe that had Bush launched an attack on Afghanistan on the first day of his Presidency that 9/11 would have been prevented? If so, why? Atta and his cohorts were not in Afghanistan then (if ever) and it's silly to think that they would have disbanded and not continued with their efforts had we attacked bin Laden.
Has anybody been able to point to anything that happened in the first eight months of Bush's presidency that should have resulted in an upgrade of the terrorist threat from Al Queda, either abroad or at home?
Has anybody been able to point to anything that has happened since we invaded Iraq to indicate that our anti-terror teams have suffered from a lack of manpower, financial resources or intelligence? If not, why should one think that invading Iraq has hurt the war against terror?
For those who think US troops, had they not been sent into Iraq, would have been able to be used in the search for bin Laden, what can you point to that would demonstrate how those additional troops would have helped that search? Would we have sent in tanks into the mountains of Afghanistan? Since much of the search is taking place in Pakistan, would we have sent US combat troops into Pakistan?
Has anybody been able to point to anything that would indicate that the United States (not including US troops in Iraq) is more at risk of another terror attack as a result of our having invaded Iraq?
While Clarke is probably correct that he would have been fired if he had been publicly critical of the Bush team while employed at the White House, why hasn't anybody asked him why he thought it necessary to lie during that 2002 interview? Was he threatened with being fired if he didn't say what he did?
|
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Some questions for those who think Israel's killing of Yassin wasn't smart...
Is there a difference between Yassin and bin Laden? Neither has actually set off any bombs, as they both have left the actual killing to others, both are disabled in a way (Yassin in a wheelchair, bin Laden reportedly suffers from kidney failure), they're both radical Muslims with a serious hatred for the United States and Israel, and both are the founders and the 'spiritual fathers' of their respective movements.
Should the United States refrain from taking out bin Laden should the opportunity arise? Wouldn't our killing bin Laden only spawn 'thousands and thousands of Islamic jihadists all volunteering to be martyrs'?
Since you probably think the situation that Israel is facing is different from what we face in this country, and many of us on the right disagree, is our failure to see things the same way an indication that we lack 'nuance'?
Since Bush is generally not thought of to think in terms of 'nuance', what accounts for the lack of an enthusiastic response from the White House?
And to those, like Andrew Stuttaford, who think that Israel's actions were a 'blunder', what do you think will happen to Israel as a result of this blunder and, more importantly, why do you think that result would not have taken place anyway? After all, it's not as if Israel's previous inability/lack of success at killing Yassin has brought peace to the Middle East.
If, on the other hand, nothing is going to happen to Israel as a result of killing Yassin that wouldn't have happened anyway, then would you have given the okay for the operation?
|
Is there a difference between Yassin and bin Laden? Neither has actually set off any bombs, as they both have left the actual killing to others, both are disabled in a way (Yassin in a wheelchair, bin Laden reportedly suffers from kidney failure), they're both radical Muslims with a serious hatred for the United States and Israel, and both are the founders and the 'spiritual fathers' of their respective movements.
Should the United States refrain from taking out bin Laden should the opportunity arise? Wouldn't our killing bin Laden only spawn 'thousands and thousands of Islamic jihadists all volunteering to be martyrs'?
Since you probably think the situation that Israel is facing is different from what we face in this country, and many of us on the right disagree, is our failure to see things the same way an indication that we lack 'nuance'?
Since Bush is generally not thought of to think in terms of 'nuance', what accounts for the lack of an enthusiastic response from the White House?
And to those, like Andrew Stuttaford, who think that Israel's actions were a 'blunder', what do you think will happen to Israel as a result of this blunder and, more importantly, why do you think that result would not have taken place anyway? After all, it's not as if Israel's previous inability/lack of success at killing Yassin has brought peace to the Middle East.
If, on the other hand, nothing is going to happen to Israel as a result of killing Yassin that wouldn't have happened anyway, then would you have given the okay for the operation?
|
Yes, cutting off the head of a snake is good, but there's nothing wrong with stomping on the rest of the snake, either.
|
|
With Arafat afraid he's next (why wasn't he first?), do you think he's more or less likely to engage in activities that will p*** off the Israelis?
|
|
Let's see, hundreds if not thousands of Hamas members and other Palestinians are parading through the streets, carrying weapons and vowing revenge on Israel... and Israel doesn't take a whole lot of them out with a few missiles? I think this is something the military guys would call a 'target rich environment'. Instead, we have Israel standing back, and treating this like a mafia funeral, supposedly off limits for settling scores. Come on Sharon, if you're really serious about taking out Hamas, and not just interested in some token gestures, you'd take EVERY opportunity to do so. This is/was one of them.
|
|
Monday, March 22, 2004
Question:
Since Kerry supporters are motivated more by their hatred/dislike of Bush than their fondness for Kerry, if the GOP was to launch a full scale attack on idiots such as this and call on the Kerry campaign to do the same, how would it play out?
Kerry could refuse to do so, which would raise some lousy guilt-by-association images with those voters who are not so hard core. After all, how many normal voters would want to think of themselves as having anything in common with this trash? Could there be a backlash, an exodus of 'normal' people from the Kerry camp?
On the other hand, if he believed this to be his "Sister Souljah" moment, if Kerry did disavow this fringe, what would it do to his support? Granted, blacks didn't desert Clinton, but would the same dynamic hold here? Would these "David Dukes*" remain so motivated to come out and vote? Or would they seek some other outlet (Nader) for their hatred of Bush?
Or, being a master of nuance and perhaps wanting to play both sides, Kerry might try to take both positions. If so, I don't think he could pull it off and would end up looking stupid to both sides. Ah, one can hope...
GOP, where are you?
* An example of a fringe candidate who was disavowed by his supposed soulmates with no damage.
|
Since Kerry supporters are motivated more by their hatred/dislike of Bush than their fondness for Kerry, if the GOP was to launch a full scale attack on idiots such as this and call on the Kerry campaign to do the same, how would it play out?
Kerry could refuse to do so, which would raise some lousy guilt-by-association images with those voters who are not so hard core. After all, how many normal voters would want to think of themselves as having anything in common with this trash? Could there be a backlash, an exodus of 'normal' people from the Kerry camp?
On the other hand, if he believed this to be his "Sister Souljah" moment, if Kerry did disavow this fringe, what would it do to his support? Granted, blacks didn't desert Clinton, but would the same dynamic hold here? Would these "David Dukes*" remain so motivated to come out and vote? Or would they seek some other outlet (Nader) for their hatred of Bush?
Or, being a master of nuance and perhaps wanting to play both sides, Kerry might try to take both positions. If so, I don't think he could pull it off and would end up looking stupid to both sides. Ah, one can hope...
GOP, where are you?
* An example of a fringe candidate who was disavowed by his supposed soulmates with no damage.
|
What was the White House doing, issuing a statement thatdeplored the Yassin killing? Were they hoping to pull a pre-emptive Spain, hoping that some appeasement talk was going to appease the terrorists?
Well, if they were, they've been proven wrong, as an al Qaeda-linked group just vowed revenge on the United States and its allies over Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
|
Well, if they were, they've been proven wrong, as an al Qaeda-linked group just vowed revenge on the United States and its allies over Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
|
How about that, talk about cheap thrills. I've finally become the number one link on Google Search for my name.....
|
|
Could the Pakistanis be any more incompetent? Since the days when we went into Afghanistan, much has been written about the tunnels the terrorists use to manuever. Why wouldn't the Pakistanis have set up LPs (listening posts) at likely spots outside the siege line to pick up hints of such activity? Because they're idiots, that's why.
|
|
I agree with the view that Israel's upcoming departure from parts of the West Bank and Gaza will be viewed as a sign of weakness by the Palestinians. I disagree that Israel's targeting of terrorist leaders is going to do anything to change that perception.
As I've written before, the Palestinians, while "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity", nonetheless don't miss many opportunities to spin lemons as lemonade. No matter how many terrorist leaders Israel is able to get, the Palestinians will view Israel's departure will as a sign of weakness, as a sign that the Palestinians are winning.
Of course, this doesn't mean that Israel shouldn't keep on getting as many as they can (Arafat? Arafat? Arafat?). They should. Hopefully, they will.
Why do this, asks Andrew Stuttaford on NRO? Simple. For the same reason the Israelis hunted down Eichman. For the same reason they hunted down the Munich terrorists. It's to show anyone who thinks they can kill Israelis with impunity that they in fact can not.
Now some of these terrorists may not care if they are killed. In fact, some may actually welcome the outcome (72 virgins anyone?). To deter head cases like these, Israel needs to make them question whether they will in fact have that nice outcome. One suggestion: the Russians, after the theater attack, reportedly ground up the bodies of the terrorists, mixing them with pig parts and burying them in parts unknown. Supposedly this would keep the soul of the terrorist (an oxymoron for sure) from entering heaven. Yucky, yes. Effective, maybe.
|
As I've written before, the Palestinians, while "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity", nonetheless don't miss many opportunities to spin lemons as lemonade. No matter how many terrorist leaders Israel is able to get, the Palestinians will view Israel's departure will as a sign of weakness, as a sign that the Palestinians are winning.
Of course, this doesn't mean that Israel shouldn't keep on getting as many as they can (Arafat? Arafat? Arafat?). They should. Hopefully, they will.
Why do this, asks Andrew Stuttaford on NRO? Simple. For the same reason the Israelis hunted down Eichman. For the same reason they hunted down the Munich terrorists. It's to show anyone who thinks they can kill Israelis with impunity that they in fact can not.
Now some of these terrorists may not care if they are killed. In fact, some may actually welcome the outcome (72 virgins anyone?). To deter head cases like these, Israel needs to make them question whether they will in fact have that nice outcome. One suggestion: the Russians, after the theater attack, reportedly ground up the bodies of the terrorists, mixing them with pig parts and burying them in parts unknown. Supposedly this would keep the soul of the terrorist (an oxymoron for sure) from entering heaven. Yucky, yes. Effective, maybe.
|
Of course, if this brain surgeon was only making 80,000 pounds a year, how good could he be? What kind of a medical system does England have that asks someone to go through all those years of education and training, to become the top of their profession, all to top out at something less than $150,000 a year?
|
|
Friday, March 19, 2004
So I guess that Kerry falls after all. Is this a new record for being proven a liar, less than one day?
|
|
I was thinking about a ripple effect of bad behavior in sports....
Let's start with the proposition that fans wishing for their team to win will condone behavior on the part of 'their' players that they would otherwise not be in favor of. Examples would include Iverson's sitting rather than playing as a sub, Knick fans excusing Spreewell's behavior while he was at Golden State, Philly fans (them again) not objecting to the Eagles picking up Owens, Randy Moss staying popular in Minnesota despite his own admission that he doesn't always play hard, SF Giant fans having no problem with Bond's (alleged) use of steroids, nor Yankee fans objecting to Giambi, Ravens fans not booing every time (alleged thug) Ray Lewis took the field, Vancouver fans wishing to explain away Bertuzzi's assault, and Laker fans not booing every time Kobe Bryant touched the ball. While these are easy examples, I'd also suggest Cal Ripkin's self-segregation from his teammates, Michael Jordan's willingness to not just beat, but humiliate an opponent, as examples of behavior that most of us would frown on if practiced elsewhere.
For everybody else, I suggest these fans end up having to accept such behavior in other parts of their lives. It's my belief that most fans are decent people who would never, in any other setting, accept or condone such behavior. Not from someone they are friends with, not with someone at work, not from a neighbor. Yet, they are so intent on being associated with a sports winner (and the backlash against front-runners keeps fans from easily switching allegiances to those teams who are winning) that they become willing accomplices in the degradation of society. For every time the fans cheer for an Iverson who isn't benched after pulling an antic, for every time fans cheer Bryant's latest 38 point night, instead of booing the team for not suspending him, these fans are telling the world that they accept such behavior, just so long as winning comes with it. By the way, OJ's problem is not that people think he killed his ex-wife, it's that he was no longer playing when he did it. If only he was still in his playing prime, there'd be fans - probably in Philly, NY or LA - who'd be cheering him on, Riviera Country Club would still give him a tee time and his jerseys would be selling off the shelves at Foot Locker.
And, it is a degradation of society that results. A dad who insists that Spreewell should not be permanently suspended has no authority with which to punish his son who later emulates Spreewell's actions. How does a fan who didn't turn his back on Michael Jordan for his antics later punish his kids if/when they do the same? How does a fan who continues to cheer for Bonds get upset when his teenage son turns to steroids in order to get the same kind of results that Bonds is alleged to have received? And, for the parents who cheer for their thug/goon/steroid user/locker room disruption on one day and actually try to keep their kids from doing the same thing the next day? They're seen as hypocrites by the kid, one of the worst things a kid can think of one of their parents. None of which is good, none of which has ANY positive consequences for society. All because some sports fan just can't stand to be without a winner.
By the way, I love sports. And, for me, it's hard to find a team worth cheering for, for most teams have at least one player, or in the case of the Redskins, an owner, whose behavior disqualifies them from, in my mind, being rooted for.
Now, there are undoubtably some fans who really don't have a problem with such behaviors - who think that such antics are just fine, no matter who does it and which team they are playing for - and this column is not aimed at them. Those people are the lost causes, for whom there is no hope. But, hopefully, they are in the minority...
|
Let's start with the proposition that fans wishing for their team to win will condone behavior on the part of 'their' players that they would otherwise not be in favor of. Examples would include Iverson's sitting rather than playing as a sub, Knick fans excusing Spreewell's behavior while he was at Golden State, Philly fans (them again) not objecting to the Eagles picking up Owens, Randy Moss staying popular in Minnesota despite his own admission that he doesn't always play hard, SF Giant fans having no problem with Bond's (alleged) use of steroids, nor Yankee fans objecting to Giambi, Ravens fans not booing every time (alleged thug) Ray Lewis took the field, Vancouver fans wishing to explain away Bertuzzi's assault, and Laker fans not booing every time Kobe Bryant touched the ball. While these are easy examples, I'd also suggest Cal Ripkin's self-segregation from his teammates, Michael Jordan's willingness to not just beat, but humiliate an opponent, as examples of behavior that most of us would frown on if practiced elsewhere.
For everybody else, I suggest these fans end up having to accept such behavior in other parts of their lives. It's my belief that most fans are decent people who would never, in any other setting, accept or condone such behavior. Not from someone they are friends with, not with someone at work, not from a neighbor. Yet, they are so intent on being associated with a sports winner (and the backlash against front-runners keeps fans from easily switching allegiances to those teams who are winning) that they become willing accomplices in the degradation of society. For every time the fans cheer for an Iverson who isn't benched after pulling an antic, for every time fans cheer Bryant's latest 38 point night, instead of booing the team for not suspending him, these fans are telling the world that they accept such behavior, just so long as winning comes with it. By the way, OJ's problem is not that people think he killed his ex-wife, it's that he was no longer playing when he did it. If only he was still in his playing prime, there'd be fans - probably in Philly, NY or LA - who'd be cheering him on, Riviera Country Club would still give him a tee time and his jerseys would be selling off the shelves at Foot Locker.
And, it is a degradation of society that results. A dad who insists that Spreewell should not be permanently suspended has no authority with which to punish his son who later emulates Spreewell's actions. How does a fan who didn't turn his back on Michael Jordan for his antics later punish his kids if/when they do the same? How does a fan who continues to cheer for Bonds get upset when his teenage son turns to steroids in order to get the same kind of results that Bonds is alleged to have received? And, for the parents who cheer for their thug/goon/steroid user/locker room disruption on one day and actually try to keep their kids from doing the same thing the next day? They're seen as hypocrites by the kid, one of the worst things a kid can think of one of their parents. None of which is good, none of which has ANY positive consequences for society. All because some sports fan just can't stand to be without a winner.
By the way, I love sports. And, for me, it's hard to find a team worth cheering for, for most teams have at least one player, or in the case of the Redskins, an owner, whose behavior disqualifies them from, in my mind, being rooted for.
Now, there are undoubtably some fans who really don't have a problem with such behaviors - who think that such antics are just fine, no matter who does it and which team they are playing for - and this column is not aimed at them. Those people are the lost causes, for whom there is no hope. But, hopefully, they are in the minority...
|
I wonder if a different interpretation of this poll is that the world would think more highly of us, if only we had done nothing in response to 9-11. It's actually not so far-fetched a concept, as Spain has shown us the 'preferred way' of responding to terror.
|
|
OK, he's gone and ruined it.
I've snowboarded for over 15 years now, starting way back when the equipment stunk (LL Bean mud boots and Sorels to start with), and you had to teach yourself how to board, usually by falling down a lot. My first experience with prescription painkillers and learning new medical terms (compression fracture) came about as a result of some of my less than graceful falls (catch back edge, land on back, pivot on head, land on stomach, slide down hill until crash into large mogul). I've ignored the complaints from skiers - family included - who freak out at the mere sound of a snowboard cutting across a trail. I've learned to ride fakey, catch more air and bounce off moguls on a board better than I ever could on skis. In other words, it was a great, great sport.
I've even stayed with it as it exploded in popularity, just shaking my head as old ladies and dorks were giving it a go, wearing the board pants and the padded gloves, sounding silly as they were throwing off snowboarding lingo (c'mon now, a 50 year old talking like a teenager?). I just kept telling myself that I had been there first, before it was hip, my boarding, while not great, was good enough to handle the double blacks and not humiliate myself on the pipe.
But, now here comes Kerry here and here. It's enough to make me want to find something else to do....
Oh, by the way, Kerry's comment that "I don't fall down"? If you're a real boarder, you fall down, every now and then. If you don't, you aren't doing anything really worth doing, you're just taking up space on the mountain. And his blaming the agent who cut across his path? Sure, such things happen. But any boarder with a bit of ability anticipates skiers cutting across the fall line and are able to react. Again, such a dork!
|
I've snowboarded for over 15 years now, starting way back when the equipment stunk (LL Bean mud boots and Sorels to start with), and you had to teach yourself how to board, usually by falling down a lot. My first experience with prescription painkillers and learning new medical terms (compression fracture) came about as a result of some of my less than graceful falls (catch back edge, land on back, pivot on head, land on stomach, slide down hill until crash into large mogul). I've ignored the complaints from skiers - family included - who freak out at the mere sound of a snowboard cutting across a trail. I've learned to ride fakey, catch more air and bounce off moguls on a board better than I ever could on skis. In other words, it was a great, great sport.
I've even stayed with it as it exploded in popularity, just shaking my head as old ladies and dorks were giving it a go, wearing the board pants and the padded gloves, sounding silly as they were throwing off snowboarding lingo (c'mon now, a 50 year old talking like a teenager?). I just kept telling myself that I had been there first, before it was hip, my boarding, while not great, was good enough to handle the double blacks and not humiliate myself on the pipe.
But, now here comes Kerry here and here. It's enough to make me want to find something else to do....
Oh, by the way, Kerry's comment that "I don't fall down"? If you're a real boarder, you fall down, every now and then. If you don't, you aren't doing anything really worth doing, you're just taking up space on the mountain. And his blaming the agent who cut across his path? Sure, such things happen. But any boarder with a bit of ability anticipates skiers cutting across the fall line and are able to react. Again, such a dork!
|
Thursday, March 18, 2004
David Adesnik , responding to one of my posts that called for Bush to criticize the results of the election in Spain rightfully pointed out that doing so would be a "gross violation of diplomatic protocol", adding that "offensive statements tend to have the exact opposite of the intended effect, since voters don't want to be told by foreign politicians -- especially American presidents -- whom they should vote for".
While I agree with David in some ways, I stand by my call for Bush to make a statement that condemns the Spanish vote. For this statement was not really to be addressed to the Spaniards, but rather to three other audiences: the terrorists, the citizens of other coalition countries and to us Americans.
By all accounts, the terrorists feel their attack on Spain has been a success, so it's imperative that Bush tell them that such an attack on America will not have similar results. Doing so in such a way as I proposed - a gross violation of diplomatic protocol - would emphasize the seriousness of such a statement.
Bush also needs to let the people in other coalition countries know that we are standing firm in our conviction. Other countries may choose, as is their right, to surrender, as Spain chose to do. What Bush needs to say is that we will not abandon any country that decides to stand firm with us. And criticizing the vote in Spain is a great way to do just that.
And Bush needs to address America as well. We need to be reminded - especially after reports that Spain is to be 'left alone' by the terrorists - that such a course for us is not an option. Bush needs to reiterate that we need to resist the calls from around the world, and from some at home, that will insist that, if only we were as enlightened as Spain, we too would be able to live in a terror free world.
These are important points to make. Important enough to not rest on diplomatic niceties.
|
While I agree with David in some ways, I stand by my call for Bush to make a statement that condemns the Spanish vote. For this statement was not really to be addressed to the Spaniards, but rather to three other audiences: the terrorists, the citizens of other coalition countries and to us Americans.
By all accounts, the terrorists feel their attack on Spain has been a success, so it's imperative that Bush tell them that such an attack on America will not have similar results. Doing so in such a way as I proposed - a gross violation of diplomatic protocol - would emphasize the seriousness of such a statement.
Bush also needs to let the people in other coalition countries know that we are standing firm in our conviction. Other countries may choose, as is their right, to surrender, as Spain chose to do. What Bush needs to say is that we will not abandon any country that decides to stand firm with us. And criticizing the vote in Spain is a great way to do just that.
And Bush needs to address America as well. We need to be reminded - especially after reports that Spain is to be 'left alone' by the terrorists - that such a course for us is not an option. Bush needs to reiterate that we need to resist the calls from around the world, and from some at home, that will insist that, if only we were as enlightened as Spain, we too would be able to live in a terror free world.
These are important points to make. Important enough to not rest on diplomatic niceties.
|
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
I'm waiting for somebody writing about the comeback of the Terps to point out it was Gary Williams' finally getting away from the pound-it-into-the-middle as first, second and third option offense that he is so fond of and instead letting Gilchrist take on much more of a scoring role.
Before the switch, we'd watch three players pass the ball around the perimeter looking for one of the two inside players. The opposing defense, not concerned about dribble penetration nor the 3 point shot (Williams doesn't like going to that too early in the shot clock) played two defenders against the perimeter passers and kept 3 defenders inside, which made it near impossible for MD to find a post player in a good position (defender on the back, with no close in help). Eventually, as the shot clock ran down, MD's perimeter players would either force it inside (lots of turnovers) where a teammate, lacking the good footwork of a Baxter or Ekezie, would take a low percentage shot or one of the perimeter players would force up a rushed outside shot (lousy shooting percentage).
Now, Gilchrist has apparently been given permission to dribble penetrate, which opens up the big guys inside. He's also been given permission to shoot from the outside earlier in the possession, which forces the defender to play tighter defense, which in turn opens up things for the other two perimeter passers.
Kudos to Gary for making the move. My criticisms of Gary have been that he seems too set in running his offense, and not making changes - other than substitutions - when things weren't working out. When he's had the players, that was fine. But this year he hasn't had the low post players with consistent back to the basket moves. He hasn't had the dependable mid-range jump shooter, capable of taking his defender off the dribble and creating his own shot. He hasn't had the reliable 3 point shooter (Jones still needs time to work on other areas of his game). I was concerned that this year would be more of the 'do it harder' approach I've seen in the past. I'm glad it hasn't turned out that way. Nice job Gary, for showing that even at your advanced age, you're capable of being flexible.
|
Before the switch, we'd watch three players pass the ball around the perimeter looking for one of the two inside players. The opposing defense, not concerned about dribble penetration nor the 3 point shot (Williams doesn't like going to that too early in the shot clock) played two defenders against the perimeter passers and kept 3 defenders inside, which made it near impossible for MD to find a post player in a good position (defender on the back, with no close in help). Eventually, as the shot clock ran down, MD's perimeter players would either force it inside (lots of turnovers) where a teammate, lacking the good footwork of a Baxter or Ekezie, would take a low percentage shot or one of the perimeter players would force up a rushed outside shot (lousy shooting percentage).
Now, Gilchrist has apparently been given permission to dribble penetrate, which opens up the big guys inside. He's also been given permission to shoot from the outside earlier in the possession, which forces the defender to play tighter defense, which in turn opens up things for the other two perimeter passers.
Kudos to Gary for making the move. My criticisms of Gary have been that he seems too set in running his offense, and not making changes - other than substitutions - when things weren't working out. When he's had the players, that was fine. But this year he hasn't had the low post players with consistent back to the basket moves. He hasn't had the dependable mid-range jump shooter, capable of taking his defender off the dribble and creating his own shot. He hasn't had the reliable 3 point shooter (Jones still needs time to work on other areas of his game). I was concerned that this year would be more of the 'do it harder' approach I've seen in the past. I'm glad it hasn't turned out that way. Nice job Gary, for showing that even at your advanced age, you're capable of being flexible.
|
C'mon GOP, this is an opportunity you can't afford to pass up...
According to Howard Dean, Bush is responsible for the Madrid bombings. Apparently, Dean's logic holds that any time one responds to terror, they become responsible for any subsequent terror attacks anytime, anywhere - so the only proper course to take when facing the possibility of terror attacks is to avoid doing anything that might p*** off the terrorists. And, since responding to terror attacks isn't what makes terrorists happy, we should all avoid doing just that.
The GOP needs to publicize Dean's comments and challenge Kerry to publicly disavow them. Kerry's failure to do so - and I guarantee he will fail to do so - will only reinforce the public's perception of Kerry, and the Democrats as a party, as not worthy of being trusted with our nation's security.
Notice also the position Dean has put Kerry in. Since Kerry voted to support the Iraq invasion, no matter how he now tries to spin his vote - wouldn't Kerry have contributory responsibility as well for the attack in Madrid? I'd like to see Kerry dodge that charge.
Moving on to further pick apart at Dean's thinking, wouldn't it have been Spain that was responsible for the bombing, since it was their decision to send their troops to Iraq that pissed off the terrorists? After all, we sent troops and we haven't been bombed since (fingers crossed). Of course, Turkey and Saudi Arabia were both attacked and neither of them supported the war nor lent troops to the effort - I wonder who Dean would blame for those attacks. Oh yeah, Bush.
UPDATE: Kudos to the GOP for jumping on this and it looks like Kerry is (unsurprisingly) trying to distance himself a bit. Don't let it rest GOP, there's still much ground to gain with this! Demand that Kerry not just distance himself from these comments, but that he DISAVOW and REPUDIATE! Put him in a position of p***ing off the Deaniacs...
UPDATE II: Wouldn't Spain's failure to follow up on leads about the terrorists be something to look at when deciding who to blame?
|
According to Howard Dean, Bush is responsible for the Madrid bombings. Apparently, Dean's logic holds that any time one responds to terror, they become responsible for any subsequent terror attacks anytime, anywhere - so the only proper course to take when facing the possibility of terror attacks is to avoid doing anything that might p*** off the terrorists. And, since responding to terror attacks isn't what makes terrorists happy, we should all avoid doing just that.
The GOP needs to publicize Dean's comments and challenge Kerry to publicly disavow them. Kerry's failure to do so - and I guarantee he will fail to do so - will only reinforce the public's perception of Kerry, and the Democrats as a party, as not worthy of being trusted with our nation's security.
Notice also the position Dean has put Kerry in. Since Kerry voted to support the Iraq invasion, no matter how he now tries to spin his vote - wouldn't Kerry have contributory responsibility as well for the attack in Madrid? I'd like to see Kerry dodge that charge.
Moving on to further pick apart at Dean's thinking, wouldn't it have been Spain that was responsible for the bombing, since it was their decision to send their troops to Iraq that pissed off the terrorists? After all, we sent troops and we haven't been bombed since (fingers crossed). Of course, Turkey and Saudi Arabia were both attacked and neither of them supported the war nor lent troops to the effort - I wonder who Dean would blame for those attacks. Oh yeah, Bush.
UPDATE: Kudos to the GOP for jumping on this and it looks like Kerry is (unsurprisingly) trying to distance himself a bit. Don't let it rest GOP, there's still much ground to gain with this! Demand that Kerry not just distance himself from these comments, but that he DISAVOW and REPUDIATE! Put him in a position of p***ing off the Deaniacs...
UPDATE II: Wouldn't Spain's failure to follow up on leads about the terrorists be something to look at when deciding who to blame?
|
More on the KBM (Kerry Bear Market)...
Bushstarts hitting back, Kerry's poll numbers start to drop, the market goes up on Tuesday and is up 76 points so far today.
|
Bushstarts hitting back, Kerry's poll numbers start to drop, the market goes up on Tuesday and is up 76 points so far today.
|
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Just thinking about how it's supposed to be illegal to take political contributions from non-US citizens....
Keeping in the spirit of this, shouldn't Kerry publicly disavow any support from foreigners?
|
Keeping in the spirit of this, shouldn't Kerry publicly disavow any support from foreigners?
|
James Taranto links to a Kerry story about a dog his boat crew had in Vietnam.
Quote:
Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally?
When I was serving on a swiftboat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called VC. We all took care of him, and he stayed with us and loved riding on the swiftboat deck. I think he provided all of us with a link to home and a few moments of peace and tranquility during a dangerous time. One day as our swiftboat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat. After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA. Several minutes of frantic search followed after which we thought we'd lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog. It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed confused, but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol.
This can't be believed, can it?
Kerry's boat was "heading up a river", which means the boat was moving. I assume Naval doctrine in those days called for ships to maintain a minimum distance from one another in order to minimize damage and casualties in the event one ship draws hostile fire, hits a mine, etc. How far away from Kerry's boat was this other boat - 20 yards, 50 yards, 100 yards? Even if they weren't strictly adhering to doctrine, there ought to have been some separation; there's no reason I can think why one boat would be running upriver with another boat tied to its stern.
So, we have Kerry claiming that his ship hit a mine that generated enough explosive energy to propel this dog (the weight of the dog is unknown, so I can't do the physics calculation... hey, I'm not a physics major so I couldn't do the calcs even if I knew the weight of the dog) some 40 yards or so through the air, without hurting the dog? Unlikely.
Now, what are the odds of the dog being catapulted from Kerry's moving boat and landing on another moving boat? It must have been the perfect combination of launch angle, distance, explosive force, trajectory and the like for that to have happened. I know for a fact that this is no easy thing to do: think how hard it is to win that silly carnival frog game - and that's from a stationary platform. Maybe this happens in the movies, but not in real life. Wait a minute, in the remake of Starsky & Hutch, they tried launching a car into the air trying to land it on a moving boat. They failed miserably. So, I take it back, it doesn't even happen in the movies.
And, Kerry's account refers only to "picking ourselves up" after the explosion. There's an explosion so forceful that it launches the dog into near earth orbit and all Kerry and his crew have to do is 'pick themselves up'? Again, I'm no physics major, but wouldn't it reasonable to think that an explosion with that much force wouldn't have seriously damaged the boat? What about his crew - granted they're all likely to have been bigger than the dog, and perhaps better able to absorb the shock, but none of them were hurt, knocked out, knocked overboard?
Anybody care to pick up and run with this?
|
Quote:
Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally?
When I was serving on a swiftboat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called VC. We all took care of him, and he stayed with us and loved riding on the swiftboat deck. I think he provided all of us with a link to home and a few moments of peace and tranquility during a dangerous time. One day as our swiftboat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat. After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA. Several minutes of frantic search followed after which we thought we'd lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog. It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed confused, but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol.
This can't be believed, can it?
Kerry's boat was "heading up a river", which means the boat was moving. I assume Naval doctrine in those days called for ships to maintain a minimum distance from one another in order to minimize damage and casualties in the event one ship draws hostile fire, hits a mine, etc. How far away from Kerry's boat was this other boat - 20 yards, 50 yards, 100 yards? Even if they weren't strictly adhering to doctrine, there ought to have been some separation; there's no reason I can think why one boat would be running upriver with another boat tied to its stern.
So, we have Kerry claiming that his ship hit a mine that generated enough explosive energy to propel this dog (the weight of the dog is unknown, so I can't do the physics calculation... hey, I'm not a physics major so I couldn't do the calcs even if I knew the weight of the dog) some 40 yards or so through the air, without hurting the dog? Unlikely.
Now, what are the odds of the dog being catapulted from Kerry's moving boat and landing on another moving boat? It must have been the perfect combination of launch angle, distance, explosive force, trajectory and the like for that to have happened. I know for a fact that this is no easy thing to do: think how hard it is to win that silly carnival frog game - and that's from a stationary platform. Maybe this happens in the movies, but not in real life. Wait a minute, in the remake of Starsky & Hutch, they tried launching a car into the air trying to land it on a moving boat. They failed miserably. So, I take it back, it doesn't even happen in the movies.
And, Kerry's account refers only to "picking ourselves up" after the explosion. There's an explosion so forceful that it launches the dog into near earth orbit and all Kerry and his crew have to do is 'pick themselves up'? Again, I'm no physics major, but wouldn't it reasonable to think that an explosion with that much force wouldn't have seriously damaged the boat? What about his crew - granted they're all likely to have been bigger than the dog, and perhaps better able to absorb the shock, but none of them were hurt, knocked out, knocked overboard?
Anybody care to pick up and run with this?
|
Ifthis were true, why wouldn't Kerry have just denied making the comment that more 'foreign' leaders wanted him to win? Isn't it odd that Kerry would take flak for something that he didn't say? What an idiot.
|
|
Monday, March 15, 2004
Some more thinking about the bombing in Spain, the election results and other somewhat connected topics...
I think far too much credit is being given the terrorists. I don't think they're terribly sophisticated, they don't seem to have much in the way of resources, and I believe they're very limited in the areas in which they can operate. I base this on my thinking of what a sophisticated group would do if they truly had a global reach and access to a bottomless pile of weapons and volunteers.
Think about it: if there were as many terrorists as has been estimated and they had access to explosives and were as technically advanced as some think, wouldn't they be able to pull off attacks more than once every couple of months? On Sept 11th, their big push was 19 terrorists, four planes, leaving from two cities. Nothing else that day, nothing since then. Why no follow up since then? Is it that they lack for targets? I don't think they lack for time or is it they can't get off the midnight shift at 7-11? While the 9/11 attacks required a fair amount of lead time (learning to fly), other attacks haven't required nearly as much. Why haven't they pulled off more Madrid type train bombings? How much planning do they have to do to carry a couple of duffel bags onto a commuter train? Why haven't they bombed more embassies, housing compounds or other targets? How much effort does it take to pack a truck with explosives, park it somewhere, run away and trigger the explosion? They've supposedly have an unlimited supply of martyrs-to-be, so why haven't they pulled off bus bombings like the Palestinians do in Israel? Jeez, if the Palestinians can pull that type of attack, why can't an 'elite' organization like Al Queda pull off something just as big? Why isn't there an explosion going off every other day? Every month?
And, as deadly as conventional explosives are, we've seen nothing beyond that (thank goodness). No radioactive dumps, no chemical or biological releases, nothing worse than than what has been used for decades. If their tentacles reached as far as some claim, why haven't we suffered from such an attack? This is not to say that they're not trying to pull off such an attack, just that they haven't been able to do so yet.
Nor do I think they're terribly sophisticated in their thinking or planning. I don't see the equivalent of a terrorist CIA, where their analysts pore over reports and make recommendations as to what should be attacked and when. I think they're nothing more than a bunch of fanatics scattered around the world, sharing their ideas and plans through Internet chat rooms and an occasional visit. It's possible that they're just opportunistic in their targeting: a couple of terrorists in a particular area get themselves some explosives, download from the Internet instructions on using a remote triggering device, sit down at their local Starbucks and pick some target. Nothing elaborate, just opportunistic. There's been no attack on any hard targets, the kind that would require inside information. Nor has there been any significant coordination of attacks around the world, no truly global day of terror. Wouldn't such a series of attacks do more to shake the foundations than the every now and then attacks we now see? I think the fact that we haven't seen such coordinated attacks is an indicator that the terrorists don't have the capability of pulling it off.
I wonder if their access to explosives varies that much from the way someone can go out and get drugs: they pass the word they're interested, someone passes the word to someone else, who knows somebody who knows somebody and eventually buyer and seller meet in some alley or third floor walkup and conduct their business. Nothing particularly fancy, no drug boats speeding in off the coast or Gulfstreams coming in below the radar, just some idiot with some C4 in the trunk of his car hoping nobody searches him at the next border crossing.
Moving on a bit, there's been much handwringing over the election in Spain and how it means the terrorists have 'won'. Well, as much as I disprove of the outcome, I don't think it really matters in the long term. A couple of reasons: being fanatics, they're blind to arguments from the other side; everything they do is for the right reasons, everything they do is ordained by Allah, and everything they do advances their cause - no matter what an objective observer might think. They attacked the US, we responded by wiping out their bases in Afghanistan and killing and capturing a whole bunch of them, they spin the whole thing as a tremendous victory for their cause. Bin Laden is stuck roaming around in the mountatins, that's a great victory. They blow up some Iraqi police candidates, it's a great victory. Whether or not the Spaniards decided to emulate the French this past weekend, the terrorists would have proclaimed a great victory, a story to be told round the dinner tables for generations to come. Another reason, as I posted below, is that Spain really wasn't contributing that much to our cause. They were there primarily to defend against the John Kerry's of the left who judge the worthiness of our foreign policy by the number of foreign leaders who agree. Spain wasn't needed for any logistical or material reasons, it would have been rude to turn them down and they won't be missed.
It's also interesting that, for all the talk of this being a war on terror, people don't really view it as such. There's a couple of reasons for this. First, a war is a series of battles over a period of time. One side takes some hits, hits back at the other side, back and forth until one side of the other throws in the towel. The Cole bombing, 9/11, Khobar Towers were the terrorists taking shots at us. Afghanistan, Iraq, a Predator missile in Yeman were some of our responses. So far, with neither the US nor the terrorists ready to concede, the fight continues. At least that's the way people would view things if this were viewed as a war. Instead, people seem to view each attack as a separate event. Unlike WWII, where there was Pearl Harbor, Midway, the Phillipines, Okinawa and the like - separate battles in a clearly defined war - people seem to not now connect the dots. Part of the reason for this is the Democrats trying to portray this as a law enforcement matter, and not something for the military. Another part of the reason for this perception problem is that in a war, there's usually a clearly defined 'other side'. Here, we don't have such a clear enemy. Since the Bush White House has made such an effort at keeping us from thinking this is a war against Muslims, and there is no single country on which to affix our attention, bin Laden is the only thing that we can focus our attention on and tie everything to. Paradoxically, his being captured or killed may actually set back our efforts at dealing with the fanatics scattered across the world. Capturing him will remove that thread and will allow too many people to think the war is over and petition for a relaxation of security... and maybe even elect Kerry, since as with Clinton in 92, it would be 'safe' to do so. It's hard to believe that capturing bin Laden might be bad for our security, but it might be true....
|
I think far too much credit is being given the terrorists. I don't think they're terribly sophisticated, they don't seem to have much in the way of resources, and I believe they're very limited in the areas in which they can operate. I base this on my thinking of what a sophisticated group would do if they truly had a global reach and access to a bottomless pile of weapons and volunteers.
Think about it: if there were as many terrorists as has been estimated and they had access to explosives and were as technically advanced as some think, wouldn't they be able to pull off attacks more than once every couple of months? On Sept 11th, their big push was 19 terrorists, four planes, leaving from two cities. Nothing else that day, nothing since then. Why no follow up since then? Is it that they lack for targets? I don't think they lack for time or is it they can't get off the midnight shift at 7-11? While the 9/11 attacks required a fair amount of lead time (learning to fly), other attacks haven't required nearly as much. Why haven't they pulled off more Madrid type train bombings? How much planning do they have to do to carry a couple of duffel bags onto a commuter train? Why haven't they bombed more embassies, housing compounds or other targets? How much effort does it take to pack a truck with explosives, park it somewhere, run away and trigger the explosion? They've supposedly have an unlimited supply of martyrs-to-be, so why haven't they pulled off bus bombings like the Palestinians do in Israel? Jeez, if the Palestinians can pull that type of attack, why can't an 'elite' organization like Al Queda pull off something just as big? Why isn't there an explosion going off every other day? Every month?
And, as deadly as conventional explosives are, we've seen nothing beyond that (thank goodness). No radioactive dumps, no chemical or biological releases, nothing worse than than what has been used for decades. If their tentacles reached as far as some claim, why haven't we suffered from such an attack? This is not to say that they're not trying to pull off such an attack, just that they haven't been able to do so yet.
Nor do I think they're terribly sophisticated in their thinking or planning. I don't see the equivalent of a terrorist CIA, where their analysts pore over reports and make recommendations as to what should be attacked and when. I think they're nothing more than a bunch of fanatics scattered around the world, sharing their ideas and plans through Internet chat rooms and an occasional visit. It's possible that they're just opportunistic in their targeting: a couple of terrorists in a particular area get themselves some explosives, download from the Internet instructions on using a remote triggering device, sit down at their local Starbucks and pick some target. Nothing elaborate, just opportunistic. There's been no attack on any hard targets, the kind that would require inside information. Nor has there been any significant coordination of attacks around the world, no truly global day of terror. Wouldn't such a series of attacks do more to shake the foundations than the every now and then attacks we now see? I think the fact that we haven't seen such coordinated attacks is an indicator that the terrorists don't have the capability of pulling it off.
I wonder if their access to explosives varies that much from the way someone can go out and get drugs: they pass the word they're interested, someone passes the word to someone else, who knows somebody who knows somebody and eventually buyer and seller meet in some alley or third floor walkup and conduct their business. Nothing particularly fancy, no drug boats speeding in off the coast or Gulfstreams coming in below the radar, just some idiot with some C4 in the trunk of his car hoping nobody searches him at the next border crossing.
Moving on a bit, there's been much handwringing over the election in Spain and how it means the terrorists have 'won'. Well, as much as I disprove of the outcome, I don't think it really matters in the long term. A couple of reasons: being fanatics, they're blind to arguments from the other side; everything they do is for the right reasons, everything they do is ordained by Allah, and everything they do advances their cause - no matter what an objective observer might think. They attacked the US, we responded by wiping out their bases in Afghanistan and killing and capturing a whole bunch of them, they spin the whole thing as a tremendous victory for their cause. Bin Laden is stuck roaming around in the mountatins, that's a great victory. They blow up some Iraqi police candidates, it's a great victory. Whether or not the Spaniards decided to emulate the French this past weekend, the terrorists would have proclaimed a great victory, a story to be told round the dinner tables for generations to come. Another reason, as I posted below, is that Spain really wasn't contributing that much to our cause. They were there primarily to defend against the John Kerry's of the left who judge the worthiness of our foreign policy by the number of foreign leaders who agree. Spain wasn't needed for any logistical or material reasons, it would have been rude to turn them down and they won't be missed.
It's also interesting that, for all the talk of this being a war on terror, people don't really view it as such. There's a couple of reasons for this. First, a war is a series of battles over a period of time. One side takes some hits, hits back at the other side, back and forth until one side of the other throws in the towel. The Cole bombing, 9/11, Khobar Towers were the terrorists taking shots at us. Afghanistan, Iraq, a Predator missile in Yeman were some of our responses. So far, with neither the US nor the terrorists ready to concede, the fight continues. At least that's the way people would view things if this were viewed as a war. Instead, people seem to view each attack as a separate event. Unlike WWII, where there was Pearl Harbor, Midway, the Phillipines, Okinawa and the like - separate battles in a clearly defined war - people seem to not now connect the dots. Part of the reason for this is the Democrats trying to portray this as a law enforcement matter, and not something for the military. Another part of the reason for this perception problem is that in a war, there's usually a clearly defined 'other side'. Here, we don't have such a clear enemy. Since the Bush White House has made such an effort at keeping us from thinking this is a war against Muslims, and there is no single country on which to affix our attention, bin Laden is the only thing that we can focus our attention on and tie everything to. Paradoxically, his being captured or killed may actually set back our efforts at dealing with the fanatics scattered across the world. Capturing him will remove that thread and will allow too many people to think the war is over and petition for a relaxation of security... and maybe even elect Kerry, since as with Clinton in 92, it would be 'safe' to do so. It's hard to believe that capturing bin Laden might be bad for our security, but it might be true....
|
While I'm certainly critical of the outcome of Spain's vote, their decision to pull their troops outof Iraq shouldn't be viewed as a terrible blow to US efforts.
Spain's contribution was mostly psychological, helping mostly to deflect Democratic cries of US-unilateralism. Spain's military contingent (like everybody but Englands) was but a token force and their being withdrawn doesn't do much to upset the balance of power in Iraq. Nor will it put that much of an additional burden on US troops.
So long as we stay committed to the course in Iraq, whether or not Spain has boots on the ground there won't really matter.
Bonus question: if a bombing that kills a whopping 200 dead Spaniards is sufficient for the terrorists to get the Spaniards to pull out of Iraq, then what will they get if the next bombing is even more lethal? Predictions are being taken.
|
Spain's contribution was mostly psychological, helping mostly to deflect Democratic cries of US-unilateralism. Spain's military contingent (like everybody but Englands) was but a token force and their being withdrawn doesn't do much to upset the balance of power in Iraq. Nor will it put that much of an additional burden on US troops.
So long as we stay committed to the course in Iraq, whether or not Spain has boots on the ground there won't really matter.
Bonus question: if a bombing that kills a whopping 200 dead Spaniards is sufficient for the terrorists to get the Spaniards to pull out of Iraq, then what will they get if the next bombing is even more lethal? Predictions are being taken.
|
Is this Kerry's version
of Gore's "Love Story was all about me"?
Proposed Bush campaign slogan: Kerry, the new Gore?
|
of Gore's "Love Story was all about me"?
Proposed Bush campaign slogan: Kerry, the new Gore?
|
As I wrote over a year ago, there is no such thing as permanent allies. Other countries will always take the positions - economically, politically, militarily - that they believe to be beneficial to them. If sometimes those positions mesh with ours, great. If not, so be it, we'll stick to the course that makes sense for us.
While I certainly disprove of the results of the Spanish vote, it's certainly their perogative to choose the path they have. Maybe the Spaniards have bought themselves some peace and quiet, as the terrorists will now pick targets elsewhere. Maybe the Spaniards will have bought themselves more trouble down the road as they have now, as goes the old joke, just named their price (how does one say surrender in Spanish?).
It's critical that Bush address this vote in an address to the American people. He needs to express disappointment with the outcome in Spain. This is not the time for diplomatic niceties. We need to do more than issue some Foggy Bottom bland statement of support for the democratic process. This was a bad choice the Spaniards made and Bush needs to let us - and the world, especially the terrorists - know that is how we view it. The Spaniards chose a path of appeasement and Bush needs to remind us - and the world - that appeasement doesn't work - never has and never will.
Even more important, he needs to send a signal to the terrorists that what worked in Spain will not work here in the United States. He needs to remind the world that we don't walk away from fights - we'll leave that to the Europeans. As he has said many times before, but needs to say again, this is not a fight of our choosing, but it is a fight that we need to have. He needs to remind us all that, unlike Spain, we are one of the ultimate targets of the terror and thus can not expect to hide our heads and hope that we get left alone. He needs to again tell the American people - and especially his Democratic critics who think the justification for a fight is somehow related to the number of allies one has - that this is a fight that, if need be, we're willing to stand alone on. Allies are nice, but not necessary. There are some fights that need to be fought, regardless of whom is in your corner, who is on the other side and who has decided to watch from the sidelines.
Americans know this in their hearts, but - unfortunately, it's still necessary for Bush to remind us of that.
UPDATE: Who comes next, who's up to be attacked next? England? Australia? Maybe Blair and Howard need to make the same speech to their people as I suggest Bush makes for us.
|
While I certainly disprove of the results of the Spanish vote, it's certainly their perogative to choose the path they have. Maybe the Spaniards have bought themselves some peace and quiet, as the terrorists will now pick targets elsewhere. Maybe the Spaniards will have bought themselves more trouble down the road as they have now, as goes the old joke, just named their price (how does one say surrender in Spanish?).
It's critical that Bush address this vote in an address to the American people. He needs to express disappointment with the outcome in Spain. This is not the time for diplomatic niceties. We need to do more than issue some Foggy Bottom bland statement of support for the democratic process. This was a bad choice the Spaniards made and Bush needs to let us - and the world, especially the terrorists - know that is how we view it. The Spaniards chose a path of appeasement and Bush needs to remind us - and the world - that appeasement doesn't work - never has and never will.
Even more important, he needs to send a signal to the terrorists that what worked in Spain will not work here in the United States. He needs to remind the world that we don't walk away from fights - we'll leave that to the Europeans. As he has said many times before, but needs to say again, this is not a fight of our choosing, but it is a fight that we need to have. He needs to remind us all that, unlike Spain, we are one of the ultimate targets of the terror and thus can not expect to hide our heads and hope that we get left alone. He needs to again tell the American people - and especially his Democratic critics who think the justification for a fight is somehow related to the number of allies one has - that this is a fight that, if need be, we're willing to stand alone on. Allies are nice, but not necessary. There are some fights that need to be fought, regardless of whom is in your corner, who is on the other side and who has decided to watch from the sidelines.
Americans know this in their hearts, but - unfortunately, it's still necessary for Bush to remind us of that.
UPDATE: Who comes next, who's up to be attacked next? England? Australia? Maybe Blair and Howard need to make the same speech to their people as I suggest Bush makes for us.
|
Friday, March 12, 2004
Kerry is reported to view the war on terror as a law enforcement operation, in which the police take the lead in handling things. Bush, on the other hand, looks to involve both law enforcement agencies and military forces.
Leaving aside for a moment the question of who is right, if Kerry were truly serious about fighting this war we should expect to see him proposing new powers and funding for the police and intelligence agencies. More money for local law enforcement and the FBI, more money for the CIA and the other intelligence agencies. More powers for local law enforcement and the FBI, more powers for the CIA and the other intelligence agencies.
Actually, while having voted for the Patriot Act, he now acts as if the Patriot Act is more of a threat to Americans than the terrorists themselves. He's waxed indignant over the detaining of terror suspects. And I have yet to hear of any Kerry proposal to grant law enforcement more power to investigate and prevent terror threats against this country. I have yet to hear of any Kerry proposal to give a couple of billion more to the CIA.
Should we all infer from this that Kerry not only thinks the war on terror is a matter for just the police, but that he also feels that the police and intelligence agencies have as much money and investigative powers that they need? That we don't need to do anything more in this fight. That we should stand pat against the terrorists?
How many Americans feel the same? Isn't it time for the Bush campaign to ask this question of Kerry?
|
Leaving aside for a moment the question of who is right, if Kerry were truly serious about fighting this war we should expect to see him proposing new powers and funding for the police and intelligence agencies. More money for local law enforcement and the FBI, more money for the CIA and the other intelligence agencies. More powers for local law enforcement and the FBI, more powers for the CIA and the other intelligence agencies.
Actually, while having voted for the Patriot Act, he now acts as if the Patriot Act is more of a threat to Americans than the terrorists themselves. He's waxed indignant over the detaining of terror suspects. And I have yet to hear of any Kerry proposal to grant law enforcement more power to investigate and prevent terror threats against this country. I have yet to hear of any Kerry proposal to give a couple of billion more to the CIA.
Should we all infer from this that Kerry not only thinks the war on terror is a matter for just the police, but that he also feels that the police and intelligence agencies have as much money and investigative powers that they need? That we don't need to do anything more in this fight. That we should stand pat against the terrorists?
How many Americans feel the same? Isn't it time for the Bush campaign to ask this question of Kerry?
|
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
More on the Kerry Bear Market (KBM)...
Kerry proposes a tax hike and the markets continue to decline (the Dow down 60 points as of posting). Is it any surprise that with Kerry posing a real danger to Bush's re-election and with Kerry proposing tax hikes that the markets would react negatively?
Given that so much positive economic activity is derived from the effects of increasing markets (yes, I know that the markets predict, but there is no denying that much of the income effect flows from high market levels), when will the GOP start hitting Kerry for driving down the value of retirement accounts and imparing the ability of pension funds to meet their obligations? When will America realize that Kerry is bad news for their wallets?
|
Kerry proposes a tax hike and the markets continue to decline (the Dow down 60 points as of posting). Is it any surprise that with Kerry posing a real danger to Bush's re-election and with Kerry proposing tax hikes that the markets would react negatively?
Given that so much positive economic activity is derived from the effects of increasing markets (yes, I know that the markets predict, but there is no denying that much of the income effect flows from high market levels), when will the GOP start hitting Kerry for driving down the value of retirement accounts and imparing the ability of pension funds to meet their obligations? When will America realize that Kerry is bad news for their wallets?
|
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
I've got a different take on why the stock market has been dropping lately. It's not, as the story purports, that "after peaking three weeks ago, stocks have fallen amid investors' growing discomfort with the economy". Rather, I believe that it's investors growing discomfort with the chance that Kerry could win.
Back in 2003, Bush was viewed as a shoo-in. His numbers looked good, the Democratic challengers were a goofy looking bunch of pretenders. The stock indexes, a leading indicator of the future, all took off as investors placed their bets that, with Bush back in the White House, the future - economic, security, social - all looked pretty good.
Now comes Kerry, and polls showing him to be ahead of Bush. If you were an investor who had been counting on Bush getting re-elected, wouldn't you be getting worried about what would happen if Kerry were to win? Wouldn't you be worried enough to start pulling some money out of the market?
Which begs the question: why aren't all the Kerry supporters out buying stocks and offsetting the 'Bush defections'? After all, being all gung-ho for Kerry and claiming that Bush in office is bad, bad, bad, shouldn't they be betting that the future looks better with Kerry than with Bush? Shouldn't they be putting their money where their mouth is? Could it be that they just hate Bush so much, that they want him out so much that they would vote for Kerry, knowing full well that doing so would be financial suicide? It sounds crazy, but what else could explain this lack of investing enthusiasm on the part of the Democrats? It's not as if they lack for money, as they actually pull better from the extremely well off than does the GOP. Their unions - the NEA, AFSME, UAW, etc. - control some of the biggest investment funds in the country. How come they're getting out? They've got no faith in the future with Kerry, yet they're throwing their resources and support into getting him elected. It's insane. And, they dare to call us stupid?
As an aside, I remember that one of the arguments of the Clinton-apologists against removing him from office was that the economy was doing so well, it wasn't worth the risk of upsetting things - of taking a huge hit to all of our 401(k)s - just in order to enforce some ridiculous law. It sure seems that back then the Democrats were more interested in protecting their wallets. Or were they just more interested in protecting their power? Just wondering...
|
Back in 2003, Bush was viewed as a shoo-in. His numbers looked good, the Democratic challengers were a goofy looking bunch of pretenders. The stock indexes, a leading indicator of the future, all took off as investors placed their bets that, with Bush back in the White House, the future - economic, security, social - all looked pretty good.
Now comes Kerry, and polls showing him to be ahead of Bush. If you were an investor who had been counting on Bush getting re-elected, wouldn't you be getting worried about what would happen if Kerry were to win? Wouldn't you be worried enough to start pulling some money out of the market?
Which begs the question: why aren't all the Kerry supporters out buying stocks and offsetting the 'Bush defections'? After all, being all gung-ho for Kerry and claiming that Bush in office is bad, bad, bad, shouldn't they be betting that the future looks better with Kerry than with Bush? Shouldn't they be putting their money where their mouth is? Could it be that they just hate Bush so much, that they want him out so much that they would vote for Kerry, knowing full well that doing so would be financial suicide? It sounds crazy, but what else could explain this lack of investing enthusiasm on the part of the Democrats? It's not as if they lack for money, as they actually pull better from the extremely well off than does the GOP. Their unions - the NEA, AFSME, UAW, etc. - control some of the biggest investment funds in the country. How come they're getting out? They've got no faith in the future with Kerry, yet they're throwing their resources and support into getting him elected. It's insane. And, they dare to call us stupid?
As an aside, I remember that one of the arguments of the Clinton-apologists against removing him from office was that the economy was doing so well, it wasn't worth the risk of upsetting things - of taking a huge hit to all of our 401(k)s - just in order to enforce some ridiculous law. It sure seems that back then the Democrats were more interested in protecting their wallets. Or were they just more interested in protecting their power? Just wondering...
|
I've got to quibble with some of what ProfessorBainbridge has written on the Martha affair...
First up, his reference to: "the Feds over-zealous exercise of their prosecutorial discretion".
My response: I'm happy that the prosecutors went after her and for the same reasons that I was glad that Ken Starr went after Clinton and happy that the feds put Leona Helmsley in jail for tax evasion. I don't care if there wasn't an underlying crime involved with either Stewart or Clinton, or that Leona didn't go out and kill anybody. What I care about is that we had people who believed and acted as if the rules did not apply to them. And, while lots of little people may do the same and are never charged, I have no problem with the feds holding celebrities and Presidents to a higher standard - it goes with the territory. Despite what Charles Barkley said, the celebrities are role models, people do look up to them, buy their products, and attempt to emulate them. If they don't like the pressure, they didn't need to pursue their particular line of work. And when they screw up, it's important to smack them hard. Doing so saves me the trouble of having to explain to my daughter why she has to tell the truth since Martha/Clinton/Leona didn't have to.
Next, his comment "If I were a shareholder in Martha Stewart Omnimedia, I don't know who I'd be madder at: Stewart or the Feds."
My take: How about getting mad at themselves? Investors in MSO overestimated Martha's 'useful life'. They weren't really buying shares in an ongoing business, such as IBM or GE. Like investors in any celebrity-themed business, they were buying a fractional share in Martha's earnings over the balance of her career. The longer her 'useful life', the better a return on their investment. I never bought MSO, thinking that Martha, the subject of so many devastating portrayals in a bunch of number of books and magazine articles, just wasn't someone to go long on. She could have crashed and burned at any time for any number of reasons: death, retirement, feminist backlash, scandal. Those who bought chose to ignore the signs, to take the risk. They guessed wrong. I've got no sympathy for those who made the wrong bet.
He goes on to say: "MSO's board is trying to devise a survival strategy, but it's really hard to successfully rebrand a company so fixated on the image of one person."
My add-on: I have experience with such businesses. The good professor is right about how hard it is to rebrand a company. But it's a lot harder to do so after that one person is off the scene. Successful rebrandings, take place before they need to take place. Of course, rebranding a company in that way means giving up somewhat on the old brand in order to go with the new brand image. In this case, MSO's board and management chose to push their luck, didn't look to hedge their bets by positioning someone else ready to step in and are now paying the price.
|
First up, his reference to: "the Feds over-zealous exercise of their prosecutorial discretion".
My response: I'm happy that the prosecutors went after her and for the same reasons that I was glad that Ken Starr went after Clinton and happy that the feds put Leona Helmsley in jail for tax evasion. I don't care if there wasn't an underlying crime involved with either Stewart or Clinton, or that Leona didn't go out and kill anybody. What I care about is that we had people who believed and acted as if the rules did not apply to them. And, while lots of little people may do the same and are never charged, I have no problem with the feds holding celebrities and Presidents to a higher standard - it goes with the territory. Despite what Charles Barkley said, the celebrities are role models, people do look up to them, buy their products, and attempt to emulate them. If they don't like the pressure, they didn't need to pursue their particular line of work. And when they screw up, it's important to smack them hard. Doing so saves me the trouble of having to explain to my daughter why she has to tell the truth since Martha/Clinton/Leona didn't have to.
Next, his comment "If I were a shareholder in Martha Stewart Omnimedia, I don't know who I'd be madder at: Stewart or the Feds."
My take: How about getting mad at themselves? Investors in MSO overestimated Martha's 'useful life'. They weren't really buying shares in an ongoing business, such as IBM or GE. Like investors in any celebrity-themed business, they were buying a fractional share in Martha's earnings over the balance of her career. The longer her 'useful life', the better a return on their investment. I never bought MSO, thinking that Martha, the subject of so many devastating portrayals in a bunch of number of books and magazine articles, just wasn't someone to go long on. She could have crashed and burned at any time for any number of reasons: death, retirement, feminist backlash, scandal. Those who bought chose to ignore the signs, to take the risk. They guessed wrong. I've got no sympathy for those who made the wrong bet.
He goes on to say: "MSO's board is trying to devise a survival strategy, but it's really hard to successfully rebrand a company so fixated on the image of one person."
My add-on: I have experience with such businesses. The good professor is right about how hard it is to rebrand a company. But it's a lot harder to do so after that one person is off the scene. Successful rebrandings, take place before they need to take place. Of course, rebranding a company in that way means giving up somewhat on the old brand in order to go with the new brand image. In this case, MSO's board and management chose to push their luck, didn't look to hedge their bets by positioning someone else ready to step in and are now paying the price.
|
I guess Kerry shouldn't count on getting Arafat's support any longer, given that Kerry no longer considers Arafat to be "a statesman, but rather "an outlaw to the peace process".
Kerry can still take solace in the fact that many other foreign leaders (here and here) prefer him over Bush.
Of course, given that Kerry's flip flop on Arafat is just the latest of many, many, many changes of opinion (flip flops, anyone?) that Kerry has had over the years, how wise would it be for a foreign leader to endorse Kerry not knowing how long it would be before Kerry flip-flopped on them?
Come to think of it, how wise would it be for Americans to endorse Kerry not knowing how long it would be before Kerry flip-flopped on them?
|
Kerry can still take solace in the fact that many other foreign leaders (here and here) prefer him over Bush.
Of course, given that Kerry's flip flop on Arafat is just the latest of many, many, many changes of opinion (flip flops, anyone?) that Kerry has had over the years, how wise would it be for a foreign leader to endorse Kerry not knowing how long it would be before Kerry flip-flopped on them?
Come to think of it, how wise would it be for Americans to endorse Kerry not knowing how long it would be before Kerry flip-flopped on them?
|
Monday, March 08, 2004
Kerry predicts support from foreign leaders, following reports that Kim Jong-il of North Korea had endorsed Kerry.
Expected any moment was an endorsement from Jean-Bertrand Aristide, formerly of Haiti, who is expected to repay Kerry for Kerry's support, saying that "were it not for people like John Kerry, my rule would have ended years ago".
Also expected soon was an endorsement from Osama Bin Laden, in thanks for Kerry's help in proposing cuts in intelligence spending. bin Laden was quoted as saying "even though "this bill...didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate", we appreciate the the point Kerry was trying to make".
The Kerry camp was still negotiating for the endorsements from the leaders of France, the Netherlands, Iran, Syria, PLO and what remains of Hussein's Baathist leadership.
On a more serious note, an earlier post of mine (which I can't find in the archives) suggested thinking about what it means for America that any number of America's enemies would prefer Kerry over Bush. Given the latest news, I'd like to add the suggestion that we all think about what it means that Kerry thinks that being preferred by foreign leaders (even if they're not the ones I've suggested) is something to brag about.
|
Expected any moment was an endorsement from Jean-Bertrand Aristide, formerly of Haiti, who is expected to repay Kerry for Kerry's support, saying that "were it not for people like John Kerry, my rule would have ended years ago".
Also expected soon was an endorsement from Osama Bin Laden, in thanks for Kerry's help in proposing cuts in intelligence spending. bin Laden was quoted as saying "even though "this bill...didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate", we appreciate the the point Kerry was trying to make".
The Kerry camp was still negotiating for the endorsements from the leaders of France, the Netherlands, Iran, Syria, PLO and what remains of Hussein's Baathist leadership.
On a more serious note, an earlier post of mine (which I can't find in the archives) suggested thinking about what it means for America that any number of America's enemies would prefer Kerry over Bush. Given the latest news, I'd like to add the suggestion that we all think about what it means that Kerry thinks that being preferred by foreign leaders (even if they're not the ones I've suggested) is something to brag about.
|
Friday, March 05, 2004
I couldn't have put it any better, this story that North Korea warms to Kerry presidency bid. As I posted before, why should we consider voting for the guy that the pyschotic leader of North Korea wants to see elected? Shouldn't that by itself disqualify Kerry from the office?
|
|
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
In politics, it's long been said that every voter has a hot-button issue that trumps the combination of every other issue and often drives the voter to go off the deepend. For Jews, it's often support for Israel. For some in the GOP, it's opposition to tax hikes. It's apparent from his latest post (if indeed not earlier) that Andrew Sullivan's issue is that of same-sex marriage.
Sullivan, like any other voter, has the right to pick his own hot button issue. And, if Sullivan decides he would rather have Kerry in the White House because of Kerry's support for gay marriage (or perhaps more accurately, because of Bush's opposition), and is willing to pay higher taxes, sleep less soundly at night because our nation's security is more at risk, and is willing to see the federal spending increased way beyond what even Bush has done, well, that's his right.
But his rhetorical slams of Bush rise to a new level of hysteria today - and some of it is just plain wrong.
He claims that "Bush's religious right amendment has also united Democrats behind this issue in ways they never were before. Attacking the amendment is now an applause line in John Kerry's election speech". Andrew, since when has the attendance at Kerry rallies been representative of Democrats as a whole? Have Catholic Democrats, as a whole, come out in support of Kerry - for this reason? I haven't heard of any such thing happening. I'm sure there are some homophobes who are registered Democrats and I doubt they're motivated in the way Andrew describes. Nor can I imagine that many Democrats place this at the top of their list of important issues. What is important to many Democrats is getting rid of Bush, and for reasons that predates Bush's call for the FMA. For other Democrats it could be the economy, whether John Ashcroft is snooping through their library records, or whether France is given a veto over future US military operations. We haven't yet, and I don't expect to see, posters in Kerry campaign offices that read "It's the gay marriage, stupid!".
Sullivan says that "Even the vice-president cannot manage to explicitly endorse such graffiti on the founding document of this country" but this article that says that Cheney "now says he would support President Bush if he proposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage" would sure seem to indicate the opposite.
Later, he says "What the religious right did to destroy the Republican party in a state like California". Didn't California just elect a Republican as Governor? If opposition to same-sex marriage is such a loser issue in California, how did California voters, just a few years ago, overwhelmingly support their version of the DOMA?
He also claims that "What the (push for the) amendment is doing is splitting the Republican coalition", adding that "key Republicans, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, have come out and opposed this..". Stop the presses, Republicans don't agree with each other on every issue. No kidding. Bush has taken flack from different segments of the GOP for many, many of his proposals. But, I haven't seen where Arnie is switching parties, or saying that he no longer plans to vote, or campaign, for Bush, or where any other (non-gay) group of Republicans has done the same. To most of us, the desire to see Bush re-elected, and Kerry defeated, trumps our disagreement with him on any single, or couple of issues.
Andrew, you may not like what Bush is doing. You may not like that the majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. That's your right. But it's not right - or constructive to the cause - to go off as you did. What happens when your claims are revealed to be chicken little like? Will you continue to be taken seriously? Or will you drift into Eleanor Clift land?
|
Sullivan, like any other voter, has the right to pick his own hot button issue. And, if Sullivan decides he would rather have Kerry in the White House because of Kerry's support for gay marriage (or perhaps more accurately, because of Bush's opposition), and is willing to pay higher taxes, sleep less soundly at night because our nation's security is more at risk, and is willing to see the federal spending increased way beyond what even Bush has done, well, that's his right.
But his rhetorical slams of Bush rise to a new level of hysteria today - and some of it is just plain wrong.
He claims that "Bush's religious right amendment has also united Democrats behind this issue in ways they never were before. Attacking the amendment is now an applause line in John Kerry's election speech". Andrew, since when has the attendance at Kerry rallies been representative of Democrats as a whole? Have Catholic Democrats, as a whole, come out in support of Kerry - for this reason? I haven't heard of any such thing happening. I'm sure there are some homophobes who are registered Democrats and I doubt they're motivated in the way Andrew describes. Nor can I imagine that many Democrats place this at the top of their list of important issues. What is important to many Democrats is getting rid of Bush, and for reasons that predates Bush's call for the FMA. For other Democrats it could be the economy, whether John Ashcroft is snooping through their library records, or whether France is given a veto over future US military operations. We haven't yet, and I don't expect to see, posters in Kerry campaign offices that read "It's the gay marriage, stupid!".
Sullivan says that "Even the vice-president cannot manage to explicitly endorse such graffiti on the founding document of this country" but this article that says that Cheney "now says he would support President Bush if he proposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage" would sure seem to indicate the opposite.
Later, he says "What the religious right did to destroy the Republican party in a state like California". Didn't California just elect a Republican as Governor? If opposition to same-sex marriage is such a loser issue in California, how did California voters, just a few years ago, overwhelmingly support their version of the DOMA?
He also claims that "What the (push for the) amendment is doing is splitting the Republican coalition", adding that "key Republicans, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, have come out and opposed this..". Stop the presses, Republicans don't agree with each other on every issue. No kidding. Bush has taken flack from different segments of the GOP for many, many of his proposals. But, I haven't seen where Arnie is switching parties, or saying that he no longer plans to vote, or campaign, for Bush, or where any other (non-gay) group of Republicans has done the same. To most of us, the desire to see Bush re-elected, and Kerry defeated, trumps our disagreement with him on any single, or couple of issues.
Andrew, you may not like what Bush is doing. You may not like that the majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. That's your right. But it's not right - or constructive to the cause - to go off as you did. What happens when your claims are revealed to be chicken little like? Will you continue to be taken seriously? Or will you drift into Eleanor Clift land?
|
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Some ramblings on the subject of same sex marriage....
Me thinks that Josh Chafetz is wrong when he predicts that "gay marriage will come to be...a socially accepted institution". Josh, how can same sex marriage be accepted by society when being gay isn't even accepted by society? It's tolerated, but it's not accepted. And society as a whole won't accept homosexuality until the parents do. And, exceptions notwithstanding, the parents don't. Parents-to-be don't wish for a gay son or daughter. They don't view a gay kid as the same thing as their kid turning out left-handed, needing glasses or not liking broccoli. They view it as the result of something having gone wrong either in the womb or in the kid's early years, as something having gone wrong with the wiring. And, as long as the parents have this view, it's ludicrous to think that society as a whole is going to do anything more than tolerate homosexuality. And, until if and when that happens (I'm not holding my breath), public acceptance of same sex marriage isn't going to happen.
On to those who profess to both be in favor of same-sex marriage and to interpreting the Constitution according to 'original intent' of the framers (Professor Volokh?). How can you reconcile the two? As I posted earlier, the word marriage has always been thought of to mean man and woman. Doesn't the doctrine of original intent preclude changing the definition of words? One shouldn't change the definition of such a word any more or any easier than one should interpret the Constitution as a 'living document'. Let's be consistent.
To those who think this is a loser issue for Bush. How can this be a loser issue when the majority of Americans share Bush's viewpoint? For them to distance themselves from Bush would require them to find fault with their own thinking! I don't see it.
And, finally, to those who equate this with the civil rights fights in the 60s. There's a big difference. America didn't start being in full favor of granting full protection of the law to blacks. What helped in that regard were the Bull Connors of the South. Their treatment of blacks was far worse than most Americans felt was right and created a backlash against those wishing to maintain the status quo. There is no Bull Connor today, aiming fire hoses at homosexuals. Nobody's out at night hunting down the leaders of the homosexual rights movement. As it stands, America needs a push if they are going to end up favoring full protection for homosexuals. And, there's no Bull this time to give them such a push.
|
Me thinks that Josh Chafetz is wrong when he predicts that "gay marriage will come to be...a socially accepted institution". Josh, how can same sex marriage be accepted by society when being gay isn't even accepted by society? It's tolerated, but it's not accepted. And society as a whole won't accept homosexuality until the parents do. And, exceptions notwithstanding, the parents don't. Parents-to-be don't wish for a gay son or daughter. They don't view a gay kid as the same thing as their kid turning out left-handed, needing glasses or not liking broccoli. They view it as the result of something having gone wrong either in the womb or in the kid's early years, as something having gone wrong with the wiring. And, as long as the parents have this view, it's ludicrous to think that society as a whole is going to do anything more than tolerate homosexuality. And, until if and when that happens (I'm not holding my breath), public acceptance of same sex marriage isn't going to happen.
On to those who profess to both be in favor of same-sex marriage and to interpreting the Constitution according to 'original intent' of the framers (Professor Volokh?). How can you reconcile the two? As I posted earlier, the word marriage has always been thought of to mean man and woman. Doesn't the doctrine of original intent preclude changing the definition of words? One shouldn't change the definition of such a word any more or any easier than one should interpret the Constitution as a 'living document'. Let's be consistent.
To those who think this is a loser issue for Bush. How can this be a loser issue when the majority of Americans share Bush's viewpoint? For them to distance themselves from Bush would require them to find fault with their own thinking! I don't see it.
And, finally, to those who equate this with the civil rights fights in the 60s. There's a big difference. America didn't start being in full favor of granting full protection of the law to blacks. What helped in that regard were the Bull Connors of the South. Their treatment of blacks was far worse than most Americans felt was right and created a backlash against those wishing to maintain the status quo. There is no Bull Connor today, aiming fire hoses at homosexuals. Nobody's out at night hunting down the leaders of the homosexual rights movement. As it stands, America needs a push if they are going to end up favoring full protection for homosexuals. And, there's no Bull this time to give them such a push.
|
Here's another example of pathetic GOP P/R, this request to use "up to $1 million budgeted for a possible presidential transition to train top officials who would join his administration if he should win a second term".
George, hasn't anyone told you that we don't like people who count their chickens before they're hatched? We like underdogs. We like to shove it to people who act like there's no contest, that it's all over but the shouting and the counting. Do you think that maybe that's the reason none of the Oscar nominees dared to rehearse their 'acceptance' speech ahead of time? Remember the uproar when Dusty Baker acted like his team had just clinched the series - before the last out? You may think you're going to win a second term, you may indeed win a second term, but don't you dare act like you're sure that you're going to win a second term.
Also, why in the world would you do this now? This is what you want people talking about for the next news cycle? Karl, are you really this tone-deaf? C'mon, get your act together. Please.
|
George, hasn't anyone told you that we don't like people who count their chickens before they're hatched? We like underdogs. We like to shove it to people who act like there's no contest, that it's all over but the shouting and the counting. Do you think that maybe that's the reason none of the Oscar nominees dared to rehearse their 'acceptance' speech ahead of time? Remember the uproar when Dusty Baker acted like his team had just clinched the series - before the last out? You may think you're going to win a second term, you may indeed win a second term, but don't you dare act like you're sure that you're going to win a second term.
Also, why in the world would you do this now? This is what you want people talking about for the next news cycle? Karl, are you really this tone-deaf? C'mon, get your act together. Please.
|
In today's editorial on the No Child Left Behind Act, the NYT proves once again that no self-respecting liberal can utter anything remotely positive about Bush "The Bush administration has the high ground here" without including the obligatory slam "But the Bush administration has sadly turned out to be part of the problem".
|
|
Monday, March 01, 2004
For anyone on the selection committee, when you're looking at MD, please consider the following:
Of MD's 11 losses, 3 were to teams in the Top 5, while another 6 were to teams in the Top 20. Only 2 losses were to unranked teams, with one of those (Florida State) coming on the road.
|
Of MD's 11 losses, 3 were to teams in the Top 5, while another 6 were to teams in the Top 20. Only 2 losses were to unranked teams, with one of those (Florida State) coming on the road.
|
Following up on Josh Chafetz's musings that the campaign infighting that pervaded the Dean campaign staff and which the WaPo blames for Dean's demise, would, had Dean succeeded, been portrayed as the reason for that success...
I enjoy reading business articles, profiles and the like, and I long ago noticed that there really is no constant thread that distinguishes business successes from failures. It's not management style: some autocratic executives succeed, others fail, while some executives who employ a participatory style of management succeed, and others don't. It's not whether the CEO seeks or avoids the spotlight. It's not where the company is located or how many employees it has on staff. Nor is it whether the company is aggressively pushing into new markets, expanding, adding to the product line, making acquisitions or divestitures, making use of technology and the Internet. While some companies in these positions succeed, some go nowhere while still others implode. That's why I groaned while reading Tom Peter's In Search of Excellence (yes, this dates me); for every one of his success stories, you could go out and find a different company doing the same thing and not succeeding, and you could find a different company taking what seemed to be the opposite approach and doing just fine.
This is logical, as there is no 'magic formula' to success in business. It's not just-in-time inventory, it's not MBWA (Managing By Walking Around), it's not having a decentralized organizational structure, nor is it having a centralized organizational structure. It's not sticking to one's knitting, nor is it boldly going where no company has gone before.
All of which makes it hard to answer the question: was ______fill in the blank's______ success/failure because of management's efforts, despite management's efforts, or did it have nothing to do with management's efforts? Was it the right or wrong strategy? Was it the right strategy but one that was poorly implemented? It gets even harder to have clarity on a situation when you're looking at a company whose not too distant history has both successes and failures - such as looking at Disney today. As far as I can tell, Eisner today is the same micro-managing, lack of clear successor, where's the spotlight, don't get me angry at you executive that he was when he first started at Disney. If his style is such a problem, then how does one account for Disney's earlier successes? At the same time, if it was his strategy and his implementation that was responsible for Disney's part successes, then what's going on now? To arrive at a reasonable conclusion requires a heck of a lot of expertise and insight - much more expertise than most business writers have and much more of an analysis of the situation than most business writers are ever willing to put in. Way too often, a writer - who usually has NO experience in managing people or in running a business unit, having been a writer since they got out of school - simply attributes the current status of the business with whatever characteristic of the organization/management that is most well known - if a manager is reputed to be autocratic, then that behavior is given credit/blamed for the success/failure of the organization. Thus, Eisner fifteen years ago was portrayed as Disney's savior, while today he's the culprit behind Disney's lagging performance. The same type of simplistic connect-the-dots analysis holds true for Enron: their executive's go-go attitude was portrayed as the force behind Enron's success - back when Enron was thought to be successful. Now, with Enron clearly thought of as a major crash and burn, that very same attitude is cited as the reason for Enron's collapse.
Sometimes, writer bias reveals itself in how they connect the dots. A reporter who thinks that participatory management styles are preferable is unlikely to ever hold that approach responsible for a bad end result - they'll minimize that and seek some other explanation for a company's troubles. On the other hand, they are more likely to attribute a manager's autocratic style as being responsible for failure and less likely to ever give that approach credit for a success. A reporter who is enamored with high tech developments is unlikely to find fault with a company that aggressively seeks to develop such, while being more critical of companies who are less fond of pursuing high tech.
I suspect the same dynamic holds true with political campaigns. There is no magic formula to winning an election. It's not having the most money, it's not having the 'top' strategists on the payroll, it's not being from the 'right' state, having the right pedigree, or holding the 'right' office. And, political reporters, like their colleagues on the business desk, despite years of covering campaigns and politicians, have no experience running a campaign, formulating position papers, running a direct mail effort, shooting a campaign commercial, or trying to motivate people to support and vote for a candidate. David Broder dispenses advice all the time, yet nobody's ever hired him to run a campaign. Nor has anybody hired Jonathan Alter, Robert Novak, the guys at the New Republic, National Review and The Weekly Standard.
So, we end up with a story like this one in the Post. We all know the Dean campaign went nowhere. The reporter learnd there was some degree of campaign staff disagreement. So, presto, the reporter attributes End Result A with Cause 1. And, as Josh supposes, had Dean been looking to lock up the nomination tomorrow, the story would have been the same, just with a different ending.
|
I enjoy reading business articles, profiles and the like, and I long ago noticed that there really is no constant thread that distinguishes business successes from failures. It's not management style: some autocratic executives succeed, others fail, while some executives who employ a participatory style of management succeed, and others don't. It's not whether the CEO seeks or avoids the spotlight. It's not where the company is located or how many employees it has on staff. Nor is it whether the company is aggressively pushing into new markets, expanding, adding to the product line, making acquisitions or divestitures, making use of technology and the Internet. While some companies in these positions succeed, some go nowhere while still others implode. That's why I groaned while reading Tom Peter's In Search of Excellence (yes, this dates me); for every one of his success stories, you could go out and find a different company doing the same thing and not succeeding, and you could find a different company taking what seemed to be the opposite approach and doing just fine.
This is logical, as there is no 'magic formula' to success in business. It's not just-in-time inventory, it's not MBWA (Managing By Walking Around), it's not having a decentralized organizational structure, nor is it having a centralized organizational structure. It's not sticking to one's knitting, nor is it boldly going where no company has gone before.
All of which makes it hard to answer the question: was ______fill in the blank's______ success/failure because of management's efforts, despite management's efforts, or did it have nothing to do with management's efforts? Was it the right or wrong strategy? Was it the right strategy but one that was poorly implemented? It gets even harder to have clarity on a situation when you're looking at a company whose not too distant history has both successes and failures - such as looking at Disney today. As far as I can tell, Eisner today is the same micro-managing, lack of clear successor, where's the spotlight, don't get me angry at you executive that he was when he first started at Disney. If his style is such a problem, then how does one account for Disney's earlier successes? At the same time, if it was his strategy and his implementation that was responsible for Disney's part successes, then what's going on now? To arrive at a reasonable conclusion requires a heck of a lot of expertise and insight - much more expertise than most business writers have and much more of an analysis of the situation than most business writers are ever willing to put in. Way too often, a writer - who usually has NO experience in managing people or in running a business unit, having been a writer since they got out of school - simply attributes the current status of the business with whatever characteristic of the organization/management that is most well known - if a manager is reputed to be autocratic, then that behavior is given credit/blamed for the success/failure of the organization. Thus, Eisner fifteen years ago was portrayed as Disney's savior, while today he's the culprit behind Disney's lagging performance. The same type of simplistic connect-the-dots analysis holds true for Enron: their executive's go-go attitude was portrayed as the force behind Enron's success - back when Enron was thought to be successful. Now, with Enron clearly thought of as a major crash and burn, that very same attitude is cited as the reason for Enron's collapse.
Sometimes, writer bias reveals itself in how they connect the dots. A reporter who thinks that participatory management styles are preferable is unlikely to ever hold that approach responsible for a bad end result - they'll minimize that and seek some other explanation for a company's troubles. On the other hand, they are more likely to attribute a manager's autocratic style as being responsible for failure and less likely to ever give that approach credit for a success. A reporter who is enamored with high tech developments is unlikely to find fault with a company that aggressively seeks to develop such, while being more critical of companies who are less fond of pursuing high tech.
I suspect the same dynamic holds true with political campaigns. There is no magic formula to winning an election. It's not having the most money, it's not having the 'top' strategists on the payroll, it's not being from the 'right' state, having the right pedigree, or holding the 'right' office. And, political reporters, like their colleagues on the business desk, despite years of covering campaigns and politicians, have no experience running a campaign, formulating position papers, running a direct mail effort, shooting a campaign commercial, or trying to motivate people to support and vote for a candidate. David Broder dispenses advice all the time, yet nobody's ever hired him to run a campaign. Nor has anybody hired Jonathan Alter, Robert Novak, the guys at the New Republic, National Review and The Weekly Standard.
So, we end up with a story like this one in the Post. We all know the Dean campaign went nowhere. The reporter learnd there was some degree of campaign staff disagreement. So, presto, the reporter attributes End Result A with Cause 1. And, as Josh supposes, had Dean been looking to lock up the nomination tomorrow, the story would have been the same, just with a different ending.
|