Guns Again

Safer, huh?

Repost: National Security and Gay Marriage

Originally Posted September 3rd

The Mighty VodkaPundit writes an article about something I've been noodling on for an age - the Kerry Senate campaign memo in which he basically wanted to cancel just about every weapons program during the Reagan administration. This comes up again, as it served as the meat of Zell Miller's stemwinder on Kerry's defense stance. Snopes did a check on this, and, sadly missed the whole boat on this. Factcheck.org did a much better job of exploring this, while Slate's Fred Kaplan wrote one of the more disingenuous spin pieces I've seen in ages (it actually has gotten me so torqued that I find myself unable to write anything short or coherent in response).

At any rate, getting back to the point at hand, many folks have based their decision to vote for Kerry on his stance on domestic politics, although they do feel that Bush is (or may be) at least nominally stronger on national security issues. Now in these discussions, invariably two things come up - Bush's support of a gay marriage amendment, and Kerry's record on defense spending. Now, I personally feel that Bush's support for a gay marriage amendment as a purely tactical move that allows him to maintain the status quo. If he didn't support it, then folks against gay marriage might seek a less total means of pursuing their goal - as is, they will keep going for gold, although they would be better served going for bronze. In discussions of national security, the Kerry memo referenced in the above paragraph, as well as the subsequent kerfuffle, usually come up. In response, the Kerryists will often argue that, among other things, the events around the world will keep Kerry's possible actions pointed more or less the same direction as Bush would follow, should he be re-elected.

Fair enough. But I notice one thing: on one hand, one politician is being held accountable for something in his platform, but on the other hand, it is being argued that their opponent is somehow either a fanatic by holding them strictly accountable for all elements of their platform or by labeling them disingenuous for not adhering to their platform.

You’ll also notice that neither side has a monopoly on this tactic.

I’m just sayin’…

Aren't I Humble?

And even precient sometimes...

Which is pretty difficult, considering the amount of time that I'm dedicating to being just plain ol' full of it.

But, after a hard day of keyboard-pecking, on my way to a hard night of beer-lifting, I thought I might try to swing a bit of triumphalism and go feed my own dangerously bloated ego.

ITEM 1 (Moneyquote):

"[Mapes] definitely was someone who was motivated by what she cared about and definitely went into journalism to make a difference," Carlson said. "She's not the sort of person who went into journalism to report the news and offer an array of commentary."

From this article. (Courtesy Bill of INDC)

ITEM 2 Compare and contrast with this lovely post:

If you’re some bright young thing, particularly one who saw the near-revolutionary efforts of Woodward and Bernstein as archetypical examples of exposing the mendaciousness of big business and their proxies in the Republican Party to the witless and feckless masses, how could you not be attracted to the pursuit of journalism? Conversely, if you were more or less of the opinion that people can figure things out by their own damn selves, why chose a low-paying stressful career regurgitating information that the public will sort through with horse sense anyway?

So, it isn’t surprising that the media has become populated by folks who are looking out for the best interests of the ignorant and ill-informed public. Moreover, as someone who peddles in current affairs and the truth day in day out (and not to mention, someone who isn’t deluded by the ‘false consciousness’ created by big corporations and others bent on keeping the people down and making the rich richer) you would have a pretty accurate view of things, wouldn’t you?

Especially when growing under the wing of Dan Rather.

ITEM 3 You'll also note that she is in prime baby boomer territory. I'm not saying that means anything. I'm just saying...

Personal or small group interests must work within the democratic process for the democratic process to have any value. Short-circuiting this by trying to bypass or short-circuit things runs against the grain of the social contract that makes things work. There has been an attempt to cover over this with the repeated assertions that “dissent is patriotic.” Dissent may be patriotic, but sedition isn’t. And the folks who are trying to, on the one hand, convince themselves of their identities as Americans, and on the other hand, employ very aggressive means of obstructing and hampering the prosecution of their country’s existential struggles aren’t necessarily engaged in dissent for reasons of patriotism.

I just love it when an asshat makes my posts come together like this.

Unbelievable

I'll be damned, but here it is...

These three reports all report that a decorated soldier, Foster Barton (19), on leave in Ohio was at a concert last night where he was, apparently, attacked because he was wearing a Operation Iraqi Freedom t-shirt.

I don't know whether or not it was apparent he was a soldier. One witness says that Barton swung first, according to reports. However, these same reports indicate that 6 other witnesses state that Barton was, in fact, hit from behind.

We support our troops, but oppose the war, my ass.

(Courtesy Dean's World)

Ethics and Voting

Ethical and moral choices are two very distinct things. To avoid marching right off into a semantic morass, let me just start out by putting forth the distinction I am drawing between these two terms. Moral choices are the relatively straightforward choices between wrong and right. Ethical choices are the much murkier choices between right and right.

Rushmore Kidder wrote a book entitled “How Good People Make Tough Choices”– which is a very readable, solid book on ethical decision making (even if the title does not sound that impressive). In particular, he notes that there are a number of different elements to ethical decision making, nearly all ethical choices can be boiled down to a fairly small set of discrete types of ethical dilemmas:

1. Truth versus Loyalty


2. Individual versus Community


3. Short-term versus Long-term


4. Justice versus Mercy

Now, for the moonbats, wingnuts, and other assorted members of the tinfoil hat brigade (including the Right Wing Regiment, the Left Wing Regiment, and the Really Out There Regiment), elections are a moral choice. The views these folks hold are assumed to be morally right, and all those that disagree are morally wrong (be it through malice or sheer ignorance). And while it is tempting for many in the blogging community to toss the label wingnut and moonbat around with abandon, discerning the true loons is a little bit more difficult. Just because someone selects evidence you feel is unimportant, reaches conclusions you don’t agree with, and manages to do so in a petty, vicious manner, does not make them a tinfoil hat conspiracy monger. Willing omission of major evidence, unwillingness to subject prejudice to rational examination, inability to admit that someone else can reasonably come to differing conclusions about a subject, and failure to recognize the biases endemic to their own inherent worldview are all much more reliable markers of latent lunacy.

The political process generally marginalizes these people, as well it should. In any case, this discussion does not pertain to such people – for they cannot reasonably be reached. Rather, we look towards the remainder of voters – the majority that actually think about their decision rather than search for evidence to shore up their worldview at any price.

For these folks, voting is an ethical choice between two (or more) suggested approaches to solving the world’s ills. Granted, many people may have decided long, long ago, how they vote. There is nothing wrong with this, provided that they are willing to recognize that if the positions of the parties were swapped, their vote would follow the positions, rather than the parties.

The decision making process involved in voting is rather complex once one starts digging into deeper and deeper layers of the rationale involved in making a choice. Sure, one may place a great importance on issues of security over domestic issues, but why? What if that decision is ill informed? What if the other guy’s worst-case scenario is possible, or even likely? How about the opposition’s best-case scenario? Many voters approach these and other similar questions on a subconscious level, and these decisions are informed in large part by the process of political socialization. Political socialization is a large and complex subject, but for our purposes, let us consider one fantastically critical element of this: faith.

Although the term has been attached to many things, I do not speak of faith in religious terms, but rather in the acceptance that insufficient data or reasoning can be applied to a situation to reach a clearly definitive solution. For example, Steven den Beste and Donald Sensing are both very bright men with radically different, but extraordinarily well-reasoned, views on the existence of God. Rather than rehashing that debate, let us simply note that in both cases, logic and evidence have done the vast majority of the heavy lifting in forming their views, but at the end of the day, a smidgen of
pure belief is needed to come to a final conclusion.

Matters of belief and faith inform much of our political decision making process – this catalogue of beliefs inform the ethical decision making that lies behind political choice. This is understood. What is often lost during the electoral season is that any reasonable voter must exert some measure of faith in casting their vote. If nothing else, we cannot foretell the future, we can only make educated guesses about which course of action will be better for us and our nation. We cannot, axiomatically, prove that any given set of policy proposals, within the space of 4 years, result in a single, specific outcome.

As the famous statesman Yogi Berra once said, “When you come to a fork in the road....Take it.” And casting your vote in the voting booth is very much the same problem. Aside from those who are so filled with passion and emotion, for those whom voting is a matter of choosing good over evil, the rest of us have to make a small leap of faith at the end and go with our best educated guess.

The question then goes to those who are undecided and choose not to vote at all. Many of the truly undecided are people who are genuinely uncertain as to which candidate may provide the better choice. Those who are undecided out of apathy and ignorance have willingly forfeited any political voice and simply are beyond the scope of this exchange.

The more interesting question is those undecided voters who are stuck with some measure of analysis paralysis. To these people, I would say that it’s important that the gut feel call and the rational belief be included in the decision making process. Perfection is not one of the attributes that can be attributed to man, and we don’t have to vote the perfect vote. One voice, more or less, in the electorate is astronomically unlikely to alter the fate of all mankind.

Then there are the undecided who choose not to vote out of a sense of disgust. To these people, I would like to point out that the purpose of voting, on some level, goes beyond simply adding one more voice to the yeas and nays shouted out by a nation. The voting process is also, in large part, accepting responsibility for the actions of your government. If an individual who voted for Bush in 2000 did not support the invasion of Iraq, it is irrelevant. As someone who cast that vote, they bear some small measure of responsibility for the actions of President Bush. If someone who opposed the war voted for Gore or Nader in 2000, they too share some measure of responsibility as mature adults. One of the conditions implicit in representative democracy is that when you lose the vote, you have an obligation to back the will of your fellow Americans. As I noted earlier, anyone who views political decision making in ethical, rather than moral, terms –
there has to be an understanding that your decision as individual could be wrong. That’s why we have the vote in the first place – to recognize that we can’t magically assume that our point of view is the best answer, bar none. We ask others (in voting) to develop a consensus and choose a course of action. We ask that if the other guy loses the election, that we, as a people, unite behind our President and support his actions (at least until the next election). A person may not be excited about either candidate (and few people ever are), but the exercise of the franchise is a vital portion of our duties and obligations as a citizen – on some levels, more significant that paying taxes.

But if voting is so important, you may ask, why isn’t it compulsory? I suspect that the Founding Fathers not only placed great weight on the free will of the citizenry, but also understood human nature. A virtuous activity made compulsory loses its virtuous character. It’s the difference between understanding and memorization. We have to have the option not to vote in order for the decision to vote to have any real meaning.

Which, in a fashion, reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago with a Jesuit priest. He was talking about atheism, religion, and agnosticism. Much of the discussion has been lost to memory, although one point he made sticks out. There was much more disrespect for agnostics than atheists, because the atheists will at least choose a path. Agnostics simply sit and dither at the crossroads. I don’t really know what to think of this argument as it applies to religion, but I am interested in the parallels with the voter who simply makes a clear choice not to cast a ballot.

For in accepting the larger ethical burden that falls on the shoulders of all participants in a representative democracy, they at least reaffirm their participation in the larger community that is their nation. Those who sit it out are, in effect, saying that they find the business of making an ethical choice too bothersome and are content to foist the burden off on others. Free loading is a sign of poor character in virtually all cultures. Free loading on an ethical burden undertaken by others is a sign of weak character indeed.

Which brings us to our final point – character. Character drives ethical decision-making. Character and ethics together are critical (some would say core) elements of leadership. In choosing a president, we base much of our decision based on our estimation of the candidates’ character. But we fail to recognize that the Presidency is the only job in the nation in which one ends up with 281 million bosses. As one of those bosses, we have an obligation to leadership inherent in our post as citizens, to provide good leadership to the leaders. We may not always make the right decision, but as any military leader will tell you, paralyzed indecision is the worst decision of all.
Matters of belief and faith inform much of our political decision making process – this catalogue of beliefs inform the ethical decision making that lies behind political choice. This is understood. What is often lost during the electoral season is that any reasonable voter
must exert some measure of faith in casting their vote. If nothing else, we cannot foretell the future, we can only make educated guesses about which course of action will be better for us and our nation.

Now, as the famous statesman Yogi Berra once said, “When you get to a fork in the road, you have to take it.” And casting your vote in the voting booth is very much the same problem. Aside from those who are so filled with passion and emotion, for those whom voting is a matter of choosing good over evil, the rest of us have to make a small leap of faith at the end and go with our best educated guess.

The question then goes to those who are undecided and choose not to vote at all. Many of the truly undecided are people who are genuinely uncertain as to which candidate may provide the better choice. Those who are undecided out of apathy and ignorance have willingly forfeited any political voice and simply are beyond the scope of this exchange. The more interesting question is those undecided voters who are stuck with some measure of analysis paralysis. To these people, I would say that it’s important that the gut feel call and the rational belief be included in the decision making process. Perfection is not one of the attributes that can be attributed to man, and we don’t have to vote the perfect vote. One voice, more or less, in the electorate is astronomically unlikely to alter the fate of all mankind.

Then there are the undecided who choose not to vote out of a sense of disgust. To these people, I would like to point out that the purpose of voting, on some level, goes beyond simply adding one more voice to the yeas and nays shouted out by a nation. The voting process is also, in large part, accepting responsibility for the actions of your government. If an individual who voted for Bush in 2000 did not support the invasion of Iraq, it is irrelevant. As someone who cast that vote, they bear some small measure of responsibility for the actions of President Bush. If someone who opposed the war voted for Gore or Nader in 2000, they too share some measure of responsibility as mature adults. One of the conditions implicit in representative democracy is that when you lose the vote, you have an obligation to back the will of your fellow Americans. As I noted earlier, anyone who views political decision making in ethical, rather than moral, terms – there has to be an understanding that your decision as individual could be wrong. That’s why we have the vote in the first place – to recognize that we can’t magically assume that our point of view is the best answer, bar none. We ask others (in voting) to develop a consensus and choose a course of action. We ask that if the other guy loses the election, that we, as a people, unite behind our President and support his actions (at least until the next election). A person may not be excited about either candidate (and few people ever are), but the exercise of the franchise is a vital portion of our duties and obligations as a citizen – on some levels, more significant that paying taxes.

But if voting is so important, you may ask, why isn’t it compulsory? I suspect that the Founding Fathers not only placed great weight on the free will of the citizenry, but also understood human nature. A virtuous activity made compulsory loses its virtuous character. It’s the difference between understanding and memorization. We have to have the option not to vote in order for the decision to vote to have any real meaning.

Which, in a fashion, reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago with a Jesuit priest. He was talking about atheism, religion, and agnosticism. Much of the discussion has been lost to memory, although one point he made sticks out. There was much more disrespect for agnostics than atheists, because the atheists will at least choose a path. Agnostics simply sit and dither at the crossroads. I don’t really know what to think of this argument as it applies to religion, but I am interested in the parallels with the voter who simply makes a clear choice not to cast a ballot.

For in accepting the larger ethical burden that falls on the shoulders of all participants in a representative democracy, they at least reaffirm their participation in the larger community that is their nation. Those who sit it out are, in effect, saying that they find the business of making an ethical choice too bothersome and are content to foist the burden off on others. Free loading is a sign of poor character in virtually all cultures. Free loading on an ethical burden undertaken by others is a sign of weak character indeed.

Which brings us to our final point – character. Character drives ethical decision-making. Character and ethics together are critical (some would say core) elements of leadership. In choosing a president, we base much of our decision based on our estimation of the candidates’ character. But we fail to recognize that the Presidency is the only job in the nation in which one ends up with 281 million bosses. As one of those bosses, we have an obligation to leadership inherent in our post as citizens, to provide good leadership to the leaders. We may not always make the right decision, but as any military leader will tell you, paralyzed indecision is the worst decision of all.

Christ! Don't These People Think

So, just to get you all up to speed, there's a document forgery scandal perched upon a longer running scandal about the current President's National Guard service. All this during one of the most hotly contested elections in history. One in which thousands were arrested protesting a convention by the party of the sitting president. An election which has generated broadway plays and books about the hypothetical assassination of the President.

At any rate, there's this document forgery business going around, and it first was noticed by some poor schlub on the internet. Who, by the way, posted anonymously (probably out of professional self-preservation).

So, the LA Times, in their quest for truth, decide that it's appropriate to OUT this guy? This is from the same bloody media that opines about another lightning rod in this scandal, Bill Burkett:

""I have no idea; I have no individual knowledge about that," said David Haigler, chairman of the Taylor County Democratic Party. "All I know is that I trust Bill Burkett. He's been a citizen soldier who decided to stand up and say what is on his mind, and he's got nothing but grief for it."

Haigler said Burkett had received several death threats since his name surfaced as a possible source for "60 Minutes." "There's just a lot of crazies out here, but Bill Burkett is not one of them. And if the issue is whether Bill Burkett concocted a bunch of records, that makes me want to throw up," Haigler said."

They bitch because one guy gets all this nasty treatment, and then decides that the best way to handle another, equally problematic situation, by deciding to publish a bloody hatchet job.

Where the hell are the editors for these folks? Seriously, have they no ethics. They could have communicated the same exact point and simply said that they are choosing not to release his name. All that this is going to do is paint a target on his back. If pressed, they could simply keep him as an anonymous source.

You know, if you're going to go out of your way to try to exonerate Burkett, do the same for Buckhead. If you're going to hatchet Buckhead, then do the same for Burkett. But don't praise Burkett in order to endanger Buckhead, and then turn around and tell me how goddamn honest and balanced you are.

Rather Poorly Thought Out

Ok, as many of you folks know there's this whole thing with Dan Rather and forged documents. Some thoughts about all that and the tactical errors committed by the CBS folks.

First off, in recent Kerryspot posts (dated 09/17 01:37 PM) there is an explanation that talks about two types of outcomes on scandals. The first scenario is that something blows up, the evidence is denied, and then when confronted with the evidence, the guy in trouble resigns. The second model mentioned the "weathering the storm" approach of just sitting tight while fatigue sets in and people just, ultimately, let it slide.

This approach failed to mention what is often, by far and away, the best way to handle a scandal: the Reagan Model. Open up everything, let the chips fall where they may, take the hit, apologize, and move on.

Which leads to a couple of question on why it is that CBS is so assiduously avoided this path and what it may mean.

First off, we examine the defense that CBS is putting up. In their most recent story, they cite twor documents from their document examiners to bolster the notion that they were reasonable in running with the now-tainted papers. I'm disregarding the Katz and Glennon interview segments, because those were after the fact things, and not used in the initial vetting process (and for this reason, I am also excluding subsequent statements by these individuals since this thing has blown up). Furthermore, I am not going to go digging into these guys specifically, although there are some really intriguing questiosn that come about as to why both of these examiners live in California (one in SF< the other near LA), when CBS is HQ'd in New York. If they were both in the same town, then it might be something handled by a single guy wokring for CBS. It might be a-trying to fit it in a news cycle really quickly thing, but who knows? Before I wander down that tangent, however, I want to get to the specific language used in these documents is interesting, as it should be, because these examiner's credibilities are on the line on this - and in the verification world, that's kind of important.

One bit of disclosure here, is that I'm not taking the sentences in the documents which indicate that the examiners have found the documents authentic, simply because it's kind of pro-forma. If they ever want to work again, it would be a bad move to vet a document and then turn around and deny having done so. So, their claims that they found the documents to be authentic are to be expected. It is the qualifiers they felt necessary to put in that are interesting.

First off, we look at Marcel Matley's letter. The key sentence is this:

"I specifically addressed this question: On the preponderance of of the available handrwiting evidence, are the puproprted "Jerry B. Killian" signatures by the same person" (Emph. in original)

This is interesting insofar as Mr. Matley answers a very, very specific question - were the signatures written by the same people. Not anything about any of the other features of the document, like, for instance, whether or not the signature had been copied from elsewhere and physically pasted into another document. This is the sole thing that Mr. Matley is willing to stake his credibility on is something that is, by and large, not contested.

The second letter, by Mr. Pierce, is a bit more ambitious, but nonetheless, contains three interesting bits of phrasing. First off:

As a result of my examinations and comparisons, it is my opinion based on the available evidence, that the balance of the Jerry B. Killian signatures appearin gon the photocopied questioned documents are consistent and in basic agreement."

On this point he tracks with Mr. Matley, but with a bit stronger tone. Moving down to the second paragraph we get:

"In regard to the balance of the typed-written photocopied questioned documents, the same typed-face designs are strongly similar to corresponding samples that indicate the same typed-face existed prior to the date in question on the photocopied documents."

This is bit more ambitious claim, but very oddly worded. It notes that the typeface design used in the questioned documents are strongly similar to other type faces that predate the documents in question. That isn't really a question, far as I know. From what I understand, the font (which is what I think he's talking about) dates back to 1938, so there's no shock there.

But what's interesting in his document is that he starts off by noting that his opinion is "...based on the available evidence..." and closes by stating that his opinion is based on what he has "...examined based on the photocopied questioned documents..." I don't know about you all, but that sounds like hedging to me.

Anywho the point is that CBS is trotting these folks out to imply that they had reason to believe the documents were valid at the time - which is necessary to the "I've been had" defense. But you'll also note that they just can't bring themselves to say that and out-and-out admit that the documents are crooked,. which would be a painful (in the short term), but much more effective way of managing this crisis.

A bit earlier, I posited some notions on possible rationales for the strategies employed.

"The second is that someone on Rather's team was pressured (either directly by rather or through intermediate management) to dig up more dirt on the TANG angle, and in a fit of late night brilliant stupidity decided that it would be easier to make evidence than find it. One sub-scenario on this that makes this a bit more plausible is if Rather told middle manager X to go find info at all costs, and X then let this managerial dictate roll down hill (either actively or passively) and some lower-level minion might have found a way to skin the cat (ala Jayson Blair.) Manager X, recognizing a way to get Rather to go froth on someone else for a change, may have not inquired too deeply into his minion's mysterious ability to unearth the info."

Well, in the cast of characters, Manager X seems to be one Mary Mapes, who, evidently, has quite a history all her own. The mysterious minion turns out to be the estimable borderline whackjob, Bill Burkett.

But now we have to start digging a little bit deeper into the who knew what and when of the whole thing, because while this may be a possible legal matter, (note that the federal one shouldn't apply, as these aren't military records - they're personal records) the legal angles don't matter nearly as much as the credibility (and hence, revenue) angles. The reason that this is significant is that it changes the burden of proof to a "reasonable person" standard in the court of public opinion. The signficant question then becomes one of whether or not CBS was had, or whether or not they willingly promulgated the forgeries.

Now, because Rather really wants to see Bush canned, he's not going to drop the story (consider the fact that Ms. Mapes has been on this angle for 5 years), so even if he admits being rooked, he doesn't want to let that get in the way of the much older questions about his guard service. The problem is that the memos were released as a smoking gun (and tie in so nicely with this tactically foolish DNC ad (Courtesy Overpressure).

So, as a result, what they tried to do was punt on the memos, but stay locked on the story. Which, as you may have guessed, didn't work out as planned, because it makes them look like they were complicit in the whole fraud, and doesn't buy them the protection that complete openness can buy you in a scandal. Thus it seems that they were trying a half-hearted attempt at fessing up, but fouled out very badly indeed.

This raises the question of why, of all people a media outlet, is so damned bad at crisis managment and putting out their message. I think that, in large part, Dan Rather really does believe his line that this is all an attempt to distract away from the story. Secondly, he's pulled BS before, and thinks he can ride it out. CBS management, on the other hand, can't ignore the whole thing and may have wanted to come clean ASAP to move on. I believe it is that very disagreement which caused CBS' press release to be delayed way past it's original morning release a few days ago. It is also the reason that they've agreed that the documents are "questioned" but haven't gone so far as to admit they've been had. (Well that, and colossal egoism.)

But this doesn't explore the question of whether or not Rather, or Mapes, knew that the documents were false. By now, the source of the documents has been uncovered, so the original notion that they were stonewalling to protect their source is moot. But what we get to is this:

"There is more, including this: "Where the use of an anonymous source is necessary, as much information as possible about the nature [underlined] of the source should be provided to the audience, assuming, of course, that this information would not lead to disclosure of the source. Where the source may have a vested interest in the matter to be reported, it is especially important that information be provided as to the nature and/or motivation of the source."

There is no section on the use of fraudulent documents; there were things that were understood to be such obvious firing offenses that no mention of them was needed.
"

This is taken from the CBS News Standards document.

So, at this point, Rather in general, and Mapes in specific, have absolutely twisted the anonymity clause to cover up the fact that Bill Burkett was the source. Both Rather and Mapes knew that he stunk to high heaven and that if he were outed, it would severely compromise the integrity of Dan's scoop. So they got the documents from a really dubious source and then passed them on without looking at them too closely.

Why does this matter. Well, the deal is that Rather and company didn't necessarily know they were forged - but given their prominence, they specifically chose not to look too hard, either. And the fact that they should have, but deliberately chose not to makes them just as complicit.

Right now, the only thing for Rather to do is to investigate himself (seriously) - find that they had been forged, and keep pounding on the TANG service story in other fora. In other words, Rather has to turn on Burkett and burn him so thouroughly and vengefully, that there won't be enough left to fill an envelope. CBS can then keep him, and just roll with the punch. If he doesn't do that, he won't have enough credibility left for folks to believe him when he says the sky is blue.

If Dan doesn't, CBS should burn Rather, in a spectacularly messy, and public way. Think of it as the triage Nixon should have done after the Watergate break-ins.

But see, Dan and CBS are strange critters. The both have a long track record of distortion for the greater good. I don't think Dan will burn his source, because it would tarnish his story. I think both CBS and Dan have ridden this out in the past, and think they can do it again. Just batten down the hatches and stonewall.

This eruption has been blogged and internetted to death. And I don't pretend that blogs change the world or any such thing, but the thing is that the media is afraid that the internet might just have potential. Witness the vapor campaign run by Dean and how that was supposed to change everything. The media bought the hype. And now the question of whether or not they'll buy the hype now.

My sense is that this will break down on generational lines. Rather sure as hell doesn't get it, nor does (probably) senior management. But a lot of the much younger guys do, and think they smell blood in the water, so they'll keep this alive for a little bit.

The question then becomes one of whether or not smoke means fire. During the Dean campaign, we saw smoke without any real fire. Now we're seeing smoke again, but since this a whole collection of media folks trying to affect another collection of media folks, they might just conclude that there's fire after all.

Which, given that this whole "inauthentic, but accurate" postmodernist crap is behind this thing after all, would make it pretty funny if the blogosphere "powerless, but influential" actually turned out to be influential after all.

At The Gates of Moscow

I officially announce the upcoming Presidential Election to be over.

Now before we start sliding into triumphalism, let me just give the quick once over on what it is that I'm on about.

First, this a thumbnail sketch based on some fairly recent polling data. (Courtesy Ace Of Spades)

Remember kids, polling data shifts.

Second is what I'm not on about. I'm not talking the relative policy merits.

I'm not on about whether or not Kerry is "French-looking" or whether or not Bush really is Hitler.

I'm just talking about campaign (in the military sense) strategy and how it's unfolding in this contest.

Basically, what we have here, is the tipping point.

First, there was the Democratic Dud, the Blah in Boston, the DNC. But I wrote that off to a relatively polarized electorate, and the difficulty the Democratic Party seems to have in coming up with a message that will both energize their base and appeal to the center.

Then there was a lot of optimism about hitting the tipping point with the Madison Square Massacre, the Republican Rampage, the RNC. But conventions are notorious for producing false signals - that's why it's called a "bounce."

And then there was the thing about the SwitVets ads. I had heard about those guys sometime back last November. I didn't think it was going to be this big a problem for the Kerry campaign, because, frankly, I thought Kerry was a more skilled politician.

And now with the 60 minutes thing.

The first two, we can attribute flat-out bad campaign management (whatever the cause of that turns out to be), the third to equally bad politics over at ChronicBullShitters.

With the first two items, the convention and the SwiftVet ads, we get two media events. The first part of which show that Kerry can't carry water on his positives. The RNC, by contrast, showed that Bush was relatively successful at selling his positives. (And yes, I know that conventions sell both the positives and the negatives, but bear with me here).

Then the Swift Boat ads come out, and add some significant weight to Kerry's negatives.

The killer, however, has been the Rather immolation on the heels of the Estrich explosion and the Kerry combustion (plus healthy dashes of frenetic screaming from Gore and Dean). The twist that Rather's put on the whole thing (and is exacerbating by stonewalling) is that now even Bush's negatives have weak credibility.

If you look at it, Kerry's behind the 8-ball in all four categories - his positives, Bush's positives, his negatives, and Kerry's negatives.

What this means is that a strong permanent bump of a few percentage points may unfold. For not only is there the immediate shift in the battleground states (which are drifting towards becoming Bush's base), much of Kerry's base is now fair game. To cap it all off, the percentage of folks who are already convinced Bush is going to win keeps climbing.

So, all said and done, Kerry will start having to spend money to shore up his base. To do that he either has to concede the battleground states (and the election), risk his base (iffy proposition if Bush starts poaching Illinois or California), or spend more money. The problem is, however, once the writing appears to be on the wall, fundraising gets much more difficult for the loser and easier for the heir-apparent.

This could start snowballing, at which point Kerry can just stay home on election day. And that's the reason that I'm now calling 'tipping point'.

There are, undoubtedly, some who are chalking this up to clever machinations by Rove, but honestly, I think it lives a bit deeper than that.

I think this is due to the fact that much of the Democratic Party apparatus confused Clintons charisma and natural political skills with the problem of running an efficient and effective campaign. And Kerry ain't no Clinton.

I think this will break out to roughly 45-55 nationwide. Kerry's strong base runs about 33% or so, and if he's lucky he can retain his weak base and some swings to the tune of about 10% or so. But with the latter, he's going to have difficulty getting them to the polls. Bush will get a healthy majority in the Electoral College, but I don't forsee a absolute wipeout (and landslide, perhaps). In any case, it will be enough to give him a much better on legitimacy this time around.

I could be wrong, but as long as the Kerry campaign seems to have a) hit rock bottom, and b) continues to dig, I won't be expecting to see a Kerry landslide. But, as always, caveat emptor, because 48 days is a lot of time for the unexpected and unforeseen.

If you recall, it took less than 48 days for the US to flush Iraq, and hell, it took less than 48 hours for the world to change three Septembers ago.

You've Got To Be Kidding

Of all the asinine...

Ok, CBS basically is hedging on the veracity of the Rathergate documents and is now shifting to the notion that even if the documents aren't authentic, they contain 'legitimate' information.

Of all the 'the dog ate my homework' excuses I've ever heard, this is clearly a cake-taker.

When this whole flap unfolded, one of the first thoughts to cross my mind is that someone would claim they were retyped versions of originals. But I immediately dismissed that out of hand, because it would be incredibly silly to do that and then photocopy a signature on to the new copy.

Evidently, the threshold for silliness is not what I thought it was.

I then noted the Juan Williams defense that they were 'true' even if inauthentic.

And I thought that was a triumph of post-modernist bull.

But then the CBS has pulled the most credibility damaging, foolish, and damned near impossible to back out of without losing face tack of all. The *mumble, mumble, cough* defense. They've managed to basically dress up journalism in the "if you wish hard enough, your dreams can become true" school of investigation. Wanting to keep mum about the source of the documents is one thing, but this kind of elision and misdirection is something else altogether.

This is just contemptible. Plain disgusting. Beyond rejection or dismissal.

I’m left aghast and not just the content of the article, but the fact that they built up anticipation for this.

The other media outfits should tear this apart… blood’s in the water.

Sir Reposts-A-Lot

Well, I've not ceased posting in a sympathetic strike on behalf of Mister Rather or his neighborhood. I have, however, been sh!t-stompingly busy for a bit. I'm not generally inclined to bitch about work on my blog, because lord knows my bartenders and compatriots hear enough about it as it is.

But, one brief bit of your indulgence, if I may:

SIMPLE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS EASY OR FAST -- IT REFLECTS A LACK OF COMPLEXITY, NOT A LACK OF TEDIOUSNESS OR EFFORT. COUNTING THE NUMBER OF COBBLESTONE BRICKS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK IS SIMPLE, JUST NOT EASY OR FAST. SEE ALSO TORT (OR TAX LAW) REFORM, CLIMBING MOUNT EVEREST, MEMORIZING ALL PRIME NUMBERS LESS THAN A MILLION, ET AL.

Thank you. And back to our regularly scheduled ranting.

But since all y'all (and I mean both of you) are probably going through withdrawal, I'll probably be doing a greatest hits and eclectic mix of posting for a smidge yet.

That being said and done, there is one thing I've been wondering about Rathergate that doesn't seem to have popped up to my knowledge. So I put together a few paragraphs of unsubstantiated half-baked ideas.

What if the reason that Rather is holding out like Custer at Little Big Horn is that...

the documents were known to be false by parties at CBS?

I certainly don't mean to imply that it is a company wide thing. But two very slim possibilities have come to my suspicious, dirty, little mind.

One is that Rather himself could have produced them. It would certainly explain his vast intransigence, but I can't imagine him either having the savvy to computer-age a document, without having the common sense to just use a typewriter. The idea of creating a document on a word processor just to age it is probably something that doesn't often cross the mind of a septuagenarian newscaster.

The second is that someone on Rather's team was pressured (either directly by rather or through intermediate management) to dig up more dirt on the TANG angle, and in a fit of late night brilliant stupidity decided that it would be easier to make evidence than find it. One sub-scenario on this that makes this a bit more plausible is if Rather told middle manager X to go find info at all costs, and X then let this managerial dictate roll down hill (either actively or passively) and some lower-level minion might have found a way to skin the cat (ala Jayson Blair.) Manager X, recognizing a way to get Rather to go froth on someone else for a change, may have not inquired too deeply into his minion's mysterious ability to unearth the info.

Allied with these thoughts are the notions that the information was provided to CBS. Going with that, it could be that the documents were destined for the roundfile, but (again going with a variation of the above scenario), that they were kicked on upstairs to alleviate pressure from above.

Another alternate to documents originating within CBS itself, is that Rather knows exactly who did the dirty deed, but recognizes that going down the path of revealing them as forgeries could (or could it?) strip his source of the protection of anonymity. This would be a really significant issue if the folks who provided them to CBS were affiliated with the Kerry campaign (ala Susan Estrich). Rather, knowing he's left holding the bag has a choice to reveal himself as a partisan shill and damaging (perhaps irreparably) his mysterious benefactor, or, taking the hit himself.

This tracks a bit better with the release of the documents to US Today, but you'll note that CBS claims to have had them for quite some length of time, while US Today only got them recently. Could this mean that the mysterious man in question then punted them on over to US Today to start spreading the blame around?

Interesting stuff, I reckon. Sort of an Enron of the DNC kind of thing. But it won't fully blossom for a few weeks or months yet.

Too Little, Too Late?

Somewhat old news, I admit, but I can't help but notice that only now, with less than two months before the election, is the Kerry Campaign getting around to integrating the staff of the only Democrat to win the presidency since 1976.

The question to my mind is twofold. First, who's choice was it? Did Kerry and Company just not reach out to the right people? Or did the people in question simply not volunteer until it was too late?

A cynical person might suspect some chicanery going on here...

...and of course, we're all about cynicism here.

It may well never be known for sure, but should President Bush be returned to office (as, indeed, seems more likely by the day), and should Hilary Clinton run for president in 2008, then we may look back to the summer of 2004 as clearing the way for her run.

After all, she could hardly run against a sitting President Kerry, and there are those who suggest that by 2012 her window of opportunity would be closed.

Of course its possible that I'm being needlessly bitter about all of this, but the ham-handed way the Kerry campaign conducts its business is inexcusable...especially with the '92 and '96 Clinton and '00 Bush runs as examples.

So either Kerry's getting screwed by the "Clinton Cabal" or he's dumb for picking people who worked for Dukakis instead of Clinton.

Neither one looks real good for the Dems, I'm afraid.

Taste Of Sunlight

Tomorrow, NASA will get samples from the first sample return mission since a 1972 Apollo mission. The really cool part, is that the samples being returned are solar wind particles.

Meanwhile, this is just one of a few really cool sun things that NASA has been mooking about with.

Similarly, NASA is also continuing with testing and development of solar sails, which could be used operationally within a decade.

And finally, despite what mom told you, you can look at the sun without going blind. You simply need to go to this page, which offers current solar observations from a number of observatories in a wide range of wavelengths.

One More Ways of Parsing Parties

One of the many ways that one can parse the differences between the parties and gives a little bit of insight into the fringe parties.

The creators of South Park are said to have noted that something to the effect that they don't like Conservatives, but they hate f**king Liberals. And this, I suppose is the basis of centripetal politics in this country.

On some level this breaks down in some elements of the fringe parties.

The Left, in part, can be distinguished by the fact that while they may not be big fans of government (in and of itself, although they may view it as a useful means to an end). But, it can be said with a much higher degree of certainty that they really dislike Corporate America.

Conversely, the Right may not be entirely enamored with Big Corporations, but it can be said that they harbor a very significant measure of loathing for government.

From these folks, the small fringe parts are spawned, this reflects, quite often a feeling that the hatred exhibited by the major party is not pure or comprehensive enough.

The folks in the Green Party hate big corporations with a passion. Likewise, hardcore libertarians really despise government. In both cases, the dislike has morphed into a nearly visceral hatred that is much more than intellectual and approaches a moral view.

This is not the entire catalog of views that describe American politics. There is another component. Similar to the way that the Left and Right view corporations and and government, both groups have complementary views on liberalism and conservatism. The Left is a big fan of social liberalism, although they tend to trend rather conservative on economic (not government spending) issues. Contrariwise, the Right harbors a significant group of socially conservative people, while tending to be quite liberal economically.

Taking this further to the fringe elements, we see that the Pat Buchanan-style folks place the emphasis on social conservatism at levels so high, that they are now increasingly more likely to be found in bed with an array of parties that can be quite comfortable with big government, such as certain elements of the Green Party. Likewise, there exists a contingent of people who are so attached to economic conservatism that they'll leap at any opportunity to ally with anyone they can (you'll note that the LaRouche folks have made all manner of party affiliations over the years).

And finally, the balance of the political spectrum seems to involve folks who are very aggressive about liberalism, be it social or conservative. By definition, these people tend to compose a hard-core element of the Libertarian Party.

Personally, I vote based on defense and foreign policy issues. Very few people do, although the largest contingent of these folks have historically have resided in the Democratic Party, for it's dedication to Wilsonian foreign policy. Not that many folks will base their vote on Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian views, but a measurable of people are sufficiently hard-core Jacksonian - those who are, have, at least since 1968, been staunch Republicans. Since, by definition, Jacksonians don't tend to get riled up during peacetime, many Jacksonians don't cast their vote for muscular foreign policy in peacetime.

And, of course, American politics being the dog's breakfast it is, this explanation is of course, incomplete and won't cover all (or even, necessarily, that many ) cases. But hey, if politics wasn't inherently messy, what would bloggers do with their spare time.

The Left's Aging Baby Boomers

There seems to be a bit of long-term cognitive dissonance simmering in certain segments of the Left.

In particular aging boomers who regard Woodstock as the epitome of the salad days of youth and idealism, seem to have an ongoing problem reconciling their youthful idealism with their identities as Americans. This has been exacerbated in recent times with the Iraq War and wishful efforts to remake recent events into the Vietnam War and Protest Period.

On the one hand, they didn’t like the Vietnam War, but know in protesting it, they opened up a Pandora’s Box of really bad consequences. For starters, there’s just not that many ways to be claim that helping lead your nation to its first loss in warfare is patriotic. Then there’s the fact that it’s difficult to claim that you’re trying to support the Vietnamese people when you usher in a totalitarian regime, and in the balance, create vast numbers of refugees and massive chaos throughout Southeast Asia. It’s also rather difficult, when you think about it, to take the high moral road when your actions contribute, in some small way, to the Cambodian autogenecide. One would also have to question the compassion of people, who on one hand, called returning soldiers “baby-killers” and the like, while later bemoaning the fate of those veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and cancer allegedly caused by Agent Orange.

As these aging boomers start to approach their sixth decade, there’s been more than a little bit of an attempt to recapture their youth. A critical part of this is recreating the heady idealism they identify with their adolescent protests. To do this, the effort to recast every military conflict or potential conflict as another Vietnam, has reached new levels in the anxiety of a post-9/11 world.

Watching the evolution of this dissonance has been fascinating. For many folks on the activist Left, Reagan’s rearmament and economic policies would lead to nuclear war or, failing that, widespread depression and poverty. Yet these policies yielded the fall of the Soviet Union and one of the nation’s great periods of economic growth. Note also the often predicted, but never materializing incipient Vietnams in Lebanon, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Colombia during this same time period.

Following this, we entered the protests over the Gulf War. This was a classic opportunity for the moldy activist of yesteryear. Among other things, it was a chance to resurrect some Vietnam-era conspiracy theories, although this time, rather than oil in the South China Sea, we had the highly visible oil of the Persian Gulf to serve as a red herring for anti-war activists. This war also marked the first sizable appearance of the “We Support Our Troops – But Oppose The War” element of anti-war protests, and was a visible marker of the cognitive dissonance that was spawned during the Regan years. The support-our-troops line was a first stab at sort of, after a fashion, recanting some of the poorer behaviors of extremist elements of the protest movements decades ago.

Throughout the Clinton era, folks of this bent went about the business of enjoying huge economic prosperity and failed, by and large, to find anything to really protest about. This is due to the fact that Clinton was an iconic baby-boomer himself, to a lesser extent that the background political charge of the Cold War had dissipated, and last, and probably least, we didn’t have any big wars on the stove.

The graying moonbat community woke up from their slumber with the 2000 election, but 9/11 and misplaced 9/11 anxiety started revving the dissonance engine once again. Much of the reaction towards the Afghan War (with the notable exception of the usual suspects, like Choamsky, Fisk, and Apple) was relatively in tune with general patriotic sentiment. But the Iraq War allowed the tinfoil hat brigade to rev up the dissonance engine to the redline.

On some deeper level, people know that undermining their elected leadership in a democracy is, it can be reasonably argued, not patriotic. For implicit in the social contract of democracy, is the idea that after the election, you all pull together. Personal or small group interests must work within the democratic process for the democratic process to have any value. Short-circuiting this by trying to bypass or short-circuit things runs against the grain of the social contract that makes things work. There has been an attempt to cover over this with the repeated assertions that “dissent is patriotic.” Dissent may be patriotic, but sedition isn’t. And the folks who are trying to, on the one hand, convince themselves of their identities as Americans, and on the other hand, employ very aggressive means of obstructing and hampering the prosecution of their country’s existential struggles aren’t necessarily engaged in dissent for reasons of patriotism.

This has found its personification in the nomination of John Kerry as the Democratic Presidential candidate. He tries to reinforce his credentials as a navy veteran to an extent that is almost comic in nature. But can’t bring himself to disown his actions as a protestor. On the one hand, he wants to be patriotic, while convincing himself that his days of protest really were the right thing to do. I think that, in so doing, he is acting out the inner drama of the remnants of the generation of protest and activism.

Now, not all Vietnam protestors continue walking down this particular path. Some changed their views over time. Others came to realize that supporting goals like opposing fascism could be reached through support of our country in wartime. But for all the thinning of the ranks, the children of the summer of ’68 still retain some significant numbers in their cadres. Not all of them man the picket lines with long hair, streaked with gray. Many of them have moved on to careers and children during the eighties (that decade of greed and, as Senator Kerry describes it a “decade of moral darkness”.)

And the fact that they moved on to participate in the decade of excess, and prospered during the eighties and nineties by “working for the man” in some way still rankles. That’s why the core of much of the left has a soft spot for the pickets and the protests and wants to romanticize virtually every bizarre fringe movement with a cause and a picket line (notable exceptions being pro-life and pro-Second Amendment demonstrations). So when an opportunity to explode with outrage at some war that they are unwilling to understand, the temptation to explode in self-righteous fury is nearly irresistible. The Iraq War has been such a spectacular target for many of these folks because they have invested so much time in misdirection of their own fears, that the idea that Iraq may be a useful pursuit is beyond imagining and, frankly, acceptance of the utility of the Iraq War and the removal of a dictatorship would be anathema to many. It would mean finally confronting the fact that the protests against Vietnam were, for so many, protests in response to the fear of getting drafted. For the idealism was not only misplaced, but, more of a cover for an opportunity to get high with friends, pick up some of the fringe benefits of the “Summer of Love,” piss off their parents, and extend temper tantrums through their adolescence. And the people who ultimately paid the butcher’s bill for this indulgence were the people of South Vietnam and Cambodia.

I don’t think for a minute that this sits in the minds of many of the middle age folks who have found new depths of hatred for the current administration and their policies in Iraq, but I do think that it is present in their subconscious. And that’s a hell of a thing to have floating around in the far, dark recesses of your mind.

Conventions and Demonstrations

For quite some time now, I've really wondered what the hell the point of protest and demonstration were.

Seriously, be it pro-choice or pro-life, pro-Palestine or pro-Israel, or pro-moonbat or pro-wignut, I've just never really understood what they were supposed to achieve.

They are terrible at converting the unconverted - tend to be fractious noisy things, full of bad signs and worse hygiene.

I think, today, I've finally figured them out.

I started by reflecting on modern conventions (and am I the only one who finds those to be just the tiniest bit Orwellian?). I don't really understand what modern political conventions actually do. Sure, bad clothing, groupthink and slick media production all are apparent at conventions, but what do they actually produce.

Hot air.

Then it struck - demonstrations are grassroot manifestations of modern conventions, without any actual nomination of actual candidates. And they perform many of the same functions - an opportunity to mobilize your base through incestuous amplification created by groupthink and flat-out polemics. Maybe you'll nab some undecideds along the way (there's zero chance of actually converting anybody), but that's kind of incidental.

Essentially, both conventions and demonstrations are like any other form of political communication (like Op-Eds, White Papers, and so on). They are preaching to the choir to prevent folks from straying from the flock, keeping people on message, and equipping your faithful with their talking points. Both whip up the ground troops and loyal lieutenants to go forward with the nitty-gritty work of actually doing something.

And of course, in both cases, there are no small number of fools who believe they are some sort of mystical cultural experience (Chicago in 1968, for a synchronous example).

There's another parallel that arises out of this one that I'm interested in exploring. I'd write more on it, but I need to do some more thinking on it, first. Conventions are to protests as main-stream media are to blogs. Just at first blush, this might imply that the 38 year-political cycle may be twinned with a 38-year cycle on the arrival of new media. Lots of other interesting possibilities arise from this as well. Hmm...

So Now the Democrats Start to Sling Mud

I gather that Susan Estrich, Dukakis' former campaign manager is having a fit over the fact the electoral politics ain't a pretty business altogether that often:

His theory, like that of some on the Kerry staff, was that answering such charges would only elevate them, give them more attention than they deserved. He thought the American people wanted to hear about issues, not watch a mud-wrestling match. In theory, he was right. In practice, the sad truth is that smears work -- that if you throw enough mud, some of it is bound to stick.

You can't just answer the charges. You can't just say it ain't so.

You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt.

The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we're not mean enough. Dukakis wasn't. I wasn't. I don't particularly like destroying people. I got into politics because of issues, not anger. But too much is at stake to play by Dukakis rules, and lose again.

(Courtesy Vodker Punditer)

So, what, the ABB campaign has been a friggin' paragon of virtue?

We could, perhaps start with the entire set of charges of being AWOL, which, if you'll be so kind to notice, resulted in a full disclosure of Bush's military record. Although, as others have pointed out, Senator Kerry still will not sign the Form 180 for full disclosure of all his military records. I'm just sayin'...

Then we can just write reams of stuff about the fabrications by that Feckless Crapweasel, Michael Moore. But, rather than repeat the litany, I'll just let the links do the talking. But, perhaps, my reader, knows of someone who can tell me how, exactly, Michael Moore is not a one-man smear industry?

Moving on... Wait a minute, let's go check out what our nice and oh-so-above-board, smear-free friends at MoveOn.org have been up to lately. Well, here's a nice ad those kind folks ran in the Washington Post explaining how Bush let 9/11 happen so he could go whatever the mind-control beams from space tell the tinfoil hat brigade. Nope, I'll bet that assertion is based on all manner of well-documented research. No smear here.

From there, we could go take a peak at some of the well-reasoned and sensible books that have been generated by the "Dear Lordy Jesus, But How I Hate Bush" cottage industry. There's this notable title from that paragon of wit, Al Franken. What was his so very civilized tome called again? Then there was that fascinating cover art selection for Paul Krugman's book (which is merely a maraschino cherry on a spectacular shit Sundae).

Speaking of NYT op-ed writers, how could we possibly miss Dowd and her truthful, objective, non-smearing quote usage? But be it far from me to do something like imply that, perhaps, just perhaps, that all media treatments of President Bush are not axiomatically "fair and balanced" all the time - let me just note that the same paper that runs Dowd as a columnist, ran some 70 stories reporting Joe Wilsons allegations that Uranium and Niger just shouldn't be used in the same sentence. And a romping, stomping three stories bring the fact that the charges has been manufactured, or, in other words, a smear, to the attention of the American public. But hey, it's three more stories than CBS ran.

I could go on flogging this particular dead horse, but let me just wrap up quickly by noting a couple of things. First, as Ms. Estrich, and much of the world is (or will soon) discovering, the internet is a hell of a cure for the traditionally short American attention span. You can still spin crap, but expect someone to call "Bullshit!" on you when you do it. Second, I have no doubt that the Republican Party aren't a bunch of sainted angles, pure as the driven snow on this front either.

And third - if she wants to see an increase in the already abundant bile and venom this campaign, it's her call. But she should expect retaliation with a quickness.

UPDATE:

As Ace of Spades notes, you best not start bitching about getting your poor little feelings hurt after you start telling your opposition to "Bring it On."

President Bush's Speech

I'm finally watching the video of the speech. This is neither a concise summary, nor is it a recap of reactions, but a I did want to make one observation about one of the foreign policy points being made (since I can pause and write).

"So we have fought the terrorists across the earth not for pride, not for power, but because the lives of our citizens are at stake."

It is terribly unpopular to state this, but our pride and power are absolutely essential to protecting the lives of American citizens. One of the oldest reasons to fight is known as "the will to power." With neither pride nor power, the will to power is impossible to maintain, and without it, you transition from a country to a ripe target. Imagine three scenarios, a mugging of an old lady, (no power) the mugging of very muscular-looking pacifist (no pride), and the mugging of an armed Delta Force commando. You get the picture. So even if doesn't play well in middle America, I at least hope that you, my esteemed reader, can file this tidbit away for future consideration.

National Security and Gay Marriage

The Mighty VodkaPundit writes an article about something I've been noodling on for an age - the Kerry Senate campaign memo in which he basically wanted to cancel just about every weapons program during the Reagan administration. This comes up again, as it served as the meat of Zell Miller's stemwinder on Kerry's defense stance. Snopes did a check on this, and, sadly missed the whole boat on this. Factcheck.org did a much better job of exploring this, while Slate's Fred Kaplan wrote one of the more disingenuous spin pieces I've seen in ages (it actually has gotten me so torqued that I find myself unable to write anything short or coherent in response).

At any rate, getting back to the point at hand, many folks have based their decision to vote for Kerry on his stance on domestic politics, although they do feel that Bush is (or may be) at least nominally stronger on national security issues. Now in these discussions, invariably two things come up - Bush's support of a gay marriage amendment, and Kerry's record on defense spending. Now, I personally feel that Bush's support for a gay marriage amendment as a purely tactical move that allows him to maintain the status quo. If he didn't support it, then folks against gay marriage might seek a less total means of pursuing their goal - as is, they will keep going for gold, although they would be better served going for bronze. In discussions of national security, the Kerry memo referenced in the above paragraph, as well as the subsequent kerfuffle, usually come up. In response, the Kerryists will often argue that, among other things, the events around the world will keep Kerry's possible actions pointed more or less the same direction as Bush would follow, should he be re-elected.

Fair enough. But I notice one thing: on one hand, one politician is being held accountable for something in his platform, but on the other hand, it is being argued that their opponent is somehow either a fanatic by holding them strictly accountable for all elements of their platform or by labeling them disingenuous for not adhering to their platform.

You’ll also notice that neither side has a monopoly on this tactic.

I’m just sayin’…

Back to the Future

WaPo story covering the Kerry counter-attack includes:

"We're going to be very aggressive throughout the fall in painting the real picture of George Bush," communications director Stephanie Cutter said of the new spots. "We are going to remind voters of what George Bush said in 2000 and what he did. It is a much more aggressive stance."

Interesting that it seems the Kerry kids may be employing the Ackbar Defense (walking into a trap) on this as well as the Vietnam thing. By focusingon on Bush's 2000 campaign record, it is a way to subconcsiously keep the focus on the pre-/post-9/11 world. I think this will be another way to allow Bush to keep hammering on the notion that the Kerry campaign is a 9/10 campaign.

That sneaky Rove guy - selling his opponents rope to hang themselves with.

The interesting bit, is that this was by no means an inevitable trap.

Had Kerry been spectacularly clever (although it is doubtful he could have won the primaries), he could have side-stepped the whole thing by voting for the $87 billion appropriations package. From there he can skip the vast majority of his record on defense by simply saying that was a September 10th world. He could have even strengthened his position by noting his calls for war during the 1998 Iraq crisis.

Instead, by running on his Vietnam record (and by hammering Bush on his TANG service), he's laid open the entirety of his Senate record open to inspection. Furthermore, in so doing, he gives the Republican Party a great chance to brand him as a September 10th guy.

UPDATE...

Or as an alternate, if he had voted for the $87 billion, he could have still trotted out the Vietnam service to bolster his record by asserting that much like the personal danger he faced in Vietnam, he understands intuitively, the danger facing America.

But, in damaging his current voting record, he can't focus on the today, and then eacerbated this by highlighting the past.

If my read is correct, this was pretty darned slick.

President Clinton

I would like as an American, to stop for a moment and ask you, my dear reader, to extend your prayers and/or best wishes to Former President Clinton, who is undergoing quadruple bypass surgery. I may not agree with many of his policies, but he did willingly undertake one of the most difficult jobs in the world - the Presidency. For all the folks vying to be President, one must never forget that these people are volunteering to be the servant, father, whipping-boy, confidant, scapegoat, and inspiration for a fractious nation of 281 million fickle Americans. All of this for relatively low pay, the complete and total loss of a private life, immense stress and 281 million pairs of eyes looking for any misstep.

Bubba, I got ya in my prayers.

Saletan, Slate = Silly

Rather than disassembling this article in the thorough fashion it needs, I just wanted to note a specific part of this apologetic by Slate's William Saletan:

So they're going after the patriotism of their opponents. Here's what the convention keynoter, Miller, said tonight about Democrats and those who criticize the way President Bush has launched and conducted the Iraq war:

To wit, I note this excerpt from another part of that self-same Zell Miller speech that Mr. Saletan was getting so ready to quote:

"It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking."

But don't let this dissuade you from the absolute righeousness of Mr. Saletan's spirited defense (of course, as an impartial observer from the media) of Mr. Kerry's campaign...

I was originally going to use the speeches given by Sen. Miller and Vice President Cheney to refute the points made by Mr. Saletan. But frankly, as I started to read through his long and tortuous article implying that Republican Party is so determined to stomp out dissent that this is a referendum on democracy itself. Well, there are simply some arguments so damned juvenile, baseless, and stupid, that I simply can't respond.

For if nothing else, I get the impression that any counterargument I make to the accusations against the administration or any critique of Sen. Kerry's record will be seen as 'stifling dissent', 'chilling free speech', or 'questioning the patriotism' of a 'war hero'.

At this point, drawing attention to the outstanding hypocrisy of this situation is pretty silly, since those who don't see it aren't going to be persuaded by statements written in ten foot tall letters of fire placed on the National Mall by the hand of God. So I'm willing to bet that a short post in an obscure blog isn't going to turn the trick either.

And that's a fact I find truly depressing.

Liveblogging the RNC - Cheney

Contemporaneous reactions to Vice President Cheney's speech, followed by a breif impromptu analysis.

Very solid, if not too awe-inspring introduction for VP Cheney. Competent and solid.

Now for the alleged red-meat section of the convention. Let’s see if it delivers.

He’s glad Zell Miller’s on our side? Just be glad he ain’t Al Qaeda. Then you’d see some trouble.

“Thank you” (Now be silent).

Has a good sense on timing his applause lines.

His jokes are actually not that bad – amazing out of a canned speech. Good hair and sex appeal, indeed.

Humble beginnings ties in nicely to Arnold’s speech, very nicely. Takes a lot of the sting out of the Edwards populist angle. Nicely done with two big headliners. Especially with the public school angle (compare and contrast to the two presidential candidates).

Kind of a weaker point for Cheney on domestic issues, but sandwiched between Miller tonight and Bush tomorrow (theoretically), it makes good sense. I'm curious to see if he slams J&J on defense.

Very weak applause on healthcare. But a solid shot on trial lawyers and tort reform. (And Edwards)

Now the much anticipated red meat fest (for all those red state people). Any clue on the commotion on the floor? Anyone see what it was? He'll have to re-engage the audience again. A tough act for a relatively cool character.

A bit more of a thinking speech, rather than a soundbite speech. Kind of wish he'd been able to put this right on the heels of Sen. Miller's speech. Could have really, really hit home. But we're not through it yet.

Good resonance with Rudy on the previous unanswered attacks. Good paralellism.

Muffed on a couple of applause lines. He's expecting a bit more energized audience.

Got it right on the Saddam line: "Tonight he sits in jail." Smooth elision to Libya as being the proxy WMD threat that Iraq proved not to be.

Even though he got some props on shutting down the WMD blackmarket, I'm not nearly as comfortable.

Slick!! Slick, slick, slick!! Combining the Afghan and Iraq casualties, he gets more than a grand - steals a march and takes some of the momentum out of the 'more than 1,000' troops thing we can expect to hear before 11/2.

Good tie in to Cold War bipartisanship - very good milage from Sen. Miller's earlier remarks.

Good timing on the shift from Kerry's Vietnam expereince (and Swift Vet ads which Kerry is having problems responding to) and his Senate record. Very, very resonant with Miller. Smooth. Very smooth repositioning.

Al Qeada falls to the America's softer side. Not bad.
"My fellow Americans, America has already been attacked." Good.

Interesting, still defending pre-emption. Setting groundwork to make the Iran Mullahs weak in the knees?

Question - do Kerry or Edwards wear flag pins in their lapels? Cheney is right now. Don't know if he has recently or not.

Flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop. Wow - I started typing it before the chanting started.

Another muffed applause line - a Senator can be wrong for 20 years without consequence to the nation.

I did like the Kerry seeing two Americas, and it's mutual. The line got a bit tore up with applause timing.

Another interesting play for the Scoop Jackson Democrats - it seems that someone is trying to pirate the Arsenal of Democracy.

Needed a much crisper close and ending. Not much of a finish.

Immediate thoughts below...

Analysis -

Interesting as he's tying together the threads of three of the other big headliners - Guilani, Schwarzenegger, and Miller, as well as pirouetting deftly between Vietnam, the Cold War, and the War on Terror. More on that later.

The senior Senator from the great state of Georgia, Zell Miller is a force to behold. Given the low expectations for Cheney he lived up to them. He hasn't the speaking prowess of the other three earlier headliners.

I find it interesting that rather than trying to avoid upstaging their headliner with opening acts (as was true during the DNC planning process), they were able to live with stacking the deck early. Granted, there has been a bit of momentum shift - but interesting.

Also interesting that the focus of the RNC has been the failings of Kerry - a departure from typical incumbent campaigning.

Now for the punditocracy (on TV). Thought Cheney's speech was a stilleto to Miller's raw meat speech. C. Matthews, and the other MSNBC commentators bow down in fearsome respect.

I guess I was looking for a more fiery speech after Miller's zinger (kind of an inverse Nixon going to China kind of thing, I guess). Cheney's speech would have been a better essay than Millers - so I guess it's a question of whether or not the convention is more info- or more -mmercial.

Brokaw is missing the point on Miller's speech. The big guns on the speech were his Cold War record - not Iraq. Damn, everyone else is missilng that too. It's kind of a pisser, because that's actually pretty frigging important.

Based on news coverage, Cheney's speech may have been just the thing to ramp down after Miller.

Liveblogging the RNC - Miller

Contemporaneous reactions to Senator Zell Miller's speech.

Zell Miller.

Damn.

Damn he's good. Slow start, but dear lord I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. The line about being mad that, as a Marine, our troops are slandered as occupiers.

The double broadside on security to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry stole my idea for a good campaign ad.

Son of a bitch. He's got the numbers. He's got the stats to eviscerate him on security. The B-1, B-2, F-14A, F-14D, AH-64, F-15, Patriot Missile, AEGIS Cruisers, Trident Missiles, BMD. From Afghanistan, to DC on 9/11, Gulf War, Iraq, Libya.

He's crucifying him on defense.

20 weeks of campaign rhetoric delivering the image, 20 years of votes delivering the character of the US.

Kerry wants to let Paris decide our national defense, and outsource our defense.

Turned around the body armor talking point.

Yesterday's war v. tomorrow's challenges - good line.

Tagged the God point solidly and seriously. Especially the oblique reference to Clinton (being the same man on Saturday evening that he is on Sunday morning).

Man of good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

If the Democrats had the good sense to nominate him, the Republicans would be in some deep, deep trouble.

I may never see a more spectacular (career) suicide.

Gurkhas and Ghorkhalis

Doc Jawa of Petting My Jawa posts about the recent murder of 12 Nepali workers and the beheading of one of the workers (names here). The comments section of the post, as well as other letters received, reflects the sentiments of a number of Nepalese commenters, who seem to be posting with more than just a bit of blood in their eyes.

One common theme in the posts is the strongly expressed desire for the jihadis to meet the Gorkhalis in combat. This has lead to some questions about who the Gurkhas are, as well as a few tales of Gurkhas on the battlefield.

So I've put together a bit of information about these fearsome fighters and their history.

First, a bit of background. The Gurkhas are troops serving in the British army and are recruited from Nepal. Nepali warriors in general are known as Ghorkhalis, while those serving under the crown are called Gurkhas. As such the Gurkhas are not British citizens, although earnings from the Gurkhas constitute a major source of income for Nepal:

The Gurkhas also played an important role in the country's economy. The cash flow derived from annual pensions, remittances to families, or monies taken home in a lump sum by discharged veterans or by service personnel on leave represented a major source of the country's foreign exchange. Remittances and pensions contributed by British Gurkhas were estimated in 1991 to total over US$60 million annually, or over twice the value of Britain's annual foreign aid commitment to Nepal. Pensions from Indian Gurkhas also represented a major revenue source. Gurkhas returning from duty in Hong Kong also were able legally to import a few kilograms of gold bullion duty free. SOURCE

The Gurkhas have an immense reputation for bravery and fierceness in battle. A flavor of what makes the Gurkhas such formidable warriors can be found in this description of the 13 Victoria Cross citations issued to Gurkhas since their service under the crown. For those desiring a more complete history of the Gurkhas in the British army, the official history can be found here, which is also nicely supplemented by these two pages.

But all this aside, what makes a Gurkha so formidable? Why are they considered to be so tough? Well, there are several factors involved. First
among them is that Nepal had a strong warrior culture long before the British arrived. In fact, it was the fact that 30,000 British troops were held off by 12,000 Nepalese (and that both sides fought tooth and nail) that a sufficient level of mutual respect was reached which created the foundation for this very close and long-lived alliance between the two peoples. For instance, in one engagement:

"...during extremely bitter fighting while defending the hill fortress of Kalunga the Gorkhas lost 520 out of 600 defenders but they fought so bravely and so well and the losses they inflicted on the British were so staggering it inspired the British to erect a stone battle monument at Kalunga inscribed with the words: THEY FOUGHT IN THEIR CONFLICT LIKE MEN AND, IN THE INTERVALS OF ACTUAL CONFLICT, SHOWED US A LIBERAL COURTESY"

More elements of the creation of the Gurkhas can be found here.

Secondly, Nepal was and is a poor country. This, combined with the fact that Nepal had (and retains some remnants of) a caste system, made any opportunity to make one's way in the world quite desirable. The Gurkhas were essentially recruited from every caste, so as a result, hundreds (or even thousands) of young Nepalese men apply to join the Gurkhas for every slot available in the Brigade of Gurkhas (something on the order of 28,000 applicants for 200 openings). This was due not only to the prospect of obtaining a pension and good standards of pay, the 10 month basic training of Gurkhas also included education in some skills, such as language and manners expected of the crown's soldiers. This may not sound like much, but for some aspiring Gurkhas a century or more ago, it may have been their only chance at formal schooling. But make no mistake, even with all the additional subjects covered in training, they still train harder and longer than any other Commonwealth troops recruited from the general populace.

Third, Gurkhas tend to spend, on whole, much more time in the military than do soldiers elsewhere. The average amount of experience in a Gurkha unit is 15 years. And as any experienced old coot will tell you, experience counts.

So what does all this mean?

Well, there may be more skilled marksmen, or stronger soldiers, or stealthier scouts, but Gurkhas are as good as any and better than most in any given specific infantry skill set. What sets them apart, however, is not their skills, but three parts toughness and one part wildness. Sometimes the wildness leads to some unusually colorful stories (and not all of them about blood-curdling charges). However, the stories that are of brazen courage, incredible fighting spirit and just plain ole' big brass balls are pretty amazing in and of themselves. One story involves a couple of Gurkhas sneaking up on this hut in the middle of a clearing in Indonesia (the problem being that they had been instructed to take the enemy alive). As the Gurkha crawled forward, he put down his rifle, held two concussion grenades in his teeth and drew his Kukri. The soldier then sprinted forward, jumped in one window of the hut, and then out the other side, leaving the two armed concussion grenades behind. Seconds later two Indonesians burst forth from the hut in to a thicket of guns awaiting their surrender. Pretty brassy, if you ask me.

I was speaking to a Nepalese man about the Gurkhas and he explained something that said a whole lot about the character of these men. As he related, if a Gurkha is charging a machine gun nest and gets hit, then he tries to run as far forward as he can before he succumbs to wounds. The logic is that since he's pretty much a dead man walking, he can draw fire and provide a shield to the other Gurkhas following behind him as a last, final effort.

Yeah. I really wouldn't mind seeing the Gurkhas cut loose in Ira to extract payment for the butcher’s bill. They sure as hell won't leave without their pound of flesh. That you can bank on.