South Dakota Politics

Our Spying vs. China's Spying

Esteemed Keloland Blogger Todd Epp directs our attention to The Only Redhead In Taiwan, who cannot understand why it's wrong for China to spy on visitors and athletes at the Olympics but not wrong for the U.S. to monitor (you can well call it spying) international communications for signs of terrorist activities.  He accuses Senator Brownback of being a hypocrite for complaining about the first while voting for the second.

I will go slowly.  The Chinese clearly want to put listening devices into what are, in effect, people's bedrooms (hotel room computers).  The U.S. programs that Redhead seems to have in mind monitor the stream of international communications which, any reasonably well informed person knows, is already mined by every intelligence service on the planet.  The principle here is the expectation of privacy. 

One might also consider what kind of information China and the U.S. are looking for.  The Chinese are especially concerned to monitor any contacts between foreigners and their own human rights activists.  They want to make sure that they can identify all the agitators for democracy, or more autonomy for Tibet, so they can throw those rascals in the slammer for ten years or so, and shoot 'em up psychotropic drugs.  The U.S. has a rather different motive for spying on international cell phone calls and such.  We want to prevent terrorists from turning living human beings into pink mist.  I humbly suggest that the two motives are not morally equivalent. 

Of course it may be that the U.S. Government abuses its police powers by spying on domestic peace groups and other legitimate political organizations.  The Constitution was designed precisely with such abuses in mind, which is why we have independent courts to sort these things out.  That leads me to a third difference between U.S. and Chinese spying.  China is a totalitarian regime.  No political power is allowed for any person or institution outside the ruling body.  The United States is a liberal democracy, with Courts and adversarial political parties, and Dennis Kucinich.  If you care about things like privacy rights, you probably have to say that spying in defense of the latter is morally superior to spying in defense of the former. 

So I don't think that Senator Brownback is a hypocrite for wanting the Chinese government to respect the promises it made when it accepted the honor of hosting the Olympics.  I dare say the U.S. has made no such promises to Al Qaeda. 

Lawrence Tribe on Kennedy v. Lousianna

I agreed with my colleague, Professor Schaff, in his criticism of the 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana.  The Court ruled that the death penalty could be used only in the case of a murderer or a traitor.  It could not be used in a case of child rape where the victim survived.  I am somewhat surprised to see that Lawrence Tribe, long time voice of constitutional law scholarship from the left, also agrees with Professor Schaff.  For some reason Tribe does not mention Professor Schaff's excellent post.  Here is the Wall Street Journal, is what Tribe does say:

Emphasizing the evolving character of what constitutes an "unusual" if not an unduly "cruel" punishment, the court rested its condemnation of executing the rapists of children largely on what it described as a trend away from the use of death to punish such crimes both here and abroad.

But there was a problem with the court's understanding of the basic facts. It failed to take into account -- because nobody involved in the case had noticed -- that in 2006 no less an authority than Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act, had prescribed capital punishment as a penalty available for the rape of a child by someone in the military.

The Court gives itself license to write "evolving social morality" into the fabric of the Constitution whenever it sees fit.  This is not altogether without ground in the Constitution itself.  "Cruel and unusual punishment" is a term that may be said to change with the times, as what was usual once may be very unusual today.  We don't put people in stocks anymore. 

But the problem is that the Court is almost always using this as an excuse to write their own sensibilities into the law.  And in this case, as Tribe shows, they got the direction of social evolution wrong.  Some crimes, especially those perpetrated against children, may well be as horrifically bad as murder, so why not the same punishment as murder?  There is no ground for the Court's decision, either in the logic or the traditions of law, or in the facts of the case. 

So why is Tribe being so reasonable?  Well, to be fair, he has always been more reasonable than a lot of his colleagues on the left (and a few of mine on the right).  But it also looks like he is applying for a promotion. 

Particularly when the court's division tracks the usual liberal/conservative divide, its credibility depends on both candor and correctness when it comes to the factual predicates of its rulings.  Whatever one's view of the death penalty -- and I have long expressed misgivings on both its wisdom and its constitutionality -- it's important that the inequities and inequalities in its administration be minimized. Commitment to that principle, not a rush to the center, lay behind Barack Obama's disagreement with the court's ruling in this case even before the 2006 federal death penalty provision came to public attention.

Well, there you have it.  Obama didn't flip flop.  He was committed to principle.  And it's a principle that Republicans should respect, especially if they still have veto power when Obama nominates Tribe for the next Supreme Court vacancy. 

But just because there may be a political motive behind Tribe's argument, that doesn't mean he isn't right.  Here is a genuine bit of brilliant jurisprudence.

Many who applauded the court's original ruling did so not on the basis of the court's (now evidently faulty) trend-spotting rationale but, rather, on the premise that any way of containing the spread of capital punishment -- such as by confining its use to murderers and traitors -- is a good idea. But even those who harbor serious doubts about capital punishment should feel duty-bound to oppose carve-outs from its reach that denigrate certain classes of victims, or that arbitrarily override democratic determinations that such victims deserve maximum protection.

If a legislature were to exempt the killers of gay men or lesbians from capital punishment, even dedicated death penalty opponents should cry foul in the Constitution's name. So too, should they cry foul when the judiciary holds the torturers or violent rapists of young children to be constitutionally exempt from the death penalty imposed by a legislature judicially permitted to apply that penalty to cop killers and murderers for hire. In doing so, the court is imposing a dubious limit on the ability of a representative government to enforce its own, entirely plausible, sense of which crimes deserve the most severe punishment.

Yes.  Limits on the death penalty may look good to death penalty opponents, but they can be misused like any other arbitrary rule.  That is the trouble with the Court arbitrarily imposing its own political views on the law.  Let's hope Tribe remembers all this if he does get on the bench. 

Todd Epp on the Death of Morgan Lewis

My esteemed Keloland colleague and friend, Todd Epp, posts on the death of Morgan Lewis.  Lewis, a faculty member at NSU was found dead outside Seymour Hall on November 1st, 2004.  After a lengthy investigation, the Aberdeen police department concluded that his death was a suicide.  Now Todd posts a letter he received, from "APD Officer 264". 

Let me tell you from actually working on the case that it leaves very little doubt that this was in fact a murder. even the Coroner ruled it a homicide. A suspect had a motive and knew facts of the case that were never relased to the public. I read the report. I worked on the case. I dealt with the suspect. I like many other officers still feel that it was murder, not suicide. But 2 murders on NSU would look bad in the press and enrollment would drop. A suicide and an accicental death look a lot better to prospective college students than 2 murders with no arrests.

Todd acknowledges that he has no idea whether this letter is from "a real cop in Aberdeen or someone yanking our chains," but he does not hesitate to add: "it does seem have a ring of truth to it."  I would add that if the post comes from someone who isn't indeed a cop, it has neither a ring nor any other hint of truth to it.  Unless some Aberdeen policeman with a real name comes forward to endorse the note (along with the misspellings) it is mere rumor mongering and innuendo.  If he does, then we will have something to talk about. 

In the almost four years since Morgan died, not a shred of evidence has come to light to indicate the involvement of any party in his death other than himself.  If Todd knows of such evidence, he might have stated it.  Nor has anyone produced evidence to show that it was not suicide.  In light of these two facts, allegations of cover up are mere innuendo.  I am sure that lawyer Epp knows what that means. 

After the investigation was concluded and the police announced their findings, my NSU colleague Jim Seeber and I interviewed the Aberdeen Chief of Police Don Lanpher. The results of that interview were published in the American News.  Todd gave us a great deal of grief for our efforts, calling us the "NSU Hardy Boys."  Now that he has chosen to play detective himself, on the basis of no stated evidence, I am not so embarrassed to reproduce our article.  It indicates the reasons that the Aberdeen police reached the conclusions that they did.  It was published in February 2004. 

The death of Morgan Lewis on November 1, 2004, was a traumatic event for Northern State University’s faculty, staff, and student body. Last Thursday, Aberdeen Chief of Police Don Lanpher held a press conference in the Johnson Fine Arts Center where he announced the result of the fifteen month investigation. The police concluded that Morgan Lewis died of a self-inflicted wound. On February 10 Chief Lanpher returned to campus and was interviewed by Kenneth Blanchard and James Seeber.

This article represents our understanding of the evidence upon which the investigators based their conclusion. We apologize for its bluntness and graphic nature, but we believe that concerns for justice, public safety, and the reputation of the police force are serious enough that these details must be made public. Any errors are our responsibility and not that of Chief Lanpher.

The physical evidence was decisive. The gun that killed Morgan Lewis was made in the early twentieth century and proved impossible to trace. It was found in the dumpster outside Seymour Hall, where Lewis had his office. The police were not able to lift any prints off the weapon.

However, powder residue indicated that Lewis had handled the weapon with both hands. Blowback, a term for blood, hair, and other materials that were recovered from the gun, and blood spatter on his hand, both indicated that Lewis himself fired the shot that resulted in his fatal wound. The angle of entry is consistent with someone holding the gun in his left hand and placing it against his neck, under the left side of his jaw. 

We asked Chief Lanpher a question that many of our colleagues have asked: how did the gun get into the dumpster? The distance between the dumpster and the spot that Lewis’s body was found was approximately forty feet. Much gossip on and off campus was based on the erroneous information that the distance was forty yards. When the gun was fired the shell casing was ejected. Its location on the ground allowed the police to determine that the gun was fired next to the dumpster.

The low caliber shell passed through Lewis’s neck, severing his carotid artery but missing his spine. Had the bullet hit his spine, he would have dropped where he stood. Instead he was able to toss the gun into the dumpster and then walk a short distance, during which time he bled to death. A clear blood trail began at the dumpster. It indicates that he fell once on the grass, and again where his body was found.

Sometime before 5:30 am on the morning he died, Morgan Lewis went outside of Seymour Hall wearing a tee shirt and no jacket. He had left his personal items, including his car keys and the key to the building, inside his office in his backpack. He could not have re-entered the building nor could he had driven home. His wallet was found by his body, empty, but there was cash in his backpack in his office. Lewis had two life insurance policies. The beneficiary was a person with whom he had had a long term relationship. Chief Lanpher declined to speculate on any of this, but we will. It seems likely that when he left the building, Lewis had no intention either of going back inside or going home. He may have had thoughts of making his suicide look like murder.

Chief Lanpher said there was other evidence that he could not talk about because it would invade the privacy of Lewis and his family. He did tell us that the investigators called in help from a number of different law-enforcement agencies, including State’s Attorney Mark McNeary. In addition, the Aberdeen  investigators submitted their evidence to three outside consultants: a physician specializing in forensics, a firearms expert, and a “cold case” specialist in Florida.  All three, working independently of one another, reached the same conclusion as the Aberdeen police.

Police Chief Lanpher was candid and thorough in answering our questions. We found his account to be very persuasive.

Cory's Excellent Post on Bjørn Lomborg

My esteemed Keloland colleague Cory Heidelberger (whose last name always presents me with a challenge) has a fine post referring to Bjørn Lomborg's piece in the Wall Street Journal.  It is excellent for two reasons: first, Cory does a pretty good job of trying to see the questions from two sides and he acknowledges the rhetorical excesses on both sides; and second, Cory agrees with me about Lomborg, which means that he is surely right. 

Lomborg has attempted to forge a common sense view of global problems, grounded in realistic estimates of costs and benefits.  I have long admired his work.  He acknowledges that global warming is a problem, that it due in some significant measure to human activity.  But he thinks that the costs of reversing global warming are prohibitive, and that much cheaper and more practical measures can do a lot more good.  For a fraction of the hundreds of billions that the Kyoto treaty would have cost (if anyone were abiding by it), we could deliver safe drinking water, vitamins, etc., to millions of people around the world. 

I hadn't seen anything by Lomborg on terrorism before, but as usual he gives us a picture of just how expensive counter-terrorism measures are, and how marginal are the benefits.  I think that this is one topic on which Lomborg's analysis is misleading. It's no doubt true that the death toll from terrorist acts is marginal compared to more familiar problems.  Lomborg cites 420 deaths each year from "transnational terrorism," and that compares with 30,000 deaths of U.S. highways.  But terrorism has a much more profound psychological impact on a nation that crunched up Corollas, just as an airline crash has a much bigger impact than a bad holiday weekend on I 29.  Governments are compelled to respond to terrorism without doing a simple cost-benefit analysis.  But Lomborg is right to insist that we reckon the costs. 

I would note, though Cory does not, that Lomborg is a bete noire of the world left. He has had to defend himself against charges of intellectual dishonesty before the  Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, a scary sounding institution if ever there was one.  There is no question that the charges were politically motivated.  I trust that Cory and I are reasonably safe from the DCSD.  But trying to maintain some common sense on topics like global warming looks like heresy to the true believers. 

I have been posting about global warming on my blogs for several years.  I have found the evidence compelling that we were, at least until recently, in a long term global warming trend.  I thought the evidence convincing, until recently, that human activity was a significant factor.  I think the current cooling period raises serious questions about the climate models that cannot account for it.  But I have also argued, rightly it still seems to me, that there is nothing we can do to halt the human contributions to global warming.  With the growing economies in China and India, there is no way the rest of the world can reduce carbon emissions enough to make a difference, and we just aren't going to strangle our own economies.  So it only makes sense, as Lomborg has argued, to spend our energies and monies on preparing for the effects of future warming. 

Cory issues this challenge:

So how about a deal: let's drop the War on Terror and global warming as rhetorical bludgeons. Better yet, let's cut funding funding for both issues by half and dedicate that money to fighting disease and hunger. Any takers?

That is shrewd, and I applaud.  I am sure that cutting anti-terrorism funds by half would be way too risky for any government to try it.  But I am sure that directing a lot of the money we say we ("we" being the developed world) are going to spend to stop global warming toward more manageable problems would do a great deal of good. 

 

Johnson Airs First TV Ad

Obama Love

We are Winning in Iraq II

Even the New York Times is noticing our progress in Iraq, reporting on how anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is losing power.

The Press Finally Concedes: We are Winning in Iraq

A few days back I posted with this title: "Is the Iraq War Over?"  I quoted reporter Michael Yon to that effect, while sounding some cautionary notes to cover my butt.  Intrepid reader BB responded:

Michael Yon says we won the war? WOW! Stop the presses...and cut and paste. Michael Yon has been saying we are winning for how many years now?

But it isn't just Yon anymore.  It's the Associate Press.  You read that right.  From the Rapid City Journal:

The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace _ a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.

That, I suppose, is what winning looks like.  If you want to get out of Iraq, if you want to transfer more troops to Afghanistan, winning in Iraq would be the ticket.  Of course, you would have to admit that George W. got one thing right, and that Barack Obama, along with most the Democratic leadership, got it dead wrong.  Even the AP can't deny that now. 

Obama the Inflexible?

Perhaps the best sober analysis I have seen of Barack Obama's thinking on Iraq policy and strategy is John Dickerson's piece on Slate. 

When Karen Tumulty of Time asked Obama what he'd learned on his trip, he said, "It confirmed a lot of my beliefs." Lara Logan of CBS asked him if he was ever in doubt that he could lead the country in war as commander in chief, and he answered, "Never." After seven and a half years of George Bush, we should pause when a man auditioning for president says that the facts confirmed his beliefs and that he's never in doubt. As Obama himself has warned us at other moments, these are signs that a fearless leader may be letting ideology or rigidity steer him in the wrong direction.

Well, yes.  Obama is surely right to want to assure us all that he is up to the job of President, but just as surely the right thing to say was: "of course."  Then he could point out that any serious person would have some doubts in the face of such an awesome job, but that he is confident that he is the best person to take it on.  His unequivocal "never" shows us how much of a typical twenty-first politician he is. 

But a more serious question is whether he can respond to events in the world, and change his mind when changing is warranted.  After all, this is supposed to be George W.'s biggest flaw, that he always responds to failure by "doubling down." 

The main complexity Obama has to confront in Iraq is the apparent success of the most recent phase of U.S. military strategy, of which the troop surge was a key part. Violence has come down from stratospheric heights. The success is relative (violence is still at 2005 levels), but the situation is far better than Obama predicted. When he voted against the surge in January 2007, he claimed on more than one occasion that it would lead to increased casualties and sectarian violence. It didn't. How'd he get that one wrong? In January 2007, Obama claimed that the Iraqi government would make no hard choices if the United States stayed. But they have made hard choices. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched incursions into Basra and confronted cleric Muqtada Sadr, both of which helped pave the way for the Sunni faction's return to the government. This is not enough progress to suggest Iraq is anywhere near stable, but like the drop in violence, it's more than Obama predicted.

The success of the surge strategy in Iraq is one of the most important new, and encouraging facts that one must think about when trying to get a handle on what we should do next.  Paradoxically, it makes it easier to contemplate staying in Iraq or leaving.  But as Dickerson points out, "Obama still holds the same policy views he did more than a year and a half ago." 

I would add to what Dickerson says that Obama has a unique problem here.  His single most important claim on behalf of his candidacy is that he was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning.  Of course, he did not get to vote on it at the beginning, so we don't really know what he would have done.  If he was in the Senate at the time, would he have acted on principle and voted no, or would he have acted like Kerry and voted for it before he voted against it?  I think all the evidence points to the latter. 

But when he did get to vote, he voted against the surge.  That might have been the most important vote he cast in the Senate, and it was a mistake.  Perhaps Obama thinks that to admit that mistake, and the mistaken thinking underlying the vote, would undermine the case he is making for himself.  Maybe.  But as Dickerson points out:

In his book The Audacity of Hope, he writes about pulling aside reporters who were living in Iraq to get their views about the war. He expected them to agree with his call for a troop reduction. They didn't. They said a troop reduction would start a civil war. Obama called for a troop reduction anyway, but we know his mind is alive enough to capture and remember a piece of data that didn't fit with his pre-existing views. Are contradictory observations fine for a book but off-limits when you're a political candidate? Admitting you're wrong, or even that your thinking has evolved, is risky for a politician. Maybe too risky. That's certainly what George Bush believes.

Randy Pausch, RIP

Carnegie Mellon computer science professor Randy Pausch achieved notoriety with his riveting "last lecture" last September.  Pausch was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer and gave this lecture to honor his students and others at Carnegie Mellon, imparting life lessons and advice to his audience.  Jeff Zaslow of the Wall Street Journal covered the lecture and helped Pausch expand the lecture into the book "The Last Lecture."

Sadly, Dr. Pausch died Friday at age 47.  Valerie Nelson has a wonderful obituary in the Los Angeles Times and opens the piece:

Randolph Frederick Pausch was born Oct. 23, 1960, in Baltimore and said he won the "parent lottery" with Fred and Virginia Pausch. His father sold insurance and his mother taught English. As a teenager growing up in Columbia, Md., he was allowed to paint whatever he wanted on his bedroom walls. His artistry included a quadratic equation, elevator doors and the rocket ship that adorns the cover of his book.

Randy Pausch, Ph.D, father, teacher, mentor.  Rest in peace.

Sermon to the Germans

London Times American correspondent Gerard Baker humorously critiques the Obamessianic sermon to the Germans in "He ventured forth to bring light to the world."  Be sure to give it a read.

McCain Hits Hard

Here are some excerpts from a speech John McCain gave yesterday before a military audience in Denver (via PowerLine).  It's a devastating and factual critique of Barack Obama:

Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama's failed.

We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the "surge" was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops -- which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn't test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn't matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.

Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn't just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.

And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

...

Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn't have been more wrong.

By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. "Not only have we not seen improvements," he said, "but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."

If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.

Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened.

...

Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.

Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. ... In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.

Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.

Global Cooling in Alaska

We are rapidly approaching a tipping point in climate change, says Andrew Simms of the BBC. 

New and cautious calculations by the New Economics Foundation's (nef) climate change programme suggest that we may have as little as 100 months starting from August 2008 to avert uncontrollable global warming.

One hundred months, starting next Friday.  Well, you can't complain that he is being vague.  It reminds me of the David Bowie song, "news had just come over, we had five years left to cry in."  If the world is ending, it might be nice to know exactly how long we have.  But one thing is good news: if the world really is about to reach a point of "uncontrollable global warming," at least we can stop arguing about what to do when that point has been passed.

But you might suppose it would matter that the world isn't warming right now, that in fact it has been cooling for about ten years.  How, exactly, are we approaching a global warming tipping point if we are going in the opposite direction?  And it might matter that a lot of places in the world have been experiencing the coldest temperatures on record.  Consider this, from the Anchorage Daily News:

Right now the so-called summer of '08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.

   

That unhappy record was set in 1970, when we only made it to the 65-degree mark, which many Alaskans consider a nice temperature, 16 days out of 365.

   

This year, however -- with the summer more than half over -- there have been only seven 65-degree days so far. And that's with just a month of potential "balmy" days remaining and the forecast looking gloomy.

Of course, a decade long cooling trend doesn't mean that the long term warming trend is over.  On the other hand, it is hardly something that can be accounted for using all the famous global warming computer models.  And surely it means we have at least a few years breathing room.  But such is not part of the calculations of the faithful, who continue to dream of forcing us all to change our behaviors to conform to their preferences.

Obama in Europe. McCain in a hole.

I got this thoughtful note from intrepid reader Gene:

Professor Blanchard, I think McCain is still in the running because people genuinely like him.  Personally I spent over two years as the aide to a WWII Medal of Honor winner and later two years as the deputy to a Viet Nam POW.  Both of these men dealt with demons that I could only witness but never feel.  So I am truly in awe of John McCain.  Now comes the “but”.  McCain’s campaign is a disaster; this entire week he came off as “small” in his comments.    It hurt to see/hear him act like just another “look at me” politician—I prefer he get back on the pedestal and rise above sound bite chatter.  I believe that people really want to vote for him but right now he is losing them.  I don’t agree that this election is Obama’s to win or lose--as I’ve heard pundits say many times. As much as I respect the man I’m in the undecided column. I do have a much more favorable opinion of him than of Obama but my bottom line; I’m not sure at this time he is the right one to move us forward.

I don't think McCain's campaign is a disaster, but it is surely sputtering.  McCain has strengths, as Gene points out.  His greatest strength, however, is not his own.  It lies in the uncertainty that Barack Obama has created around himself.  All but the true faithful can now see that Obama's campaign is pure Hollywood.  He adopts or abandons positions based solely on whether they improve his ratings.  It is all but impossible to tell from anything he says or does what he really believes, if indeed he believes anything.  McCain has the advantage of a long presence on the political stage, and voters has a sense of who he is that can withstand the occasional flip flop. 

But if Obama is a showman, he is turning out to be a spectacularly good showman.  His world tour may be, as most people seem to think, all campaign and no statesmanship, but it surely puts him way up on the stage.  Meanwhile, the McCain campaign cannot seem to figure out how to capitalize on his strengths.  It is impressive, as I said yesterday, that McCain is still competitive.  But given Obama's ability to rouse so many people where ever he shows up, and the constant adoration he gets from the American press, it's hard to see how McCain can convert. 

McCain needs to build a sense of substance and presence.  He needs to look like a safe bet to all those who wonder if a savior from Chicago, a rock star to the masses, is really what we need in a President.  Just now, he doesn't seem to know how to do that.   

Zombie Voters in the Rushmore State

Back in Arkansas, we all knew the score.  The hill country voted Republican.  Blacks did not, nor did most of the delta.  But the dead always voted Democrat. In many states the rights of dead voters are respected, but not, apparently, in South Dakota.  From Fox News:

If you vote by mail, but die before Election Day, does your vote count? It depends on where you lived.

Oregon counts ballots no matter what happens to the voter. So does Florida. But in South Dakota, if you die before the election, so does your vote...

Take the case of Florence Steen, an ailing 88-year-old grandmother born before women had the right to vote. One of her last wishes was to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton. She wanted to be part of history, said her daughter Kathy Krause.

Steen was confined to a hospice bed in Rapid City, S.D., when she was brought an absentee ballot weeks before the June 3 primary. She studied it a long time, then marked her choice with such determination her daughter feared she would poke through the paper.

Steen died on Mother’s Day. With a heavy heart, her daughter took the ballot and dropped it in a mailbox. “In my mind, her vote counted,” Krause said. “My mother believed she had voted for a woman to be president.”

But the women down at the county courthouse told Krause the ballot had to be tossed because state law declared a voter must be alive on Election Day.

So Krause passed that word to the Clinton campaign. And Clinton drew great applause when she told the story in her concession speech four days after the South Dakota primary.

Now I am on record regarding the legal rights of zombies and vampires, so I wonder that I was not called about this.  Zombies are soulless corpses, without personality or legal status.  If Ms. Steen had lurched to the polls muttering "brains!  Must eat brains!" and then voted,  her vote should not have counted. 

But since she was alive when she voted, her vote should obviously count.  Ms. Clinton is right to complain, and the South Dakota law should be changed.

A Political Scientist Alive In An Interesting Election

Everything that political scientists use to game an election tells me that McCain should lose, and that he should be way behind already.  The economy is a problem.  OK, it's not really all that bad, by historical standards.  Unemployment isn't that high, the mortgage crisis hasn't really hurt that many voters.  Gas prices look high, but in constant dollars they have been worse before.  But clearly the voters are spooked, as well they should be.  The Republican brand name is worth elephant turds, and Barack Obama doth bestride the narrow world like a colossus, attracting more people than Abba would to his recent speech.  Meanwhile the American press doesn't seem to know or care that McCain is in the race. 

So why is Obama only marginally ahead of McCain in most polls, nationally?  And why is McCain ahead in Colorado and Ohio, in some polls?  Voters seem to like both Obama and McCain, but they have misgivings about both.  Obama's flip-flopping has brought him down to earth, and his trip to Europe may not reap the returns he hoped for.  Do we really want a rock star as President?  Obama's problem now is that many voters will see anything he says or does from this point forward as mere politics.  And that leaves them wondering how they can know who this guy really is.  I am not at all sure that McCain can capitalize on that, but he is still in the game.  Beyond that, I don't know what is going on. 

Grand New Party: A Review

Almost three years ago, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam penned "The Party of Sam's Club" for The Weekly Standard.  In that article Douthat and Salam argue that the key to success for the Republican Party is targeting the needs of the decent, thrifty working class, the kinds of people who shop at Sam's Club.  To do this, the GOP should adopt a series of proposals such as higher tax credits for families with children, promote a subsidy for parents who forgo work to care for children at home, offer wage subsidies for the working poor, and subsidizing private acquisition of health insurance (as opposed to state provided health insurance).  The authors provided in this essay a bold set of policy proposals that are government funded but relatively non-bureaucratic.  The goal is to ease the insecurity felt by the working class by providing them with the means to meet their needs without the bureaucracy that micromanages their lives. 

Douthat and Salam have expanded this article into a book, Grand New Party.  I am sorry to say that the book does not offer much that one cannot get in the article.  As is often the case when a widely read article becomes a book, there is too much filler and not enough substance to make the book worthwhile.  Grand New Party might be a fine paperback purchase, but save your money on the hard back and read the article linked above. 

Slightly over half of Grand New Party is a basic political history of the post New Deal America, especially concentrating on the collapse of the New Deal Democratic coalition in the late 1960s and the failure of Republicans to ever put together a persistent governing majority. The authors concentrate in this history on the ways in which the political parties responded to the working class.  While the information in this part of the book is nicely presented, students of American politics will find little here that is new.  Interestingly, though, Douthat and Salam agree with Prof. Blanchard's often stated belief that Bill Clinton was about as good of a Democratic president as Republicans could have ever hoped for. 

In an addition in the book from the article, Douthat and Salam argue that family breakdown has hit the working class much harder than the upper class.  While wealthy liberals often talk up "sexual liberation" and the virtues of divorce, they tend to live relatively conservatively, meaning they raise their children in stable homes with all of the benefits of two parents and sound income.  Family breakdown amongst the working class, though, opens them up to greater incidence of all sorts of social pathologies.  Controlling for all other factors, including income, children of single parents are more likely to commit crimes, use drugs, end up in jail, have children out of wedlock, suffer from depression and attempt suicide, drop out of school...you get the point.  Thus to help the working class, argue the authors, policy should concentrate on strengthening the working class family (thus all the tax breaks to kids).  While they seem to be on solid ground here, Douthat and Salam essentially replicate the argument put forth better and more thoroughly by Kay Hymowitz in Marriage and Caste in America, a fine book that is summed up in this City Journal article. 

It is only in the last 60 pages or so that the authors offer any policy proposals and these are largely (but not exclusively) found in the Weekly Standard article.  Conservatives will balk at the number of government programs advocated by Douthat and Salam, but in truth most of their proposals are meant to empower individuals at the expense of bureaucracies.  One wishes they would have pondered more the fiscal impact of their program, namely taking the time to think about how much money their program would cost versus how much it would save.  Government debt is one of the biggest issues facing our country, but the authors don't address the budget impact of their menu of proposals. Also, they do discuss many education reforms, but they seem oblivious to the fact that most of their education program would have to be passed state by state, if not school district by school district. For example, they believe budgets should be cut for large flagship state universities and spent on small universities with specific missions.  Well, that must be done state by state.  They think that we should re-introduce vocational training in high schools.  Again, that must be done state by state, or even district by district. 

Most controversially they advocate universal health care, but not statist health care.  They are fond of Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan that mandated health insurance, but provided the money for the purchase of private insurance.  They also think it'd be best if we actually paid more for health insurance out of our pockets as a way to fight overconsumption.  But the government should step in to help with extraordinary expenses (say, hospital bills over $50,000). 

If one desires a take on post-WWII American political history, a fine presentation of the crisis of the working class family, and some policy prescriptions to address that crisis this book is for you.  I happen to think one can find much of what they offer elsewhere, put just as well if not better and, frankly, without paying for the book.  One reason to buy the book, though, is that it may give some insight into the views of Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, the man who coined the term "Sam's Club Republicans."  He may become John McCain's running mate, so that makes Grand New Party slightly more relevant than it otherwise would be. 

Bush Lied

The American News prints my latest missive, glaring first sentence typo and all. 

Evil & Education in Lebanon

In a recent post I managed to include both The Joker from the current Batman film, and Samir Kuntar, a Palestinian terrorist recently released by the Israelis after 30 years in prison, in exchange for the corpses of two kidnapped Israeli soldiers.  On my Keloland site I got this note from intrepid and loyal reader, BB:

Ken, once again your ignorance is appalling. I just don't think that you have any clue concerning history or reality with what is happening in Israel. I am inclined to think that this is by choice. If you actually knew what was going on it would force you to reconsider your paradigms. I have continually chided you to seek education on the topic. I still do...please get educated!

Well, that was typical BB.  Lots of insults without any hint of what facts, exactly, I am ignorant about.  And then, without warning, BB actually sent me some facts to chew on. 

Here is a good place to start: http://www.btselem.org/English/ This is the Israeli Information Center. Be sure to check out the pdf file about the "separation wall" in the West Bank. This is what W was talking about when he referenced not being able to make a nation out of "swiss cheese."

Btselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, is a NGO that documents human rights violations by the Israelis against Palestinians.  I was in fact aware that such violations occur.  I notice the image on the homepage, which apparently documents an Israeli soldier shooting rubber bullets at a handcuffed Palestinian detainee.  That is surely a case of abuse.  And just as surely, one won't find a similar case on the other side.  We should praise Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Palestinian authority, I gather, because they never shot rubber bullets at anyone. 

But I suppose that, given the first post, BB thinks that the information provided by Btselem is germane to my comments on Kuntar, since that was my only point in that post.  Let's review what Kuntar is, and what it means that he has been received in Lebanon by Hezbollah as a national hero.   

He murdered an Israeli policeman.

He murdered Danny Haran in front of his four year old daughter, Einat.

He beat the little girl's brains out with a rifle butt.

Her mother, Smadar Haran, hid in a crawl space with her two year old daughter, and accidentally suffocated the child while trying to keep her quiet. 

Now I wonder, what are the facts of which I am ignorant, and which if I were only educated about them, would make me see that he is only an  innocent victim of an oppressive Israel?  What would lead to see him as a freedom fighter, a man to be celebrated by his people?  Here, my imagination fails me. 

I don't doubt that the Israelis have done a lot of bad things in their struggle for national survival. I don't doubt that an intelligent and decent person could be sympathetic  to the plight of the Palestinians.  But that wasn't what I was writing about in my recent post.  I wrote about Kuntar. And I discover from BB's information that the Israelis aren't picking up enough garbage in the occupied territories, and that water is scarce.  That is supposed to justify Kuntar's murders and his heroic status?  BB and I think differently. 

Kuntar's murders were pure evil.  No political considerations are relevant.  His elevation to rock star status in Lebanon on the basis of these deeds alone tells us that his evil was not some mere idiosyncrasy. That was my point.  It will stand, I think, against any education that BB can provide.   

Jindal?

Speculation amok that John McCain has selected Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as his running mate.

Update: Or, maybe not. 

A Proud Lesbian

According to Thucydides, it went down like this.  The island of Lesbos rebelled against the Athenian Empire.  The Athenians quickly subdued it, and then it was up to the popular assembly in Athens (you want to see real democracy?  This would be it!) to decide what to do with the rebellious islanders.  The assembly voted to kill all the adult males, and sell the women and children into slavery.  Frees up a lot of real estate.  A boat was sent out (powered by rowers) to inform the marines on Lesbos as to their duty.  But the next day a shrewd speaker convinced the assembly to reverse its vote.  So they sent out a second boat, with a reward promised to the rowers if they got there in time.  They did.  And so the Lesbians were saved.  The male Lesbians that is. 

Well, the Lesbians are revolting again.  At least one of them: "Dimitris Lambrou, editor-in-chief of the Greek monthly magazine O Davlos ("The Torch")." 

Lambrou filed a petition for a temporary injunction in an Athens court. He wanted to keep OLKE, Greece's gay and lesbian association, from continuing to use the word "lesbian." Lambrou himself was born on the island of Lesbos, the home of the poet Sappho, classical muse of all women who love women. Lambrou happens to love his native Lesbos. OLKE, he insists, has stolen the word "lesbian." Women from Lesbos are constantly confused with lesbian women, says Lambrou, who believes real Lesbians can only exist on Lesbos.

Lambrou and his actions were met with resounding applause, in Greece and around the world. Residents of Lesbos contacted him, offering their services as expert witnesses. He even received a call from Canada, from a man originally from Lesbos, who emigrated more than 30 years ago and insisted that he still suffers from the confusion.

Suddenly everything seemed possible. What if an island in the Aegean Sea manages to triumph over the entire world? What if lesbian is just a geographic designation, perhaps even a "brand," something that can be registered and protected?

I find it hard to have much sympathy for Mr. Lambrou's cause.  As indicated above, the ancient Greek poet Sapho lived on Lesbos.  She wrote love poems to other women.  I read her poetry in a Greek literature class back in the late seventies.  It was quite striking.  I still remember a single line: "lawn, darkened under roses."  When a line of poetry sticks with you for thirty years, well, it worked.  Because of Sapho, the word "Lesbian" becomes a term for women sexually attracted to other women.  That's the way language works.

On the other hand, he sorta has a point:

The matter was brought before an Athens court in early June. The gallery filled with residents of the island of Lesbos, along with homosexual men and women.

"My wife is a Lesbian, my daughter is a Lesbian and I am a Lesbian," Lambrou's [testimony] began, to laughter from the gallery.

"Do you hear those people laughing?" the witness asked the female judge. "All of Greece is laughing about it. And now you can imagine how we are treated abroad."

It's a rare man who can say all that! 

But here's the thing: the modern left has worked for decades to build a legal doctrine of proprietary ownership of images and words by indigenous peoples.  My original Alma Mater, Arkansas State University, used to have a football team called The Indians.  The team mascot looked a lot like Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians.  But Native Americans apparently own the idea of Native Americans, and so ASU dumped the "Indians" name, and now the team is called the Red Wolves.

I happen to think that this is very bad political strategy. We are now in the business of systematically erasing the most visible references to our Native heritage.  The cowboys and Indians movies are long gone.  The mascots are on the way out.  In a few decades, most American children won't know that there ever were such people as the Cherokee or Osage nations.  That is what the Left is achieving.  What Native American activists should have done was what everyone who owns a powerful brand name should: lease it out but keep it under control.  Team mascots could have been a vehicle for teaching about our Native heritage, and I say "our" because Americans are Americans, native or otherwise.  I am sure the reply would be: "we would never sell our heritage."  Fine.  Then someone will have to dig it up, a few centuries from now, and say all sorts of ridiculous things about it. 

But back to Mr. Lambrou, the Lesbians are an indigenous people if ever there was one.  If Native Americans own the word "Indians," surely residents of the island of Lesbos own the word "Lesbians."  But of course this isn't a case of taking the word away from a soft target like a state university.  Here it is a luminous body of the left that has stolen Lesbos' heritage.  So whom does the left side with?  I can't wait to see this one played out.

More Joker

I know I should be blogging on serious things, like Barack Obama in Afghanistan.  Bear with me for a minute.  Professor Schaff posted an excellent review of The Dark Knight just before I did.  I agree with almost all of it.  I am not quite sure I agree with this:

One of the few disappointments I have with the film going experience is the laughter some viewers had with the Joker, a character so obviously devoted to cruelty as a way of life. As I noted above, the Joker is amusing at times, but as the film develops his sadism is so clear that he is no longer an object worthy of laughter.  I think this error is on the part of some in the audience, not the film.

I don't believe for a moment that the audience was laughing with the Joker.  Oddly enough, laughter doesn't always mean that something is funny.  Sometimes it is a genuine reaction to something outrageously anomalous.  It is not unusual in movies for a villain to look down at the sword thrust into his torso (by the hero of course), and laugh.  The laugh just means that he can't quite believe what he is seeing.  The Joker's goofy behavior as he beats Batman with a crowbar, it made some of us laugh (myself included) because there just can't be such a creature as this.  And yet there he was. 

One of the brilliant touches in the movie is that the Joker offers us an explanation for himself.  He explains that, as a boy, he watched his father murder his mother.  And as a man, he made a great sacrifice for his wife (this explains his scars), which she repaid by hating him and abandoning him.  A few decades ago that would have sufficed for an explanation: he was abused and traumatized, so now he abuses.  But this not the Joker's view.  Life gave me lemons, look at the delicious lemonade I have made from them!  He is a sociopath to be certain, but it is not at all clear that he is insane.  He knows the difference between right and wrong, knows that death is death, etc.  He is just utterly uninhibited by such notions.  He kills without the slightest hesitation, and is perfectly free from any fear of his own death.  The Joker is an artist and an idealist, but his ideals are mayhem, misery, and death. That is what is so truly terrifying about him. 

All this is correct, in the context.  What justifies the superhero is the pure evil of the perfect supervillain.  But it's not, unfortunately, just fiction. There are people for whom the most brutal murder has become a high ideal. 

Consider this, from Slate:

In 1979 Samir Kuntar entered Israel on a boat from Lebanon and kidnapped a young father and his 4-year-old daughter. He shot the father, Danny Haran, to death in front of his daughter, Einat, then killed her by smashing her skull against a rock with a rifle-butt. Israel has just released him and others of his ilk, in exchange for the bodies of two of their soldiers. His return to Lebanon is a national holiday. The streets are filled with cheering. What a triumph for the terror organization Hezbollah, which all but controls Lebanon and has long been demanding Kuntar's return. In an excellent column on this, Mona Charen asks, "What can you say about a people who welcome a child murderer as a hero?"

Kuntar is the guy with the thick, black mustache.  A lot of commentary on The Dark Knight has focused on the similarities between the Joker's bombs and 9/11.  But it's one thing to blow up a building to achieve some political objective (wicked though that might be).  It's another to celebrate a man for beating a four year old child's brains out with a rifle. That is real murder of the most brutal sort, and apparently it represents a heroic act to a lot of Lebanese.  The Joker has at least one redeeming quality that all these new wave barbarians lack.  He doesn't really exist. 

Please Welcome Mondak to the Local Blogosphere

Friend and frequent reader of SDP, Mondak, has launched a new blog, Dakota 21.  You can find it here: http://dakota21.typepad.com/dakota_21/.  I know from Mondak's frequent notes that he is an unusually thoughtful and generous interlocutor.  He goes out of his way to give credit where credit is due, and assume the best about the people he is arguing with.  There is a lot to be said for that.  He does seem to be very irritated at Pat Powers, but you can check that out on his blog.

Oddly enough, my SDP colleague Jason Heppler had just suggested that we encourage Mondak to start his own blog when he started his own blog.  I recommend that our readers check out Dakota 21. 

The Bat Man's Nemesis: Dark Knight Reviewed

When I was a young man reading comic books, there were only two villains that ever genuinely scared me: Spider-Man's nemesis, the Green Goblin, and the Joker.  The Joker was terrifying.  A lot of people are a little bit unnerved by clowns.  The Joker is what such people are afraid of.  He transformed symbols of mirth into what biologists call warning colors: in this case, warnings of pure, homicidal malevolence.  Most criminals, however ruthless, are at least moderated by the very vices that they serve.  They want wealth, or power, or just like to bully people.  In the worst case they get what they want and then hop in the get away car and beat it.  The Joker, as Alfred puts in The Dark Knight, wants to see the world burn.  And he wants to see souls burn along with bodies and buildings, and knows how to get the fire going.  Put a little face paint on that, and you've got the greatest villain that DC Comics, or maybe anyone, ever invented.   When Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) hands Batman the playing card, at the end of Batman Begins, the hair stood up on the back of my neck. 

No one has ever done the Joker justice on screen, until now.  Caesar Romero in the 1966 series looked more like the comic book character than anyone else, but was about as scary as Barney the purple dinosaur.  Jack Nicholson did the Joker with flair, but played the role for laughs rather than chills.  The late Heath Ledger gave us the genuine article, all the way down to the existential horror that the character represented. This interpretation was a work of pure genius. It is a great tragedy for genre fans that Ledger died before the movie even opened. 

The Dark Knight is an extraordinary piece of film making.  It blows its predecessor away, and Batman Begins was a very good movie.  It succeeds in combining all the genuine elements of the comic book with a kind of seriousness and a feeling of plausibility that the other great superhero movies of recent years never come close to. The Joker has no super powers, nor any technological wonders at his disposal (unlike the Bat Man).  His weapons bombs, guns, and a little knife that seems to have crawled out from scars that turn his lips into a permanent smile.  Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne, Michael Caine as Alfred, Morgan Freeman as Batman's quartermaster, all are superb. 

The movie was not without glaring flaws.  It was too long by a good half hour, with way too much time devoted to Batman racing from point A to point B, not fighting but just trying to avoid trash cans and concrete posts. A lot of plot elements were contrived, and a few were silly.  They squeezed in a second villain from the comic series, and that was a little too clever.

 

It is also very dark, and some viewers will find it depressing.  I did not.  It presents genuine portraits of nobility in the face of evil that were more than one expects in such a context.  Hollywood has figured out how to give us the kind of movie that superhero fans have longed dreamed of.  If you like this sort of thing, don't miss The Dark Knight.  But if you are afraid of clowns, beware.

Dark Knight: A Review

The new Batman film, Dark Knight, is a superior film skillfully using all the weapons of the superhero genre to create a moral tapestry at once complex and satisfying.  The action is hot, the acting is top notch, and the film makes one think while offering the eye candy one wants from a summer superhero blockbuster.  Can you tell I recommend the film? 

Dark Knight starts with Batman having to deal with Batman impostors as much as the criminal element.  This itself indicates one of the film's themes: who has the right to use violence for the public good?  What makes Batman a hero while others who wear his uniform are just vigilantes?  The film is clever is showing good and evil in its complexity while not hedging that good is superior to evil.  But doing good in a messy world is not as easy as it sometimes seems.  Batman himself suffers from the trouble of all film noir heroes (or anti-heroes, if you prefer): he represents a challenge to public order while attempting to maintain public order. 

Enter the Joker.  In addition to the more human reasons for mourning the death of Heath Ledger, his portrayal of the Joker should make us miss him as an actor.  I suspect an Oscar nomination is coming his way, and not just out of sentiment.  This film's Joker, similar to that of the original Michael Keaton Batman featuring Jack Nicholson as the Joker,  is a slightly mad yet deviously clever criminal who takes a perverse joy in causing mayhem.  But Ledger's Joker goes beyond this.  Not content to rule Gotham's organized crime and have more money than he could ever spend (he has other peculiar plans for the money), he wants to prove to Gotham the absurdity of doing "good" in a world where good is simply a word to describe what we prefer.  The Joker is a deranged Nietzschean (or do I repeat myself) who throughout the film takes delicious joy in doing the worst evil.  Ledger's Joker is not the comedian of Nicholson's interpretation.  Although his keen sense of the absurd does make him amusing at times, he does not make evil fun; he makes evil look evil. 

The error of much modern film is that it makes evil more interesting than good (that is a failing of that first Batman film).  This film does not fall into that trap.  By forcing Bruce Wayne and District Attorney Harvey Dent (played well by Aaron Eckhart) to question their own motives and the right course in their pursuit of good, Dark Knight makes the struggle to do good as interesting as the semi-comedic evil they fight.  They want good, but they must be prudent, meaning they must find the right means to achieve good.  They do not want to become what they fight, namely a nihilist who asserts his will rather than good men who obey a notion of justice outside of their own desires. One of the few disappointments I have with the film going experience is the laughter some viewers had with the Joker, a character so obviously devoted to cruelty as a way of life. As I noted above, the Joker is amusing at times, but as the film develops his sadism is so clear that he is no longer an object worthy of laughter.  I think this error is on the part of some in the audience, not the film.  In a compelling scene towards the film's end, good is reaffirmed dramatically by the choices of certain pawns in the Joker's game to destroy all belief in good.   

The early part of the film suffers from some muddy plot development, but once it gets going it is an exciting morality tale.  The Joker essentially makes war on Gotham, and all civilization, forcing those with responsibility to face a myriad of difficult choices regarding how to fight him.  Does fighting evil require one to do evil?  Do the people need a heroes to retain their commitment to good and, ultimately, civilization? Does the maintenance of order require a strong executive hand?  The question of the necessity of dictatorship is explicitly discussed in the film. 

The film makes some conscious allusions to the war on terror.  Indeed, the Joker is called a terrorist.  This is not an inaccurate description of him (with caveats not worth discussing here).  So the questions above are not just questions for the film characters, but for those who wish to maintain civilization.  What must be done to retain civilization?  The film even includes a surveillance system that allows Batman to listen in on all calls in Gotham.  Is this ethical? It is certainly useful, even necessary, but does that make it right? In a discussion that might make us think of George Bush, does justice require some who are willing to do the good that is unpopular, thus becoming unpopular themselves, in order  for civilization to endure its trials?  Note that by unpopular I do not mean unjust. 

I must point out that the film is too long.  It was in serious need of another edit.  The film appears to come to a conclusion with an explosion and a change in the life of Harvey Dent.  But it then moves on to a third (or fourth) act that introduces new plot twists and cliffhangers that simply are too much at this point.  This is my one substantive complaint about the film (ok, and a couple times it seems as if Gary Oldman, as Lt. Gordon, slips into his English accent). I warn viewers that the film is violent and not for young children.

Dark Knight is rumored to be heading for a record setting weekend.  It deserves all the money its makes.  Go see Dark Knight.    

Obama and Iraq: A Multitude of Contradictions

The Advantages & Disadvantages of CO2 for Life

The Isaiah of Climate Change, Al Gore, is once again gazing at the moon.  From Real Clear Politics:

Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

Ok, let's think about this.  A certain amount of sun hits the earth every year.  Fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas, contain solar energy stored over, well, millions of years.  So how much of fossil fuel output can solar energy replace, given the most efficient technology?  What's one divided by millions?  Biofuels, by the way, are just another form of solar energy collection.  Wind energy is solar energy plus the push from the earth's rotation.  Only in some places does the wind blow hard and regular, more or less.  Those places tend to be far away from the centers of energy demand.  What is the total bounty from wind energy?    Probably a lot less than the potential solar bounty.  Add to that the geothermal energy Gore is talking about, and you could maybe keep the lights on in Las Vegas for a good holiday weekend.  If anybody could get there. 

The Register in England has a great article about the Cambridge physicist David J C MacKay.  He is working on a book that adds up all the numbers.  Renewable energy sources don't add up.  The only energy source that can substantially add to our energy stocks is nuclear power.  Fast breeder reactors may be the ticket.  Gore isn't much interested in nuclear power, even though it creates no green house emissions.   

Al Gore warns us about global warming, and gives us charts of Manhattan underwater to make his point.   But it's worth while asking whether increased CO2 in the atmosphere might have some advantages.  Gore and the global warming evangelists see CO2 as pollution, but that's not the way the plants see it.  From Investor's Business Daily:

Even as the G-8 Summit announced plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, researchers at the Johann Heinrich von Theunen Institute in Germany find the rise in carbon dioxide levels may in fact be a boon to plant life on Earth.

The Theunen Institute, which has been monitoring the phenomenon since 1999, trained CO2 jets on plants, raising CO2 concentrations in the air around them to 550 parts per million (ppm), significantly higher than today's levels.

The researchers announced on Tuesday that such increased exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields.

"Output increased by about 10% for barley, beets and wheat" when the plants were exposed to the higher levels, according to the Institute's Hans-Joachim Weigel.

That the Earth is getting greener due to higher CO2 levels was confirmed recently by satellite data analyzed by scientists Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the earth's vegetation increased by a whopping 6.2%.

"Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates," explained Lawrence Solomon in a June 7 article on the Running/Nemani findings in Canada's Financial Post.

"Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."

So global warming may be very bad if you own beach front property, but it might be very good for every voter with roots and leaves, or paws for that matter.  It's nice to think that what's good for the Bay Area is good for the planet, but it ain't necessarily so.  Maybe we need to think about all of this, and not just earnestly feel the right way. 

Washington Post On Obama & Iraq

I have been one of the few conservatives in recent years who had anything good to say about the Washington Post.  The WaPo is a solidly Democratic paper, with a healthy liberal bias on almost all political questions.  But it seemed to me that they were what the New Republic used to be: a liberal publication capable of thinking without a constant regard for the party line.  For that reason, I have been a loyal reader.  When they disagree with me, which is a lot of the time, I know they aren't just knee-jerk liberals. 

The current editorial on Barack Obama's Iraq policy is one of the best pieces of its kind in years. 

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Yes.  Obama has become the people he has been warning us about.  The basic reason for this is that Obama, like most Democrats, seems to be able to hold only one idea in his mind at one time: beat the Republicans.  He intends to go to Iraq, but why?  To find out what the situation is?  No.  He announced he is going because it looks good to be going.  His policy decisions have nothing to do with realities over there.  They have everything to do with realities in the electoral college. 

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

Barack Obama has built his campaign on two claims, a vague promise of change, and his opposition to the war in Iraq.  The latter was supposed to prove that he had better judgment and/or was more principled than the recent leadership of the Democratic Party.  But his judgment failed spectacularly with regard to the President's surge policy.  My SDP colleague Mr. Heppler points out that the Obama campaign has quietly removed his earlier remarks declaring the surge a failure in advance.  So much for his shrewd judgment.

Right now Obama is doing a delicate dance.  He moves to the right on dozens of issues, hoping to convince independents and moderate Democrats that he is, well, a moderate Democrat.  But he has to keep the activist core convinced that he is true Anti-Bush, and will deliver us from Iraq right away in 16 months.  He figures it doesn't really matter what he says about any of this, just as it doesn't matter what he said or promised about accepting public financing.  He can always say that circumstances have changed. 

I actually think that this dancing is the most encouraging thing about Obama.  He might, like President Clinton, dance around to policies that actually work, if only because that is the way to win a second term.  The trouble is that his administration, much more than Bill Clinton's, is going to be manned by the activist core, and dependent on less flexible interest groups like the teacher's unions.  He is going to find a lot of these folks lining up with unpaid notes full of campaign promises.  There is no such thing as a free promise in politics. 

Is the Iraq War Over?

Unlike "conventional wars," wars against insurgencies rarely have clean beginnings or endings.  So it seems a bit rash to declare that the Iraq war is over, as embedded reporter Michael Yon does.  But you will see that he works his way rather cautiously into the assertion:

The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

Yon provides a Power Point down load that lays out in graphic detail the dramatic improvements in Iraq since the surge began.  Check out the "Ethno-sectarian violence" graph.  Wow.  It sure looks like a war winding down to a close. Barack Obama has promised to end the war in Iraq.  It looks like George W. may have beaten him to it. 

Thune Amendment Boosts Tribal Law Enforcement

Argus Leader:  "The Senate is poised to vote on an amendment Wednesday that would redirect $2 billion in funding for law enforcement, health care and water projects in Indian Country.  The amendment, part of the $50 billion foreign assistance bill, was introduced by Sen. John Thune."

Is This the Sort of "Change" He Meant?

The New York Daily News catches the Ministry of Truth at the Obama Campaign scrubbing his website of criticism of the troop "surge" in Iraq, which Obama had once considered a "problem" that hadn't reduced violence:

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."

The Associated Press has also taken notice.  Buttressed with Obama's dishonest New York Times op-ed from yesterday, its little wonder that a majority of Americans feel that Obama tells people what he thinks they want to hear, or adopts "Change" when it fits current events.

Political Humor & Its Discontents

I thought my post on the New Yorker cover might draw a response.  It did.  Just after I posted it I noticed that my esteemed Keloland colleague Bob Schwartz also posted on the cover, presenting a case against the cover.  Bob has this:

Of course The “New Yorker” is standing by their cover despite the condemnation that is coming pretty much from all sides including both the Obama and McCain campaign’s. They state that the satire was obvious and that their readership was smart enough to figure out the real meaning.

The problem with that logic of course is that while the “New Yorker’s” readers might be smart enough, as the WND poll shows, not everyone is a “New Yorker” kind of reader and all that cover has really done is put an image to the ridiculous beliefs of those who refuse to do even the most basic research and who probably shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

Intrepid reader BB has this comment, in much the same spirit:

Obama is in muslin or portrayed as Muslim? Big difference Ken. Also the "cleric" is none other than Osama bin Laden. That the wingnuts will use this against Obama is already evident in their blogs. Unfortunately the people that they pander to do not have "a sophisticated sense of humor." There are large parts of the populace that still believe that Obama is a secret Muslim. I actually kind of liked the cartoon but I also think that it was in poor taste given the sensitivity of such issues.

I should send BB a stipend for acting as a proof reader.  Thanks, Bob.  I corrected the typo.  As to the substance, what my colleague and reader seem to be saying is that political humor should be limited to the lowest common denominator.  Unless the bozos can get it, don't print it.  I could not disagree more. 

Did George Carlin worry about the goof balls who wouldn't get his satire?   I dare say not.  Political humor is supposed to be edgy, and ought to be clever.  It is frequently harsh and biting.  Sometimes it makes great demands of its audience, which is as it should be. But if you want it to be good, you can't put shackles on it or expect it to abide by Marquis of Queensbury rules.  Here might be my favorite example of political humor, or assassination, depending on your view.

The English actor and playwright Samuel Foote (1720-1777) was engaged in argument with Lord Sandwich in, where else, a pub.  "Foote," said Lord Sandwich, "I have often wondered what catastrophe would bring you to your end, but I think you must die either by the pox, or on the gallows."  Foote replied without missing a beat: "That would depend on whether I embrace your lordship's mistress, or your lordship's principles."  Not that was a good English foote to the arse.    There wasn't enough left of Sandwich to bury in a condom. 

Most political humor does not rise to that level of cleverness.  The New Yorker cover certainly did not.  But if you want to strangle cleverness in its crib, you need only insist that all comedy be in good taste, and that it respect the sensitivity of the issues.  The reaction to the New Yorker cover in the general press demonstrates that our political culture has become altogether too stuffy.  It's high time some good wits let a little air out of our shirts.

ps.

Intrepid reader and friend Gene sends me this:

Wow,  a "sophisticated sense of humor".  Guess I never got past the "in your face" satire.  But I think the attached cartoon will elict a chuckle from even the "sophisticated".  Take care--Gene

The New Yorker Cover

Well, at least it wasn't the Dutch this time.  The New Yorker has offended the sensibilities of the sensitive press by the cover art reproduced to the right.  Cyberspace is awash with righteous indignation, even though no one doubts that the image is a caricature not of Mr. and Ms. Obama, but of their critics. 

Michelle Obama is depicted as a gun toting Angela Davis type, and we see an American flag burning in the fireplace.  The Democratic nominee is presented as a Muslim, with the portrait of a Cleric looking over his shoulder, all in the Oval Office. 

I am sorry, but this funny.  I am not likely to endorse Ms. Obama for first lady, but only a full tilt loon could take this portrait seriously.  Whatever the Obama's are, they are as American as a pair of Egg McMuffins.  The cover art makes good fun of the tendency of some of us to view politicians and pundits through the most fevered imagination.  Some people do probably believe that this is an accurate portrait, just as our esteemed Keloland blogger David Newquist believes that the Aberdeen American News has a "petit-fascist philosophy." No reasonable person would make such a mistake. 

It's also probably true, as some wounded left wing patriots have alleged, that bozos on the right will circulate this cover as evidence for the coming Muslim take-over.  But that is the risk of all satire.  If the New Yorker cover is failed satire, as Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly has alleged,  it is because it assumed a sophisticated sense of humor on the part of the press.  I could have warned them about that.  When you spend as  much time as many Democrats and journalists do looking for attacks on your patriotism, you aren't a good audience for satire. 

Obama himself has come out to complain.  Bad strategy, I am thinking.  He doesn't need to look oversensitive right now, or ever.  He might have said: "look, when you are running for President, you get all kinds of grief.  Actually, I thought Michelle looked kinda cute in that afro."  When J.F.K. was entertaining some British politician, he complained about the way the press was treating Jackie.  "What would you do if newspapers were writing about your wife's drinking?" Kennedy asked, exasperated.  The Brit replied, without batting an eye, "I'd tell 'em: you should see her mother!" 

Political humor cannot go after our conceits (and they are legion) without offending our sensibilities.  Maybe I would have been writing an offended post if the same thing had been done to McCain.  I like to think not. 

 

Socialism Isn't Dead, But It Sure Smells Funny

My esteemed Keloland colleague Cory Heidelberger still clings to the dream.  He informs us that an NPR series makes socialized medicine look pretty good.  No! Ya think?  I have to say that I am skeptical of any national health care plan at this point, free market or othewise.  And maybe they will take away my conservative card, but I am not convinced that a decent national health service can't work.  A lot of reasonable folks say that the systems in France and the Netherlands is pretty good.  Of course, these were the same reasonable people who told us that Castro's Cuba was a model for Latin America.  But a stopped clock is right twice a day, so maybe socialism in health care can work. 

But if you are going to make it work, you will have to make sure it doesn't work like socialism.  The latter surely ranks as the most frequently tested idea in modern politics.  The results have ranged from bad to disastrous.  Just look at France, which is said to have this great medical care system.  I wrote a lot about France back when mobs of immigrant youth were burning thousands of cars every day, instead of a few hundred on Saturday night (which is what passes for normal).  Jurgen Reinhoudt at Real Clear Politics has this:

To say that France's social model is far from perfect is an understatement: in spite of the state absorbing more than 50% of GDP, France has suffered, since the 1980s, from rising child poverty rates, persistently high unemployment, a chronic sense of economic malaise, and the continual enrichment of the system's "insiders" at the expense of the system's "outsiders." More importantly, France's social model fails to deliver precisely what it proclaims to: economic justice, inter-generational fairness, economic opportunity and social protection, particularly to young workers entering the labor market, minorities, immigrants, middle-aged women and other vulnerable groups.

Reinhoudt relies heavily on Timothy Smith, and his book France in Crisis (Cambridge University Press, 2006).  Smith is, we are told, much fonder of the social model in Sweden and the Netherlands.  I don't know about Sweden, but the low country is sure having their share of social turmoil lately. Maybe socialism works only at higher altitudes. 

Socialism means social control of the government and economy, as opposed to private control of the latter.  It always promises "society" protection from competition or inconvenience on the part of someone or something else.  In some cases the something else is market forces.  Protecting people from market forces, like keeping them hovering in the air, is expensive.  Someone has to pay to keep someone else aloft.  If you've got a job in France you have protection galore, against people who don't have jobs but want them.  In all cases what socialism protects someone from is someone else.  Every European society works the same.  Part of the society is privileged and protected against another part of the society, which is bought off by housing subsides and free health care.  That holds up as long as the productive part of society can afford it. 

Oh, and the productive part also has to have a few babies now and then.  That ain't happening in Europe.  Once you get firmly enough wedded to the idea that government is all about providing you a comfortable life and long vacations, children just seem like another burden. You are already paying for enough North African immigrants as it is.   

Race for the White House Tied

Rasmussen:  "For the second straight day, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that the race for the White House is tied. Sunday’s numbers show Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 43% of the vote. When "leaners" are included, the two candidates are tied at 46%."

Roger Simon comments:  "I had always assumed that the race would tighten up in October, but we’re a long way from then. Why so early? What does this mean? Well, I might go on about this at more length, but it’s obvious Barack’s deep in the old Catch-22, not able to look like the candidate of change or 'new' politics as he slips-slides to the center. And to make matters worse, he can’t even go that far to the middle without sounding like a total hypocrite and alienating his base."

Viable Solutions to the Energy Crisis

The American Government seems all but dysfunctional in the face of the current energy crisis.  Part of the problem is that there isn't really a crisis, just yet.  Gas prices in the U.S. seem frighteningly high, but in constant dollars, they are about where they were in the early eighties.  But unlike earlier energy bottlenecks, this one seems unlikely to go away.  The reason is that China and India are unlikely to go away.  If energy pressures are likely to increase in the near future, and I think they are, we ought to be doing what we can before the real crisis happens. 

The problem is simple: demand is increasing faster than supply.  For that, there are only two solutions, and both would better than either or none: increase supply and lower demand.  Almost every pious politician on either side of the room likes to talk about alternative energy and energy independence.  But the one is vain and the other is utter nonsense.  Neither biofuels nor wind power are yet contributing anything to our energy supply.  Rather, both cost more than they produce.  But even if cost effective technologies come on line, neither wind nor corn will ever produce more than a marginal bounty in energy.  There just isn't enough energy in a years sunshine or a year of blustery days to matter. In the foreseeable future, the world economy will run on oil.

So what is left.  Reducing demand by increasing energy efficiency offers real dividends.  A lot of this will be taken care of by the market.  Americans are already shifting to smaller cars as the numbers go up over gas stations.  But if you like big government solutions, it's probably a good time to increase fuel efficiency standards for vehicles across the board.  Mortimer Zuckerman has a piece, "Stop the Energy Insanity," in U.S. News.   

The first fuel economy standard law, known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or cafe, was passed in 1975—a mandate that doubled the fuel efficiency of the typical car sold in the United States between 1974 and 1985 from 13.8 mpg to 27.5 mpg (even though these measurements took place in favorable controlled conditions rather than on actual highways). It has flattened out since then, in contrast to Europe, which now demands 44 mpg. An effort here in 1990 to lift the fuel standard to 40 mpg for cars aroused furious opposition led by Democrats from automaking states, like Michigan's Sen. Carl Levin and Rep. John Dingell. Had that bill been passed, we would be using 3 million fewer barrels a day.

There are probably millions of barrels of energy fat to be cut out of the American economy in all sectors.  One real solution to energy prices is get going on reducing demand per person. 

The other thing is to increase the supply of energy.  Zuckerman again:

We can get past the lame repetition of the decades-old argument over the virtues of offshore drilling. Simply put: To refuse to exploit our vast oil reserves is insane. The United States is one of the few countries in the world that choose to lock up their natural resources by dramatically restricting production and exploration...  In the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we're talking about a tiny corner of 2,200 acres (an area the size of a small airport) out of 19 million acres. The proposed drilling promises to yield an estimated 10.4 billion barrels, representing well over 20 years of imports from Saudi Arabia. Drilling in ANWR would take place on the coastal plain, a mosquito-plagued tundra and bog in the summer, not in the snowcapped mountains of ANWR that television pictures would have you believe are at stake. In the winter, the area would also be traversed on ice roads that melt in the spring. This would do no permanent damage to an environment in one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent—except to inconvenience some caribou that might have to find a different place to mate. We cannot lose over $40 billion a year to serve the caribou.

Yes.  It's crazy not to exploit domestic sources of oil, and the Democrats will sooner or later be forced to recognize this.  I would add that we probably need to increase our refinery capacity, so that the next Katrina can't shut it down so easily. 

I would also point out that the only really significant alternative to oil and coal is nuclear power.  In a fit of Steven King paranoia, we largely shut down growth in nuclear power decades ago.  We can no longer afford that.  Fast breeder reactors can supply a lot of the power we need if only we get around to building them.  It's time to push aside the whiners and find real solutions to problems like waste storage. 

I am quite confident that these problems will be solved.  The sooner we get down to business, the less pain will be involved. 

WALL-E: A Review

Some conservatives hate WALL-E.  Some conservatives love WALL-E.  Put me in the latter category.   I highly recommend Rod Dreher's post (see the second link above).  Because his post gives you the story line, let me suggest you go there and then come back here.  This spares me from the tedious job of telling the story and possibly spares the dear reader from having to read the story twice.  Let me just say at the start that the film is worth seeing merely as entertainment, containing a fun story line told in a riveting manner.  The film is also quite edifying. 

I am in large agreement with Rod.  The film shows humans as alienated from nature (or Nature), choosing to distract themselves with video and fast food, not bothering to engage the world around them.  The film has a handful of homages to 2001: A Space Odyssey, another film that uses outer space to show how technology can dampen our sense of wonder, thereby making us less human.  The humans on the ship Axiom in WALL-E constantly have a video screen in front of their faces telling them what to buy, allowing them to both commerce and converse, and basically distracting them from their surroundings.  One particular scene has two people having a conversation by video although they are sitting right next to each other.  One woman has her video screen go out on her and is astounded to learn that the Axiom has a pool, although she's been sitting next to it for years.  The humans in the film are fat consumerists devoid of eros (I think there is an implication that babies are made by machines) and devoid of knowledge of their past; they are lumps who live merely to be distracted and have their immediate desires fulfilled. 

But the film's depiction of humanity is not simplistic.  WALL-E himself is quite human, having the longing for another that the humans have lost, as well has finding meaning in the treasures of the Earth's past.  WALL-E is an inspiration to the humans, who do ultimately redeem themselves.  In this sense the film is not anti-human.  If it is "anti" anything, it is anti-consumerist.  Humans are not a foreign entity that spoils what is pristine.  Instead, humans are part of nature and are called on to be responsible stewards.   

There is no doubt that the film is a bit "green."  This is no better depicted than at the end of the film with a not so subtle message that we should "love the Earth."  But the movie isn't just green, and in that sense it is smarter than some conservatives let on. And after all, if one is to be conservative, ought not one have something to conserve? 

The film is not kind to corporations.  The Earth was taken over by BNL (Buy and Large) Corporation.  This rubs some conservatives the wrong way.  But shouldn't conservatives be worried about the commodification of our lives, even our very bodies? Is not consumerism a legitimate worry?  One can critique corporations and the reduction of all things to a commodity without necessarily being a Marxist.  I'd point out that the purpose of the film is to prick our consciences, not to advocate that the state take over the means of production. 

Beyond the film's basically edifying message, the storyline is engaging and the characters endearing.  In WALL-E, Pixar has created a delightful character who entertains for roughly the first thirty minutes of the film without saying a word.  We saw the film in a theater packed with young kids and were astounded by how well behaved they were. I take that to be in part a sign of the film's ability to hold a child's attention.  Other than a couple pedestrian chase scenes, I also found the film gripping.  The odd love story that develops between WALL-E and the robot EVE (not a coincidental name) is touching without being sappy.  I honestly hope the film gets a Best Picture nomination.  Compared with the cynical Hollywood crap we are sure to see in this Fall's "Oscar season," WALL-E is a breath of fresh air. 

A random comment: the film makers could have profited from reading Canticle for Leibowitz.  This might temper their faith in humanity's ability to "get it right" this time. 

As is often the case with Pixar films, there is an animated short before the film.  It is about the magician Presto and a very hungry rabbit.  It is hilarious.  Pure animated genius. 

Prof. Blanchard has developed a distaste for animated talking animals. I can't disagree with him there.  But to the extent robots are a proxy for animals (although the robots don't really talk) I hope he overcomes this aversion long enough to see WALL-E.  But I have seen the previews shown before WALL-E.  There are more talking animal movies coming.  And they all look awful. 

 

Obama's Progressive Politics

My latest in the American News. 

Birth Control in China

While I am solidly prolife with regard to abortion, I have  never been opposed to birth control as such.  But it is one thing to believe, as I do, that individuals should have access to a wide range of birth control technologies, and another to form judgments about the effects of such technologies across whole societies.  The dramatic decline in births per woman has had very unfortunate consequences for places like South Dakota, and poses similarly serious demographic problems for Europe and Japan.  These societies all have lavish retirement policies, but those policies depend upon younger workers funding them.  The supply of the latter is drying up rapidly.  I do not know what to do about this, but it seems worth noting.

China represents a rather different problem, one that may be of concern not only for her government and her neighbors but for the rest of the world.  In The New Republic, Mara Hvistendahl has an article entitled "No Country for Young Men."  In China, two powerful forces have amplified each other: one is the one child policy, brutally enforced by party officials all over the country, and the other is the strong preference for male children.  The result of this has been that millions of China's daughters were never allowed to celebrate their first birthday.  You might suppose that the world's feminists would find something wrong with that, and maybe they have.  I have not noticed it.  It may be that feminists are largely incapable of seeing anything wrong with birth control, however it is employed. 

But there is a much more serious problem coming to term in China.  Hvistendahl begins with the enormous popularity of war games among China's young men.  Then she points out what this might mean:

The macho violence spurting forth through outlets like war games is a growing trend in Chinese society--and China's one-child policy, in effect since 1979, is partly responsible. The country's three decades of iron-fisted population planning coincided with a binge in sex-selective abortions (Chinese traditionally favor sons, who carry on the family line) and a rise, even as the country developed, in female infant mortality. After almost 30 years of the policy, China now has the largest gender imbalance in the world, with 37 million more men than women and almost 20 percent more newborn boys than girls nationwide.

By the time these newborns reach puberty, war games may seem like a quaint relic. In the 2020s, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences researcher Zheng Zhenzhen, estimates in a People's Daily interview that 10 percent of Chinese men will be unable to find wives, which could have a huge impact on Chinese society. Historian David Courtwright suggests in Violent Land that sexually segregated societies in the United States--frontier towns flush with unmarried men, immigrant ghettos in early twentieth-century cities, mining camps--are behind our propensity toward violence. The immigrants and westward migrants who shaped early America, Courtwright says, were largely young single men, who are-- today as well as then--disproportionately responsible for drug abuse, looting, vandalism, and violent crime. A long-term study of Vietnam veterans in 1998 may explain exactly why: The subjects' testosterone levels, which are linked to aggression and violence, dropped when they married and increased when they divorced. Eternally single men, by extension, maintain high levels of testosterone--a recipe for violent civil unrest.

The most dangerous animal on the planet is a human male, between the ages of about 15 and 35, who is unmarried.  The United States experienced a dramatic rise in criminal violence in the 1960's, when young men born in the post war baby boom began to come of age.  But of course there was no gender disparity.  A lot of young men avoided violence and dysfunction by finding wives, and the subpopulations that suffered most were those in which marriage had all but collapsed as a cultural force. 

China has been relentlessly building a demographic time bomb.  Millions of young men without any hope of marriage is about a frightening a prospect as I can imagine.  And there is no obvious way to defuse this bomb.  Even if China drops the policy, or somehow corrects the gender bias in its implementation, the demographic bulge is arriving.

It's possible, of course, that the explosion will be contained internally.  But the force of it could be enough to destabilize China, which is enough to destabilize the region.  Another possibility is that Beijing will find itself forced to direct the blast outward, giving it an outlet in regional wars.  Welcome to the twenty-first century. 

I accept birth control generally as an individual right, but I am not enthusiastic about it.  Those who are have never been willing or able to consider that it might have very unfortunate consequences for the societies that make it widely available.  Events might be about to force that issue. 

FISA Passes

The revamped Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed the Senate today, 69 to 28.  The yes vote included 47 Republicans (minus John McCain who was out on the trail), and 22 Democrats including Barack Obama. 

FISA is designed to protect the civil liberties of Americans in the United States, while allowing America's intelligence services broad powers to monitor communications abroad.  No one in Congress seems to doubt that our intelligence services should be able to listen in freely when, say, a member of Hezbollah in Lebanon calls someone in Iran.  There is no role for judges in that case. 

But what happens when one of the two parties calls someone in Chicago?  FISA creates a special court to issue warrants in such a case.  I gather that such warrants can be issued retroactively, so the spooks don't have to stop listening to what may be a party to the next terrorist plot while someone rounds up a judge.  The new version of FISA tightens some of the restrictions on such surveillance, for example prohibiting "so-called "reverse targeting" -- using the authority to intercept foreign communications without an individual warrant if the real purpose is to spy on a "particular, known person" in this country."  All of that seems reasonable to me. It is true that the new FISA, like the old one, allows the issue of warrants without cause, which is to say without prior evidence of wrong-doing.  But that is the nature of intelligence gathering directed against our enemies abroad.  The purpose is not to make cases, but to prevent mischief. 

The sticky issue was retroactive immunity for telecom firms that aided the Bush Administration in the days following 9/11.  I think this was vital to the purposes of the bill.  Do we really want companies to withhold information that might help our security services prevent the next 9/11 for fear that they might be sued later?  It is not the job of Verizon to enforce the fourth amendment. 

There are obviously two key national interests involved here.  One is to protect the privacy of American citizens.  The other is to keep terrorists from blowing us out of our socks.  Intelligence powers can obviously be abused.  If the Bush administration used such powers to spy on the Obama Organization, or the ACLU, or Greenpeace, that would be such an abuse.  I have not heard a shred of evidence to indicate such abuse.  Bush & Company probably think there is no reason to be concerned about civil liberties, but someone needs to be concerned.  FISA's Democratic critics are concerned about that, but don't seem to be even a little concerned about the need to keep an eye on the bad guys.  The only bad guys they seem to notice are the Bushies.  That, I suppose, is why you need two parties.  The bill was a compromise.  It is probably true that Bush got more than his opponents did. 

But I issue again the warning I have issued before: if something happens that really makes all Americans fear for their lives and futures, they won't care much about thereafter about fourth amendment protections.  If you care about civil liberties, you have to make sure that the other shoe doesn't drop. 

Replies to a Cherished Reader

Intrepid reader BB (Blarney Bob, if I am not mistaken), has posted a lot of comments on my Keloland site.  While I find BB a bit snippy now and then, he is a thoughtful and educated critic and I appreciate him.  So here are some replies. 

To my post Obama the Flip Flop Phemon 1, BB has this:

"Flip flopping" or "waffling" is a political necessity. Being uncompromising and adhering dogmatically to an issue is usually not good policy.

To which I reply: waffling is often necessary, but some waffle more than others, and Obama has been waffling like he's getting paid for it.  At least he's not "dogmatic". 

To my post on Lincoln and Darwin, BB had this:

Not a bad post Dr. Blanchard. Although Lincoln would have done anything to preserve the Union including allowing slavery (and also suspending habeus corpus). How would you rank W with him? Would he have been president of the CSA? Texas and privilege...I bet after First Bull Run he would have declared "mission accomplished!" Just think how many lives could have been saved! Anyway here is an interesting link for you: http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx Check it out and see how you do! Sorry there is no listing in the rankings for DSU but considering that Harvard seniors only got 69% it is perhaps better not to know. Enjoy and happy Independence day!

Thanks, BB.  I'm not sure what you mean by "Lincoln would have done anything to preserve the Union including allowing slavery."  Lincoln argued, rightly, that the Constitution protected slavery in the states where it existed, but he was steadfastly opposed to its extension into new territories.  He thought that it would die if it were closed off in the South.  The South agreed, and so his "adhering dogmatically" to his position brought about the war.  As for Bush, it does him little disservice to say that he is no Lincoln.  I took the test at the site you posted.  It was pretty good.  In a moment of inattention, I answered one question incorrectly.

To my post on biofuels, there is this:

Gee Ken, I thought you of all people would appreciate ethanol. Not only does it cost you less to fill up your SUV but also has the added benefit of helping to alleviate the fundamental cause of the earth's problems--overpopulation!

I think I follow BB's sarcasm here, and if so, I am in agreement.

For time's sake, I must skip his most substantial and interesting comment, to my post on Iraq.  But I note this comment on my post about Enemies of Reading at Purdue:

In the Bush administration the kid would not even have gotten a job unless he passed such crucial questions as: "Who did you vote for?; and "What is your stance on Roe?" Obviously key prerequisites to getting a job reconstructing Iraq. This is past being "antithetical to freedom of thought." This is political nepotism of the worst sort resulting in negligence bordering on criminal.

I understand that BB loathes George W., but the comment is goofy.  Choosing who to appoint to positions in one's administration is one of the things you get to do when you have an administration. Every administration tries to find places for its friends, and keep out people who would oppose its policies.  But even if that weren't true, this issue has nothing to do with telling a university employee what books he is allowed to read during break. That is left wing authoritarianism, and BB ought to recognize it and be appalled by it.  If he were in the same position as Mr. Sampson, he would be just as vulnerable, or so I conclude.  BB obviously reads a lot. 

Again, thanks BB.  You let me know that I have at least one reader. 

Congressional Approval Rating Falls to Single Digits

Rasmussen:  "The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category."  So, why aren't Republicans going after the "new Democratic Congress" harder?  As Prof. Blanchard points out below, there's nothing "new" in Obama's politics, just as there's been no real leadership from the Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) in Congress.

Obama the Flip Flop Phenom 2

I have long thought it pernicious idea that one candidate can transcend politics as we know it.  Some candidates are better than others, but all are politicians by definition, and that carries with it certain kinds of baggage.  Barack Obama began his candidacy precisely by selling a vision of transcendence, and a lot of his voters clearly bought into it.  So I am genuinely grateful that Senator Obama has been working tirelessly for weeks now to tear that vision into microscraps.  Here's what he said today, from the Washington Post:

By Anne E. Kornblut
POWDER SPRINGS, Ga. -- Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday broadly dismissed recent stories that he is moving toward the political center, saying he has always held certain centrist views -- on encouraging faith, on the right of individuals to own guns -- and that attempts to portray him otherwise are the work of cynics.
            
Obama, egged on by a raucous audience, said he would like to address "this whole notion that I am shifting to the center, or that I am flip-flopping."  "The people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me," Obama said.

Well, Obama is now in the position of the naked guy telling people who can plainly see his pud wiggling about that he is wearing a fine and modest set of clothes.  Here's Rich Lowry at Real Clear Politics:

In the past few weeks, Obama has broken two pledges (to take public financing in the general election and to filibuster legal immunity for telecoms that cooperated with the government in terrorist surveillance); has belittled his own rhetoric during the primary campaign (saying it could get "overheated and amplified" on the issue of trade); redefined his promise to meet without preconditions with the leaders of hostile states until it's basically meaningless; endorsed a Supreme Court decision striking down a Washington, D.C., gun ban his campaign had previously said he supported; and made muddy, centrist-sounding statements about his positions on Iraq and abortion that he had to go back and try to clarify.

But if you don't believe Lowry, who is no friend of Obama or his party, you might take seriously Bob Herbert, very much a man of the left.  From the New York Times:

One issue or another might not have made much difference. Tacking toward the center in a general election is as common as kissing babies in a campaign, and lord knows the Democrats need to expand their coalition.

But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.

So there he was in Zanesville, Ohio, pandering to evangelicals by promising not just to maintain the Bush program of investing taxpayer dollars in religious-based initiatives, but to expand it. Separation of church and state? Forget about it.

And there he was, in the midst of an election campaign in which the makeup of the Supreme Court is as important as it has ever been, agreeing with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas that the death penalty could be imposed for crimes other than murder. What was the man thinking?

Another voice on the left, E.J. Dionne, notices the same thing.  So does the Washington Post, though this Democratic organ welcomes what it sees as a more sensible policy on Iraq.  I might welcome it too, if only I could figure out what it is.  And if all this weren't enough, my esteemed Keloland colleague Todd Epp seems to feel a bit betrayed by the Phenom.

But it is Herbert who puts his finger on what is amazing about Obama's sudden, dramatic sidesteps:

Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is.

This is why so many of Senator Obama’s strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer.

It's silly to deny that Barack Obama is flip-flopping at an unprecedented frequency.  Some folks are probably hearing the waves on their iPods.  What is most interesting is what it says about the Obama campaign's view of the election.  To be sure of victory, he must adopt a lot of conservative positions. That's what Clinton adviser Dick Morris called "triangulating."  Obama is absorbing the Clintonian strategy, whether or not he is absorbing Clinton voters.  But triangulating is necessary only if you think that most of the electorate doesn't really believe what you believe.  We have learned a lot about Barack Obama over the last couple of weeks. 

 

Racism, the South, and the Politics of Voting

Jonah Goldberg:  'The story of the South's sloughing off of racism and its movement into the GOP fold, is one of the most egregiously under-told and distorted tales of modern political history. . . . The bigotry aimed at the South never ceases to amaze me. Indeed, it is astounding to me how the left tells us we need to understand the nuance of, say,  the Jihadi mind in all of its shades of gray, but when it comes to the voting habits of law-abiding white North Carolinians all you need to know is that if  a white hand pulls a lever for a Republican politician, that hand must be attached to a racist, and that racism guided the hand to vote for a Republican."

All the News Thats Fit to Print

Andy McCarthy:  Victory in Iraq ... Yawn

Newspaper Blues

Reuters:  "Shares of McClatchy Co, publisher of the Miami Herald, are down 77 percent this year; Lee Enterprises Inc, which owns the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, is down 84 percent. The largest of them all, USA Today publisher Gannett Co, is trading at a nearly 17-year low."  Also note this graph of Gannett's stock price (Gannet owns the Argus Leader):

Enemies of Reading at Purdue

If anyone doubts that the contemporary left, at least as it is represented in many institutions of higher learning, is crawling with enemies of free intellectual inquiry, consider this story from Purdue.  Dorothy Rabinowitz, in the Wall Street Journal:

The story began prosaically enough. Keith Sampson, a student employee on the janitorial staff earning his way toward a degree, was in the habit of reading during work breaks. Last October he was immersed in "Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan."

Mr. Sampson was in short order visited by his union representative, who informed him he must not bring this book to the break room, and that he could be fired. Taking the book to the campus, Mr. Sampson says he was told, was "like bringing pornography to work." That it was a history of the battle students waged against the Klan in the 1920s in no way impressed the union rep.

The assistant affirmative action officer who next summoned the student was similarly unimpressed. Indeed she was, Mr. Sampson says, irate at his explanation that he was, after all, reading a scholarly book. "The Klan still rules Indiana," Marguerite Watkins told him – didn't he know that? Mr. Sampson, by now dazed, pointed out that this book was carried in the university library. Yes, she retorted, you can get Klan propaganda in the library.

The university has allowed no interviews with Ms. Watkins or any other university official involved in the case. Still, there can be no disputing the contents of the official letter that set forth the university's case.

Mr. Sampson stood accused of "openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers." The statement, signed by chief affirmative action officer Lillian Charleston, asserted that her office had completed its investigation of the charges brought by Ms. Nakea William, his co-worker – that Mr. Sampson had continued, despite complaints, to read a book on this "inflammatory topic." "We conclude," the letter informed him, "that your conduct constitutes racial harassment. . . ." A very serious matter, with serious consequences, it went on to point out.

Fortunately, the story has a happy ending.  Mr. Sampson (no word on Delila yet) managed to get help from the ACLU and FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) and the Purdue administration quickly back-peddled, denying that it had ever said or did what it said and did in print. 

But one has to wonder just what kind of people these are who regard "openly reading a book" as a crime?  Bozos, to be certain.  But malevolent Bozos, whose every instinct is antithetical to freedom of thought.  Every honest person on the left, with a genuine concern for liberty, should demand that this sort of thing be shut down. 

Victory over AQI (al Qaeda in Iraq)

Winning is better than losing.  1991 was a glorious year for Twins fans.  1994 was a glorious year for Republicans.  2004 was a glorious year for George W. Bush.  2008 looks to be a glorious year for anyone who cares about winning the war in Iraq.  This from Marie Colvin, in Iraq for the Times of London:

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Critics of the Iraq invasion will point out that al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq in any significant way before the invasion.  Ok.  But given that they are about to be soundly defeated there (12,00 in May to 1,200, about to be smoked out, is what defeat looks like), doesn't this look like a disaster for al Qaeda?  Imagine if the United States had withdrawn in the face of terrible violence, and AQI had taken control?  That would have been an unparalleled disaster for us.  Al Qaeda's stock would have risen world wide, and they would have had Iraq's oil to fund their schemes with.  That is what we would have been facing if the Democrats had had the courage of their convictions, and had blocked the surge policy. 

As it is, al Qaeda is about as discredited as a political movement can get.  It has suffered a terrible defeat on the battlefield, and has alienated Muslims everywhere.  Letting al Qaeda into Iraq may certainly be chalked up among Bush's failures.  He surely failed to anticipate it.  But his surge strategy was the right call and, because of it, al Qaeda's adventure in Iraq is turning out a lot worse for them than for us.  Maybe the war was a terrible idea, but winning it is a lot better than losing. 

Biofules drive up world food prices 75%

Or so says a "confidential report" by the world bank.  From the British Guardian:

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

How confidential can this report be, when the Guardian is announcing its conclusions?  But this is no big secret.  It's a no-brainer.  Shifting a lot of agricultural production from food to biofuel, just when energy costs put a lot of additional pressure on food costs everywhere, was bound to shrink the table at every shanty town around the world.  That might be a price worth paying if biofuels helped us solve the energy problems, instead of making them a little bit worse. 

Biofuel policy is a pretty good example of what makes conservatives skeptical about government intervention in the economy.  Unlike private business, government can afford to invest in big ideas.  But government doesn't' see its bottom line fall when the big idea turns out to be a bad idea, so long as its a pleasing idea.  Biofuel, like wind power, is a pleasing idea. It may also turn out to be a deadly idea, for a lot of people living on the margin.   

Professor Schaff, Quitter

Professor Schaff is retiring from blogging, and so SDP will have to make do without him.  I urge all our loyal readers to look up his gmail address and send him a passionate note urging him to reconsider.  It won't make any difference, but maybe he could use the warm fuzzy.  And anyway, if it doesn't work, I'll try giving out his cell phone number next.  I also know when his birthday is.  Be afraid, Jon.  Be very afraid.

Jon and I started blogging at the same time, so it will be a new experience doing this without him.  I have to confess that I think our blog has been a pretty good production.  I will go so far as to say that our readers might have learned something from time to time at these pages, or if not, at least they may have been entertained.  SDP is a moderately conservative blog.  Our three regular members, Jon, myself, and Jason, once took a test of political identities.  I found myself pegged as a conservative with libertarian tendencies.  I think that is correct.  I can't remember the results for my colleagues, but I think it is clear that anyone reading these pages could expect mostly conservative view with the occasional surprise. But Jon and I complemented one another is useful ways.  Anyone curious about that need only consult our posts on science.   

Jon wrote his posts shrewdly and with flair.  He is, though I will later deny I said this, a pretty bright guy with a lot of information under his belt.  Jason and I couldn't have asked for a better colleague.  SDP will be a poorer production without him.