Kerry said, and has said in several speeches lately, that he would never send troops into a war just because we wanted to but only because we needed to.
Well, it sounds good, but I believe there are many cases in which one should not let a strategic situation go so far that it becomes necessary to go to war. In some cases, if you can go to war on your own schedule, rather than on your enemy's, you have the advantage. But if you leave war as only an option of last resort, then you could find yourself in a far more dangerous situation.
Now, let's see... I presume from what Kerry said, that he has opposed all of those recent wars the United States has fought, that we did not have to fight: Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf War.
He might have opposed the Gulf War (I can't remember, but it was a republican in office, after all), but the others were favorites of many liberals. I'd like to look up his voting record on these. We had to fight none of these wars. Let's see if his actions have matched his words...
By the way, he said that as President, he would restore honesty and integrity to the office. Tell the truth. Ugh!--the nerve of that comment, and I don't like the implication that Bush is dishonest in the least (especially coming out of a Clinton defender). But we'll worry about that slam later. The critical thing is his claim of his own honesty.
Let's see: Kerry had, as a young sailor-turned-activist, taken part in this so-called "Winter Soldier Investigation." That's the scheme in which the activists claimed to have interviewed soldiers and recorded incidents of atrocities they perpetrated. Kerry then promulgated these accusations in his testimony before Congress.
Well, some (I don't know the percentage) of these accusations have since been shown to be false. Made up.
OK, now when Kerry testified before Congress, did he know that some of this was false? Was he lying? Was he misleading Congress?
Maybe he thought it was all real. After all, Kerry said he committed atrocities himself. So if he thought it was real, and he believed it when he testified before Congress, should we give him a pass?
After all, Kerry says Bush "mislead us into war!" Hmmm...if Bush believed the evidence of Iraqi WMD, should Bush get the same pass on that that Kerry wants for himself? Hmmm, indeed.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
More on criticism=patriotism
I thought of another analogy on this patriotism redefinition. Patriotism is a love of your country. Criticism could be constructive and come from love, but it could also come from hatred.
Think of when one person criticizes another. One could criticize out of a love for the other (mother for child, for instance). You'd probably be able to tell that by the tone of voice.
One could also criticize out of hatred. Enemies criticize each other all of the time. You can tell that by the tone of voice, too.
So criticism by itself is no indication of love, or of patriotism. The motive, often evidenced by the tone of voice and the style of delivery, is what is key.
Think of when one person criticizes another. One could criticize out of a love for the other (mother for child, for instance). You'd probably be able to tell that by the tone of voice.
One could also criticize out of hatred. Enemies criticize each other all of the time. You can tell that by the tone of voice, too.
So criticism by itself is no indication of love, or of patriotism. The motive, often evidenced by the tone of voice and the style of delivery, is what is key.
He should have stopped halfway through
I thought the first half of Kerry's speech was pretty good in its message. Optimistic, vaguely hawkish, undivisive. Encouraging!
But then he realized he was speaking to a crowd of liberals. The second half of the speech got me riled up and yelling at the TV. Didn't do me much good, since he went right on in the same tack. [Oop--here he goes back to Vietnam, somehow on a tangent about race. But the line "all in the same boat" works pretty well.]
Snide. Negative. Divisive.
What in the heck was that crack about not using the Constitution for political purposes?! Just now, I am thinking he might have been trying to refer to the Federal Marriage Amendment, but it's taken me a good 20 minutes to puzzle that one out. If that's what he meant, then I've got to ask him how many of our 27 Amendments have no political ramifications? The only one I can think of offhand might be the 27th itself (Congressional pay-raises), and that's mostly because it took what? 200 years to be ratified?
The very end was pretty bad. Some attempt to redefine "patriotism" to mean any anti-American attitude. Now I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize the government, the President, the Congress, the courts, or any of it, wartime or peacetime. I'm a good anti-government conservative and think we have no obligation to support what the government does, even if it is in wartime.
But it is not true that criticism is necessarily patriotic. Criticism of your government is patriotism neutral. It will in many cases be unpatriotic.
Patriotism is a love of your country, and there are some on the radical left (probably some on the right, too, although I can't think of an example offhand) who are unpatriotic. This whole criticism=patriotism formula is illogical. One does not imply the other. It's like saying "beach towels = patriotism". It's a non-sequitur.
But then he realized he was speaking to a crowd of liberals. The second half of the speech got me riled up and yelling at the TV. Didn't do me much good, since he went right on in the same tack. [Oop--here he goes back to Vietnam, somehow on a tangent about race. But the line "all in the same boat" works pretty well.]
Snide. Negative. Divisive.
What in the heck was that crack about not using the Constitution for political purposes?! Just now, I am thinking he might have been trying to refer to the Federal Marriage Amendment, but it's taken me a good 20 minutes to puzzle that one out. If that's what he meant, then I've got to ask him how many of our 27 Amendments have no political ramifications? The only one I can think of offhand might be the 27th itself (Congressional pay-raises), and that's mostly because it took what? 200 years to be ratified?
The very end was pretty bad. Some attempt to redefine "patriotism" to mean any anti-American attitude. Now I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize the government, the President, the Congress, the courts, or any of it, wartime or peacetime. I'm a good anti-government conservative and think we have no obligation to support what the government does, even if it is in wartime.
But it is not true that criticism is necessarily patriotic. Criticism of your government is patriotism neutral. It will in many cases be unpatriotic.
Patriotism is a love of your country, and there are some on the radical left (probably some on the right, too, although I can't think of an example offhand) who are unpatriotic. This whole criticism=patriotism formula is illogical. One does not imply the other. It's like saying "beach towels = patriotism". It's a non-sequitur.
Kerry served where?!
In the first half of Kerry's speech, I was astonished at the number of times he referred to his military service. Did Bob Dole refer to his this often? I remember him being teased about it in the press in '96. I've got to admire Kerry for volunteering for combat duty, really. I hope I'd have the guts to do the same. I think I would.
It's refreshing to hear how the other Democrats have suddenly gotten such a profound respect for the military and Vietnam veterans especially. Never saw it in the left before now. Let's hope it stays with them from now on, but I really doubt it. Too many on the far Left hate the military with a passion, and they seem to be gaining influence within the Democratic party.
It's refreshing to hear how the other Democrats have suddenly gotten such a profound respect for the military and Vietnam veterans especially. Never saw it in the left before now. Let's hope it stays with them from now on, but I really doubt it. Too many on the far Left hate the military with a passion, and they seem to be gaining influence within the Democratic party.
America can do better! Help is on the way!
Kerry's been repeating these two lines in a pretty effective mantra in this section of the speech. Interestingly, the camera (FNC) has cut over to a section of the crowd where they're obligingly holding up pairs of prefab signs with these phrases printed on them. Nicely scripted, but having the signs ready beforehand is too slick for my tastes. No doubt the GOP will have too much slickness in places, too.
USA! USA!
Wow--a chant of "USA! USA! USA!" has just risen up from the Democratic conventioneers. I'm truly surprised. Or would that be questioning their patriotism? And we all know that's what those mean, evil conservatives do to liberals. John Kerry just said so. Or implied so.
Come to think of it, this chant just rose up after Kerry played the patriotism card. Could the Democrats be a touch sensitive about this? Maybe they think there might be something to it, and they'd better cover, quickly? Nah.
Come to think of it, this chant just rose up after Kerry played the patriotism card. Could the Democrats be a touch sensitive about this? Maybe they think there might be something to it, and they'd better cover, quickly? Nah.
Kerry's troop plan
Watching Kerry's acceptance speech. He's finally laying out some tiny bits of what he means by his "smart" plan for winning the war on terrorism. One thing caught my ear: he would add "40,000" troops to the armed forces, "not in Iraq" [emphasis in original]. Really? I thought he'd been harping on the concept (a not unreasonable one) that we were stretched too thinly in Iraq and needed a lot more soldiers there. And he's not going to add troops to Iraq?
Found it!
Here's who armed Iraq (1973-1990):
USSR: 57% (value of weapons transfers in 1990 dollars)
France: 13
China: 12
Czechoslovakia: 7
Poland: 4
Brazil: 2
Egypt: 1
Romania: 1
Denmark: 1
Lybia: 1
USA: 1
[Many other countries follow, at <1% each.]
Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Chart by the Dissident Frogman
It's awful how the United States created Saddam in our own twisted, evil image. Us and those darned warmongering Danes.
USSR: 57% (value of weapons transfers in 1990 dollars)
France: 13
China: 12
Czechoslovakia: 7
Poland: 4
Brazil: 2
Egypt: 1
Romania: 1
Denmark: 1
Lybia: 1
USA: 1
[Many other countries follow, at <1% each.]
Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Chart by the Dissident Frogman
It's awful how the United States created Saddam in our own twisted, evil image. Us and those darned warmongering Danes.
Who armed Iraq?
I'm linking this for my own reference at the moment. I'm trying to find an excellent graphic I saw a year ago that had a breakdown of foreign aid to Iraq, by country, over the past few decades. I seem to recall that, contrary to the claims of the Left that "we" created/armed/built/are-responsible-for Hussein's Iraq, American aid was in fact down at the level of Denmark's. And was dwarfed by, I think, France's, China's, and the Soviets'.
Does anybody know where that bar chart was? Saw it somewhere on the internet...
In the meantime, let me post this link to Iraq Watch, which has some relevant material.
Incidentally, this whole train of thought came from Lilek's recent argument with a French magazine reporter.
Does anybody know where that bar chart was? Saw it somewhere on the internet...
In the meantime, let me post this link to Iraq Watch, which has some relevant material.
Incidentally, this whole train of thought came from Lilek's recent argument with a French magazine reporter.
More on Dan Okrent and the [gasp!] liberal New York Times
Donald Luskin has an interesting column on Dan Okrent and his NYT column admitting the Times has a liberal bias. He's both critical of Okrent for not going far enough and defensive of him, recognizing the potentially precarious position he is in. Okrent has to field reader complaints, but the Times has a pretty liberal readership, and Okrent is said to get even more letters complaining the Times is not liberal enough.
I think Okrent punted in his column the other day, not laying out the problem quite right. Luskin points out some of the other issues that should have been taken into account. But I'm willing to cut Okrent some slack after reading this.
I think Okrent punted in his column the other day, not laying out the problem quite right. Luskin points out some of the other issues that should have been taken into account. But I'm willing to cut Okrent some slack after reading this.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
The New York Times is a liberal paper?! I don't believe it...
Daniel Okrent, the New York Times' "Public Editor," has written a column admitting that the Times is liberal. "Of course it is," he begins his article.
Few of us on the Right are surprised, of course. And I say that with my characteristic understatement.
I'm debating whether or not to send this article off to a colleague here at State. This fellow professor told me straight-out last night, "The New York Times is not liberal." Funny how Okrent's first line is the perfect rejoinder.
This came up in the context of a debate on the Iraqi War. He had insisted that the American media had been pro-war, ex ante, including the Times. I think he later backed off of this a little and said that the Times was "vaguely centrist," but I've forgotten some of the discussion now.
Stupid, stupid, stupid... I'm scolding myself, now. When you're at a party of ten college professors, don't get into a discussion on politics! You're one of only two conservatives there, and you're going to be outnumbered. Besides, when was the last time you managed to change a professor's opinions about anything?
I avoided jumping in when the crowd started cooing about how wonderful Farenheit 911 is [insert eye-roll], but what dragged me in was one of them saying in very serious tones how dishonest it was of "the Right" to talk about military casualty rates in Iraq that separated combat casualties from other deaths.
I explained that there is a peacetime casualty rate from things ranging from training accidents to traffic deaths, and that it is proper to separate the causes of death when discussing this. I don't think I got through. By the end of it, he was coming up with very specific scenarios involving bent cotter pins on live grenades that somehow only go off accidentally in war zones. Weird. And then the segue into the solidly Right-wing media...
In case any of you were wondering, this is one of the reasons I don't put my full name out in public on this blog. I figure, why let a tenure committee do a Google search and get into a political debate where it doesn't belong?
Of course, since last night, some of them have at least an inkling that I'm not a Fellow Traveller...
Few of us on the Right are surprised, of course. And I say that with my characteristic understatement.
I'm debating whether or not to send this article off to a colleague here at State. This fellow professor told me straight-out last night, "The New York Times is not liberal." Funny how Okrent's first line is the perfect rejoinder.
This came up in the context of a debate on the Iraqi War. He had insisted that the American media had been pro-war, ex ante, including the Times. I think he later backed off of this a little and said that the Times was "vaguely centrist," but I've forgotten some of the discussion now.
Stupid, stupid, stupid... I'm scolding myself, now. When you're at a party of ten college professors, don't get into a discussion on politics! You're one of only two conservatives there, and you're going to be outnumbered. Besides, when was the last time you managed to change a professor's opinions about anything?
I avoided jumping in when the crowd started cooing about how wonderful Farenheit 911 is [insert eye-roll], but what dragged me in was one of them saying in very serious tones how dishonest it was of "the Right" to talk about military casualty rates in Iraq that separated combat casualties from other deaths.
I explained that there is a peacetime casualty rate from things ranging from training accidents to traffic deaths, and that it is proper to separate the causes of death when discussing this. I don't think I got through. By the end of it, he was coming up with very specific scenarios involving bent cotter pins on live grenades that somehow only go off accidentally in war zones. Weird. And then the segue into the solidly Right-wing media...
In case any of you were wondering, this is one of the reasons I don't put my full name out in public on this blog. I figure, why let a tenure committee do a Google search and get into a political debate where it doesn't belong?
Of course, since last night, some of them have at least an inkling that I'm not a Fellow Traveller...
Monday, July 19, 2004
Space Telescope Director not to try for another term
The Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates the Hubble Space Telescope, had an all-hands meeting on Friday. Director Steve Beckwith announced some results from the National Academies advisory report on the Hubble Servicing Mission ideas (don't rule out a manned shuttle mission) and then dropped a bombshell--he's not going to seek a renewal of his term as director.
Nobody asked any questions after this--there was something of a stunned silence, I'm told--and the rest of the day involved a lot of office gossip about the reasons for this. The weekly "Director's sherry" that afternoon was interesting...
I see that the Baltimore Sun has beaten me to putting this report in print. I'll look up the link later.
Nobody asked any questions after this--there was something of a stunned silence, I'm told--and the rest of the day involved a lot of office gossip about the reasons for this. The weekly "Director's sherry" that afternoon was interesting...
I see that the Baltimore Sun has beaten me to putting this report in print. I'll look up the link later.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
New report on Hubble repair project
The American Astronomical Society just sent out this e-mail to its members. The National Academies (formerly the National Academy of Sciences--I worked for them, but I still haven't gotten used to the name change) has issued a report on the proposed Hubble robotic servicing mission. Apparently, they think that important decisions on the feasability are probably at least a year in the waiting. I'm hopeful, but we'll see how this all goes.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
Subject: AAS Informational Email 2004-11
National Academy Releases HST Servicing Interim Report
Summary: The Committee on the Assessment of Options for
Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope delivered
an interim report, allowed under the charter of the
committee, to NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe on
July 13, 2004.
The interim report 1) recognizes the importance of the
Hubble Space Telescope scientifically and that a servicing
mission will enable significant scientific returns, 2) the
proposed robotic servicing mission will be challenging and
requires significant effort to accomplish and 3) key
decisions on whether such a robotic servicing mission is
possible or not cannot currently be made and will likely
not be able to be made for at least a year.
The full report is available online at the AAS web pages:
http://www.aas.org/policy/InterimHSTReport.pdf
Impact: This interim report is likely to have two major
impacts and could have a secondary, but important third
impact. The first is that a robotic servicing mission can
now be officially viewed as valuable for the science
results that a serviced Hubble can provide. The second is
that whether to undertake such a mission cannot be decided
due to technical issues for at least a year. A secondary
impact that the report may have is that significant
investments in the technical aspects of a servicing mission
can now be made by NASA, in addition to the current level
of effort being pursued.
AAS members are encouraged to share the report with their
Representatives and Senators so they can remain fully
informed on this important issue.
___________________________________________________________
Mailed to US members from aas.org at 4:00pm
14 July 2004
New report on Hubble repair project
The American Astronomical Society just sent out this e-mail to its members. The National Academies (formerly the National Academy of Sciences--I worked for them, but I still haven't gotten used to the name change) has issued a report on the proposed Hubble robotic servicing mission. Apparently, they think that important decisions on the feasability are probably at least a year in the waiting. I'm hopeful, but we'll see how this all goes.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
Subject: AAS Informational Email 2004-11
National Academy Releases HST Servicing Interim Report
Summary: The Committee on the Assessment of Options for
Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope delivered
an interim report, allowed under the charter of the
committee, to NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe on
July 13, 2004.
The interim report 1) recognizes the importance of the
Hubble Space Telescope scientifically and that a servicing
mission will enable significant scientific returns, 2) the
proposed robotic servicing mission will be challenging and
requires significant effort to accomplish and 3) key
decisions on whether such a robotic servicing mission is
possible or not cannot currently be made and will likely
not be able to be made for at least a year.
The full report is available online at the AAS web pages:
http://www.aas.org/policy/InterimHSTReport.pdf
Impact: This interim report is likely to have two major
impacts and could have a secondary, but important third
impact. The first is that a robotic servicing mission can
now be officially viewed as valuable for the science
results that a serviced Hubble can provide. The second is
that whether to undertake such a mission cannot be decided
due to technical issues for at least a year. A secondary
impact that the report may have is that significant
investments in the technical aspects of a servicing mission
can now be made by NASA, in addition to the current level
of effort being pursued.
AAS members are encouraged to share the report with their
Representatives and Senators so they can remain fully
informed on this important issue.
___________________________________________________________
Mailed to US members from aas.org at 4:00pm
14 July 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
