Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Sunday, May 01, 2005
VDH's Private Papers :: Our Not-So-Wise Experts
VDH's Private Papers :: Our Not-So-Wise Experts
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door?
Zbigniew Brzezinski feared that we could not do what we are in fact presently doing in Iraq: “I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we’re in now…If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated.” He added ominously that it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion, and resumption of the military draft to achieve security in Iraq. Did he mean Iraq needed more American troops than did the defense of Europe in the Cold War?
Madeleine Albright, while abroad, summed up the present American foreign policy: “It's difficult to be in France and criticize my government. But I'm doing so because Bush and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world.” Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, troops out of Saudi Arabia, democratic demonstrations in Lebanon, West Bank voting, promises of change in Egypt — all that and more is “not good for the world”?
For the last year, such well-meaning former "wise people" have pretty much assured us that the Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron.
But too often we discuss the present risky policy without thought of what preceded it or what might have substituted for it. Have we forgotten that the messy business of democracy was the successor, not the precursor, to a litany of other failed prescriptions? Or that there were never perfect solutions for a place like the Middle East — awash as it is in oil, autocracy, fundamentalism, poverty, and tribalism — only choices between awful and even more awful? Or that September 11 was not a sudden impulse on the part of Mohammed Atta, but the logical culmination of a long simmering pathology? Or that the present loudest critics had plenty of chances to leave something better than the mess that confronted the United States on September 12? Or that at a time of war, it is not very ethical to be sorta for, sorta against, kinda supportive, kinda critical of the mission — all depending on the latest sound bite from Iraq?
Policy #1: Realism
Remember realism? Do we recall James Baker’s quip that the first Gulf War was about “jobs, jobs, jobs,” in line with his later realist fillip about the Balkan genocide: “We don’t have a dog in that fight”? Perhaps that was a sober assessment of the natural limitations on American strength; but had Bill Clinton followed the natural logic of such cynicism, Milosevic would still be in power. Imagine the reaction had the non-teflon Bush said that removing Saddam was about “jobs” or staying out of Dafur was about not having a dog in that fight.
In the Middle East, the tenets of the old realism went something like this: These people are either crazy or backward, and usually both. We are interested in them only to the extent they pump oil and deter Communists. So authoritarians get a pass if they don’t rock the boat and don’t kill too many of their own on television like Saddam or Assad did. Under no circumstances spend American blood or treasure in any pie-in-the-sky project to ameliorate the misery of the Arab people. That will both fail and only earn us disdain as being naïve as well as inept.
Where did this cynical policy lead us? The Saudi royal family — autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular — kept Russians out. Despite embargos and cartels, they mostly pumped overpriced oil. We nodded and stationed troops — and won for our efforts global Wahhabism, whose petrol-fueled mosques and madrassas were the laboratories of thousands of anti-Western terrorists.
The shah, unloved and dictatorial, likewise bought things American. So we kept our nose out of his politics: Khomeini and a quarter century of a nightmarish theocracy ensued. Pakistani dictators, we knew, might hate the Soviets as much as we did, and remind a socialist India to play it straight. Yet American de facto sanction of such strongmen inevitably led to the nuclear conspiracies of Dr. Khan, to the most anti-American and strident Islamists of the Middle East, and to unnecessary tension with the world’s largest democracy India. The formula for an Islamic “republic” is prior Western support for an anti-democratic strongman; the antidote for Islamic fascism is consistent promotion of democratic dissidents.
Policy #2: Punitivism
Then there was the cousin of realism, the much ballyhooed “punitive strike” strategy of “knocking heads when they popped up.” Remember the logic of all those forgotten hits: We bomb, send a message, and then leave — swatting the hornet’s nest and then staying clear when the stingers buzz out from the hive.
So we thwarted the Soviets in Afghanistan and departed happily — allowing in the Taliban and an al Qaeda sanctuary that gave us September 11. Get hit and run from Lebanon and Somalia. Don’t go to Baghdad after success in Kuwait, upsetting our Saudi friends and a corrupt U.N. when Saddam at least keeps a lid on even scarier things. And? After 1991, we got tens of thousands of butchered Kurds and Shiites and years of their subsequent distrust, hundreds of thousands of no-fly-zone sorties, General Zinni’s Operation Desert Fox — and Gulf War II.
Few ever considered that punitivism embodied the worst of all strategies — just enough muscle to enrage our enemies but not enough to scare them, just about right to earn their lasting scorn without ever solving the problem. Nothing is as dangerous in war as striking but not defeating an enemy, showing contempt without the real ability to humble and humiliate him.
The punitive strike was the embodiment of sober and judicious consensus, but all the same suggested to radical Islamists that the more power the United States brandished, the less likely it was to use it fully. That led to bin Laden’s disastrous calculation that George W. Bush was, like many former presidential advisers, someone who worried more about the opinions of the New York Times and the Council on Foreign Relations than about defeating the enemy.
Policy #3: Bribery
Bribery was a third option. We have given somewhere around $57 billion in aggregate aid to Egypt, apparently so that it would be nice or perhaps would keep away from Israel. Forget that the money helped to paper over structural pathologies in the Egyptian economy and empowered corrupt elites. It had even worse results, suggesting to the Cairo Street that a weak country was prevented from fulfilling its destiny of destroying Israel only by American and Zionist machinations — as if an underpowered bantamweight was kept from snatching the heavyweight title crown by devious boxing promoters.
Thus radical Egyptians never quite got it that their government settled for peace of sorts not because of American interference but because had they tried a fourth full-scale war, what was left of the Egyptian military, especially had it not been re-supplied by American arms, would have been ruined. That Mohamed Atta and Dr. Zawahiri came out of Cairo is logical rather than exceptional, as is the frequent murdering by offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and rumors of illicit weapons programs.
Nor did we dare insist at Oslo that Palestinians should embrace the type of humane institutions found in Israel. So Yasser Arafat met Dennis Ross 500 times. Arafat was said to be the most frequent foreign visitor to the Clinton White House. American money and appeasement followed and we saw kleptocracy, one-vote-one-time, intifadas, and suicide bombings — and the hopes that Mrs. Arafat and her Paris crowd would leave some crumbs for those on the West Bank, who in turn blamed their poverty on the Jews.
Policy #4: "Let Them Be"
And don’t forget the policy of indifference and inaction that was predicated on American paternalism and condescension. It is 2005 and few of us know the names of more than a half-dozen dissidents in Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, who were seen more as potential disruptors of the status quo than as the hopes of a new American foreign policy based on reciprocal notions of justice. Only in Egypt could an autocratic government that received billions in U.S. aid damn America for trying to give a measly million or two to its democratic reformers.
So for all the mess of trying to insist on democracy in the Middle East and fostering consensual government in the place of strongmen, at least muscular idealism is an improvement on what preceded it. September 11 was the wage of decades of American appeasement and neglect — a pathological Middle East left alone to blame others for its own self-induced mess, kept "in its box" by American money, a few missiles, and soft talk — like a spoiled child allowed to act up because it was incapable of serious mature behavior and because the ensuing tantrums were not worth the messy efforts at remediation.
Policy #5: The New Americanism
We’ve seen some very strange things since this war started on September 11. But nothing is quite as odd as the past architects of failure weighing in on the dangers of “neoWilsonianism,” “neoconservative ideologues,” and veiled references to Israeli machinations, as the Bush administration finally sets right three decades these people’s flawed policies and tries to promote a new Americanism based on our own universal values and aspirations.
If the American public has to hear another sermon from a Brent Scowcroft — “Sharon just has him [President Bush] wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized” — or Madeline Albright — “Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?” — about what we are now doing wrong in the Middle East, I think it will collectively heave.
The past ostracism of Arafat and the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, followed by democratic engagement, will bring eventual stability to the Middle East and enhance the security of the United States. After the failures of all our present critics, this new policy of promoting American values is our last, best hope. And the president will be rewarded long after he leaves office by the verdict of history for nobly sticking to it when few others, friend or foe, would.
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door?
Zbigniew Brzezinski feared that we could not do what we are in fact presently doing in Iraq: “I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we’re in now…If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated.” He added ominously that it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion, and resumption of the military draft to achieve security in Iraq. Did he mean Iraq needed more American troops than did the defense of Europe in the Cold War?
Madeleine Albright, while abroad, summed up the present American foreign policy: “It's difficult to be in France and criticize my government. But I'm doing so because Bush and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world.” Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, troops out of Saudi Arabia, democratic demonstrations in Lebanon, West Bank voting, promises of change in Egypt — all that and more is “not good for the world”?
For the last year, such well-meaning former "wise people" have pretty much assured us that the Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron.
But too often we discuss the present risky policy without thought of what preceded it or what might have substituted for it. Have we forgotten that the messy business of democracy was the successor, not the precursor, to a litany of other failed prescriptions? Or that there were never perfect solutions for a place like the Middle East — awash as it is in oil, autocracy, fundamentalism, poverty, and tribalism — only choices between awful and even more awful? Or that September 11 was not a sudden impulse on the part of Mohammed Atta, but the logical culmination of a long simmering pathology? Or that the present loudest critics had plenty of chances to leave something better than the mess that confronted the United States on September 12? Or that at a time of war, it is not very ethical to be sorta for, sorta against, kinda supportive, kinda critical of the mission — all depending on the latest sound bite from Iraq?
Policy #1: Realism
Remember realism? Do we recall James Baker’s quip that the first Gulf War was about “jobs, jobs, jobs,” in line with his later realist fillip about the Balkan genocide: “We don’t have a dog in that fight”? Perhaps that was a sober assessment of the natural limitations on American strength; but had Bill Clinton followed the natural logic of such cynicism, Milosevic would still be in power. Imagine the reaction had the non-teflon Bush said that removing Saddam was about “jobs” or staying out of Dafur was about not having a dog in that fight.
In the Middle East, the tenets of the old realism went something like this: These people are either crazy or backward, and usually both. We are interested in them only to the extent they pump oil and deter Communists. So authoritarians get a pass if they don’t rock the boat and don’t kill too many of their own on television like Saddam or Assad did. Under no circumstances spend American blood or treasure in any pie-in-the-sky project to ameliorate the misery of the Arab people. That will both fail and only earn us disdain as being naïve as well as inept.
Where did this cynical policy lead us? The Saudi royal family — autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular — kept Russians out. Despite embargos and cartels, they mostly pumped overpriced oil. We nodded and stationed troops — and won for our efforts global Wahhabism, whose petrol-fueled mosques and madrassas were the laboratories of thousands of anti-Western terrorists.
The shah, unloved and dictatorial, likewise bought things American. So we kept our nose out of his politics: Khomeini and a quarter century of a nightmarish theocracy ensued. Pakistani dictators, we knew, might hate the Soviets as much as we did, and remind a socialist India to play it straight. Yet American de facto sanction of such strongmen inevitably led to the nuclear conspiracies of Dr. Khan, to the most anti-American and strident Islamists of the Middle East, and to unnecessary tension with the world’s largest democracy India. The formula for an Islamic “republic” is prior Western support for an anti-democratic strongman; the antidote for Islamic fascism is consistent promotion of democratic dissidents.
Policy #2: Punitivism
Then there was the cousin of realism, the much ballyhooed “punitive strike” strategy of “knocking heads when they popped up.” Remember the logic of all those forgotten hits: We bomb, send a message, and then leave — swatting the hornet’s nest and then staying clear when the stingers buzz out from the hive.
So we thwarted the Soviets in Afghanistan and departed happily — allowing in the Taliban and an al Qaeda sanctuary that gave us September 11. Get hit and run from Lebanon and Somalia. Don’t go to Baghdad after success in Kuwait, upsetting our Saudi friends and a corrupt U.N. when Saddam at least keeps a lid on even scarier things. And? After 1991, we got tens of thousands of butchered Kurds and Shiites and years of their subsequent distrust, hundreds of thousands of no-fly-zone sorties, General Zinni’s Operation Desert Fox — and Gulf War II.
Few ever considered that punitivism embodied the worst of all strategies — just enough muscle to enrage our enemies but not enough to scare them, just about right to earn their lasting scorn without ever solving the problem. Nothing is as dangerous in war as striking but not defeating an enemy, showing contempt without the real ability to humble and humiliate him.
The punitive strike was the embodiment of sober and judicious consensus, but all the same suggested to radical Islamists that the more power the United States brandished, the less likely it was to use it fully. That led to bin Laden’s disastrous calculation that George W. Bush was, like many former presidential advisers, someone who worried more about the opinions of the New York Times and the Council on Foreign Relations than about defeating the enemy.
Policy #3: Bribery
Bribery was a third option. We have given somewhere around $57 billion in aggregate aid to Egypt, apparently so that it would be nice or perhaps would keep away from Israel. Forget that the money helped to paper over structural pathologies in the Egyptian economy and empowered corrupt elites. It had even worse results, suggesting to the Cairo Street that a weak country was prevented from fulfilling its destiny of destroying Israel only by American and Zionist machinations — as if an underpowered bantamweight was kept from snatching the heavyweight title crown by devious boxing promoters.
Thus radical Egyptians never quite got it that their government settled for peace of sorts not because of American interference but because had they tried a fourth full-scale war, what was left of the Egyptian military, especially had it not been re-supplied by American arms, would have been ruined. That Mohamed Atta and Dr. Zawahiri came out of Cairo is logical rather than exceptional, as is the frequent murdering by offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and rumors of illicit weapons programs.
Nor did we dare insist at Oslo that Palestinians should embrace the type of humane institutions found in Israel. So Yasser Arafat met Dennis Ross 500 times. Arafat was said to be the most frequent foreign visitor to the Clinton White House. American money and appeasement followed and we saw kleptocracy, one-vote-one-time, intifadas, and suicide bombings — and the hopes that Mrs. Arafat and her Paris crowd would leave some crumbs for those on the West Bank, who in turn blamed their poverty on the Jews.
Policy #4: "Let Them Be"
And don’t forget the policy of indifference and inaction that was predicated on American paternalism and condescension. It is 2005 and few of us know the names of more than a half-dozen dissidents in Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, who were seen more as potential disruptors of the status quo than as the hopes of a new American foreign policy based on reciprocal notions of justice. Only in Egypt could an autocratic government that received billions in U.S. aid damn America for trying to give a measly million or two to its democratic reformers.
So for all the mess of trying to insist on democracy in the Middle East and fostering consensual government in the place of strongmen, at least muscular idealism is an improvement on what preceded it. September 11 was the wage of decades of American appeasement and neglect — a pathological Middle East left alone to blame others for its own self-induced mess, kept "in its box" by American money, a few missiles, and soft talk — like a spoiled child allowed to act up because it was incapable of serious mature behavior and because the ensuing tantrums were not worth the messy efforts at remediation.
Policy #5: The New Americanism
We’ve seen some very strange things since this war started on September 11. But nothing is quite as odd as the past architects of failure weighing in on the dangers of “neoWilsonianism,” “neoconservative ideologues,” and veiled references to Israeli machinations, as the Bush administration finally sets right three decades these people’s flawed policies and tries to promote a new Americanism based on our own universal values and aspirations.
If the American public has to hear another sermon from a Brent Scowcroft — “Sharon just has him [President Bush] wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized” — or Madeline Albright — “Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?” — about what we are now doing wrong in the Middle East, I think it will collectively heave.
The past ostracism of Arafat and the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, followed by democratic engagement, will bring eventual stability to the Middle East and enhance the security of the United States. After the failures of all our present critics, this new policy of promoting American values is our last, best hope. And the president will be rewarded long after he leaves office by the verdict of history for nobly sticking to it when few others, friend or foe, would.
Reality of sex offenders
Doug Giles: Jesus, Justice and Jack A**es: "Here’s what we are up against in the formerly good ole US of A. Think about this before you talk about showing “love and mercy” to molesters and start doling out religious quips and clich�s to those of us who are trying to put an end to these predators prowling our parks. Here’s some reality, Saccharine Saint—if you can handle it.
REALITY: There are more than 2 million convicted sex offenders currently living among us, not in prison.
REALITY: Over a 25-year period, more than half of all child molesters will be rearrested for a new sex offense charge.
REALITY: We release more than 200,000 criminals from prison each year, and they go on to commit an extraordinary number of new crimes. For example, during just the first three years following release, these criminals commit more than 3,000 new homicides, more than 3,000 new rapes and more than 3,000 new sex assaults against children. In other words, just like the terrorists of “9/11” who killed 3,000 Americans, we release criminals every year who we know will commit more “9/11’s”.
REALITY: More than 2/3 of all criminals released from prison will be rearrested within three years.
REALITY: The average time served for rape is just six years.
REALITY: The average time served for molesting a child is just three years.
REALITY: Most studies of repeat offenders are designed to hide the true extent of this scandal. Typically, they follow released criminals for just two or three years. But one 25-year study showed that 3/4 of all subsequent convictions occurred more than three years after the criminal’s release from prison. In other words, a study that tracks offenders for just three years misses 75% of the future crimes they will commit on innocent people.
REALITY: Even if your state has long prison sentences, don’t think that makes you safe. One in eight released felons commits their next offense in a different state from the one where they served their time.
REALITY: Ever heard of the car and the bus? Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year maintaining address lists of released sex offenders, without any acknowledgement by law enforcement or public officials that nothing prevents a released child molester or rapist from getting in a car or a bus, going to another neighborhood and committing a new crime there. Every day in America, sex offenders fully compliant with Megan’s Law commit new rapes and child molestations.
REALITY: A released felon is 53 times more likely than the average man on the street to commit a subsequent homicide.
REALITY: While advocates of releasing predators cite the cost of incarceration ($17,000-$25,000 per year) as too great for government to pay to keep criminals behind bars, NO STUDY has ever tried to calculate the cost to society of the millions of women who have been raped, the millions of children who have been molested, the loss to a family when a loved one is murdered or the cost when someone is mugged or robbed or carjacked.
*These disturbing statistics came from U.S. Department of Justice were compiled by Mike Paranzino and his stellar organization, www.ThrowAwayTheKey.org .
My ClashPoint is this: I understand the need for humans to seem humane and for Christians to seem supernatural in their ability to be “merciful and loving” to the best of the worst, but I submit that being supernatural in their ability to be merciful & loving is more important than seeming so . . . and it should start with showing love & mercy to our children and neighbors first—by protecting them from these savages. Sometimes the most loving and merciful act to be shown a criminal is to prevent him from doing more harm. And someone had better begin doling out death sentences for child molesters, or our neighborhoods are quickly going to turn into one big Neverland Ranch.
* logon to www.ClashRadio.com to hear Giles’ interview with Gil Reavill author of the book, Smut: A Sex Industry Insider (and Concerned Father) Says Enough is Enough.
Doug Giles' provocative weekly one-hour radio program, 'The Clash', has re-launched with several new features. Go to clashradio.com and hit 'listen live.'"
REALITY: There are more than 2 million convicted sex offenders currently living among us, not in prison.
REALITY: Over a 25-year period, more than half of all child molesters will be rearrested for a new sex offense charge.
REALITY: We release more than 200,000 criminals from prison each year, and they go on to commit an extraordinary number of new crimes. For example, during just the first three years following release, these criminals commit more than 3,000 new homicides, more than 3,000 new rapes and more than 3,000 new sex assaults against children. In other words, just like the terrorists of “9/11” who killed 3,000 Americans, we release criminals every year who we know will commit more “9/11’s”.
REALITY: More than 2/3 of all criminals released from prison will be rearrested within three years.
REALITY: The average time served for rape is just six years.
REALITY: The average time served for molesting a child is just three years.
REALITY: Most studies of repeat offenders are designed to hide the true extent of this scandal. Typically, they follow released criminals for just two or three years. But one 25-year study showed that 3/4 of all subsequent convictions occurred more than three years after the criminal’s release from prison. In other words, a study that tracks offenders for just three years misses 75% of the future crimes they will commit on innocent people.
REALITY: Even if your state has long prison sentences, don’t think that makes you safe. One in eight released felons commits their next offense in a different state from the one where they served their time.
REALITY: Ever heard of the car and the bus? Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year maintaining address lists of released sex offenders, without any acknowledgement by law enforcement or public officials that nothing prevents a released child molester or rapist from getting in a car or a bus, going to another neighborhood and committing a new crime there. Every day in America, sex offenders fully compliant with Megan’s Law commit new rapes and child molestations.
REALITY: A released felon is 53 times more likely than the average man on the street to commit a subsequent homicide.
REALITY: While advocates of releasing predators cite the cost of incarceration ($17,000-$25,000 per year) as too great for government to pay to keep criminals behind bars, NO STUDY has ever tried to calculate the cost to society of the millions of women who have been raped, the millions of children who have been molested, the loss to a family when a loved one is murdered or the cost when someone is mugged or robbed or carjacked.
*These disturbing statistics came from U.S. Department of Justice were compiled by Mike Paranzino and his stellar organization, www.ThrowAwayTheKey.org .
My ClashPoint is this: I understand the need for humans to seem humane and for Christians to seem supernatural in their ability to be “merciful and loving” to the best of the worst, but I submit that being supernatural in their ability to be merciful & loving is more important than seeming so . . . and it should start with showing love & mercy to our children and neighbors first—by protecting them from these savages. Sometimes the most loving and merciful act to be shown a criminal is to prevent him from doing more harm. And someone had better begin doling out death sentences for child molesters, or our neighborhoods are quickly going to turn into one big Neverland Ranch.
* logon to www.ClashRadio.com to hear Giles’ interview with Gil Reavill author of the book, Smut: A Sex Industry Insider (and Concerned Father) Says Enough is Enough.
Doug Giles' provocative weekly one-hour radio program, 'The Clash', has re-launched with several new features. Go to clashradio.com and hit 'listen live.'"
Value of a Mother
Townhall.com 's The ConservativeLog: "Is That All There Is?
The article by Ilya Shapiro over at Tech Central Station touched my heart:
Generation X has arrived, made its presence felt, looked around, and is wondering, 'Is that all there is?'
It is a conversation I keep having, or talking around, with my friends and peers -- the type of folks who 20 years ago would have been called yuppies (which label I at least am happy to wear now, if in a descriptive rather than ascriptive way). They -- we -- have everything we could ever want in this stage of life, but still we search for meaning....
Of course, this overwrought tale of late-20s/early-30s overachievers' angst relates most to Purple or Blue Americans living in major cities who are at or near what we classify as the 'elite' of their professions. These are the people living supposedly perfect lives (or lives on course for perfection) yet feel empty, not being able to find meaning or fulfillment in either materialism or new age spiritualism, Porsches or pilates.
'Dispatches from Purple America' is the name of Ilya's regular column. I had Blue State credentials (Ph.D. in economics, taught at Yale), but I was always too much of a Red State Girl (grew up in Ohio and loved it) to really enjoy them. So, even though I'm an old Baby Boomer (born in 1953, very up-hip for a Generation X-er), I can say with some certainty, there is more to life than the high acheivement and Blue State lifestyle.
I really found myself, believe it or not, in motherhood. In 1991, we adopted a two-year old Romanian orphan boy, and gave birth to a little girl within six months. It became apparent to me that my little boy had to have me, in particular. Not a generic mom, not high quality, low-cost day-care, but me, to be his mom. I went overnight from worrying about the world economy, to worrying about what came out of a little kid's behind. All of a sudden, I was uniquely important in a way I had never been before. My life had meaning to them, the other members of my family.
And you know what? My mind did not turn to mush. I did not lose all my friends, social status and self-esteem. I made a decision to place my intellect and education at the service of the family, and the wider community, rather than at the service of my vitae and my ego. I've never looked back.
Having a blast, Ilya. Check it out.
[12:58 PM 25-Apr-05 | Jennifer Roback Morse |"
The article by Ilya Shapiro over at Tech Central Station touched my heart:
Generation X has arrived, made its presence felt, looked around, and is wondering, 'Is that all there is?'
It is a conversation I keep having, or talking around, with my friends and peers -- the type of folks who 20 years ago would have been called yuppies (which label I at least am happy to wear now, if in a descriptive rather than ascriptive way). They -- we -- have everything we could ever want in this stage of life, but still we search for meaning....
Of course, this overwrought tale of late-20s/early-30s overachievers' angst relates most to Purple or Blue Americans living in major cities who are at or near what we classify as the 'elite' of their professions. These are the people living supposedly perfect lives (or lives on course for perfection) yet feel empty, not being able to find meaning or fulfillment in either materialism or new age spiritualism, Porsches or pilates.
'Dispatches from Purple America' is the name of Ilya's regular column. I had Blue State credentials (Ph.D. in economics, taught at Yale), but I was always too much of a Red State Girl (grew up in Ohio and loved it) to really enjoy them. So, even though I'm an old Baby Boomer (born in 1953, very up-hip for a Generation X-er), I can say with some certainty, there is more to life than the high acheivement and Blue State lifestyle.
I really found myself, believe it or not, in motherhood. In 1991, we adopted a two-year old Romanian orphan boy, and gave birth to a little girl within six months. It became apparent to me that my little boy had to have me, in particular. Not a generic mom, not high quality, low-cost day-care, but me, to be his mom. I went overnight from worrying about the world economy, to worrying about what came out of a little kid's behind. All of a sudden, I was uniquely important in a way I had never been before. My life had meaning to them, the other members of my family.
And you know what? My mind did not turn to mush. I did not lose all my friends, social status and self-esteem. I made a decision to place my intellect and education at the service of the family, and the wider community, rather than at the service of my vitae and my ego. I've never looked back.
Having a blast, Ilya. Check it out.
[12:58 PM 25-Apr-05 | Jennifer Roback Morse |"
Friday, April 29, 2005
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid
The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid: "The new op-ed columnist at the New York Times, John Tierney, finally engages the Social Security debate -- and it's a whopper. After an endless parade of lies from Paul Krugman about how bad reform with personal accounts has been in Chile (for example, this), Tierney actually got on a plane and checked it out himself (Krugman, of course, never leaves his office in Princeton; he gets all the facts he needs from radical leftist websites). Here's what Tierney discovered, upon conferring with a Chilean pal Pablo:
After comparing our relative payments to our pension systems (since salaries are higher in America, I had contributed more), we extrapolated what would have happened if I'd put my money into Pablo's mutual fund instead of the Social Security trust fund. We came up with three projections for my old age, each one offering a pension that, like Social Security's, would be indexed to compensate for inflation:
(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age.
(2) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66.
(3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.
You may suspect that Pablo has prospered only because he's a sophisticated investor, but he simply put his money into one of the most popular mutual funds.
Welcome to the fight, John!"
After comparing our relative payments to our pension systems (since salaries are higher in America, I had contributed more), we extrapolated what would have happened if I'd put my money into Pablo's mutual fund instead of the Social Security trust fund. We came up with three projections for my old age, each one offering a pension that, like Social Security's, would be indexed to compensate for inflation:
(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age.
(2) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66.
(3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.
You may suspect that Pablo has prospered only because he's a sophisticated investor, but he simply put his money into one of the most popular mutual funds.
Welcome to the fight, John!"
Monday, April 25, 2005
Power Line: Name That Speaker
Power Line: Name That Speaker: "Senator John Cornyn's web site has a new feature called 'Name That Speaker.' The game is to identify the source of the following quote, delivered on the Senate floor:
I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down.
Go to Senator Cornyn's site for the answer." HERE
I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down.
Go to Senator Cornyn's site for the answer." HERE
Blog d'Elisson: IF I COULD BE...
Blog d'Elisson: IF I COULD BE...: "...the creator of a successful meme, I’d sit back and watch it rip its way around the Bloggy-Sphere.
But I’m not. The one meme I tried to start, the Punchbowl Meme, never got any legs. Possibly that's because (1) it was disgusting, and (2) I relied on people who read Bd’E to pass it on spontaneously. What a dolt.
I’m lucky if I get comments equal to 5% of my visitors on a given day. To grab a meme? Too much work. So you need a meme that you can tag people with. Then, a good one will grow like a chain letter.
Well, I got tagged with this one by TeaFizz - so here goes.
First, here’s how it works. You need to pass this on to three bloggers. Tag! [Select three who have not already answered this thing, as otherwise you are merely trying to Piss People Off.]
Now, below you will find a list of 18 occupations. Select at least five of them (more is OK) and feel free to add to the list after you have made your selection from the list that was sent to you.
For each one you select, simply finish each sentence with what you would do as a member of that profession. Be serious, be funny, do whatever the hell you like: just complete the sentences, OK?
Here's the list I got from TeaFizz, with one more tacked on by me:
If I could be a scientist...
If I could be a farmer...
If I could be a musician...
If I could be a doctor...
If I could be a painter...
If I could be a gardener...
If I could be a missionary...
If I could be a chef...
If I could be an architect...
If I could be a linguist...
If I could be a psychologist...
If I could be a librarian...
If I could be an athlete...
If I could be a lawyer...
If I could be an innkeeper...
If I could be a professor...
If I could be a writer...
If I could be a backup dancer...
If I could be a llama-rider...
If I could be a bonnie pirate...
If I could be a midget stripper...
If I could be a proctologist...
If I could be a TV-Chat Show host...
If I could be a knish-stuffer...
Now, for my answers:
If I could be a writer, I could spend time writing an online journal for no compensation other than the occasional linky ego-boost or comment. On second thought, no.
If I could be a missionary, I could, at least, have job security. A missionary is always assured of having a position.
If I could be a lawyer, I could sue myself and get rich.
If I could be a painter, I could spend my time deciding whether to paint pictures or houses.
If I could be a proctologist, I could study under the G.I. Bill. And I’d study the Big Question facing members of my profession: Is it true that a proctoscope is a silver tube with an asshole at both ends?
If I could be a chef, I could start the Extremely Slow Food movement, for those people who want their food prepared lovingly and carefully from the finest ingredients and who are willing to pay through the eyeballs for the privilege. But every so often, I would have to have a greasy Lump-o’-Crapburger from one of the Fast Food Emporia: Know thy enemy.
And a parting shot: If I could be independently wealthy, I could sit on my ass and blog all day. But I’m not, so I can’t. Shit."
But I’m not. The one meme I tried to start, the Punchbowl Meme, never got any legs. Possibly that's because (1) it was disgusting, and (2) I relied on people who read Bd’E to pass it on spontaneously. What a dolt.
I’m lucky if I get comments equal to 5% of my visitors on a given day. To grab a meme? Too much work. So you need a meme that you can tag people with. Then, a good one will grow like a chain letter.
Well, I got tagged with this one by TeaFizz - so here goes.
First, here’s how it works. You need to pass this on to three bloggers. Tag! [Select three who have not already answered this thing, as otherwise you are merely trying to Piss People Off.]
Now, below you will find a list of 18 occupations. Select at least five of them (more is OK) and feel free to add to the list after you have made your selection from the list that was sent to you.
For each one you select, simply finish each sentence with what you would do as a member of that profession. Be serious, be funny, do whatever the hell you like: just complete the sentences, OK?
Here's the list I got from TeaFizz, with one more tacked on by me:
If I could be a scientist...
If I could be a farmer...
If I could be a musician...
If I could be a doctor...
If I could be a painter...
If I could be a gardener...
If I could be a missionary...
If I could be a chef...
If I could be an architect...
If I could be a linguist...
If I could be a psychologist...
If I could be a librarian...
If I could be an athlete...
If I could be a lawyer...
If I could be an innkeeper...
If I could be a professor...
If I could be a writer...
If I could be a backup dancer...
If I could be a llama-rider...
If I could be a bonnie pirate...
If I could be a midget stripper...
If I could be a proctologist...
If I could be a TV-Chat Show host...
If I could be a knish-stuffer...
Now, for my answers:
If I could be a writer, I could spend time writing an online journal for no compensation other than the occasional linky ego-boost or comment. On second thought, no.
If I could be a missionary, I could, at least, have job security. A missionary is always assured of having a position.
If I could be a lawyer, I could sue myself and get rich.
If I could be a painter, I could spend my time deciding whether to paint pictures or houses.
If I could be a proctologist, I could study under the G.I. Bill. And I’d study the Big Question facing members of my profession: Is it true that a proctoscope is a silver tube with an asshole at both ends?
If I could be a chef, I could start the Extremely Slow Food movement, for those people who want their food prepared lovingly and carefully from the finest ingredients and who are willing to pay through the eyeballs for the privilege. But every so often, I would have to have a greasy Lump-o’-Crapburger from one of the Fast Food Emporia: Know thy enemy.
And a parting shot: If I could be independently wealthy, I could sit on my ass and blog all day. But I’m not, so I can’t. Shit."
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Chrenkoff Post Excellent
Chrenkoff: "Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is beating his head against the wall, or to be more precise, against the media:
'The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is encouraging newspaper editors to tell America the full story of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'It�s particularly important today... because the American people need to know the full story,' Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said in addressing the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 'because it is going to be their resolve that is so critical to our ability to confront the extremist threat'.'
Which is precisely why many in the media insist on focusing on the bad news. Not all, by any means - many reporters and editors do their best to provide fair and balanced reporting; others are simply naturally biased in favor of the 'exciting' bad news at the expense of the 'boring' good news, whether they're writing from Boston or Baghdad - but a significant minority, which is personally opposed to Republican foreign policy, has been doing its best to repeat the brilliant performance of their Vietnam-era predecessors.
Wellington famously remarked that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton; today, America's wars are being lost in the cafeteria of the Columbia School of Journalism.
'Myers told the editors he reads far more about the problems of servicemembers� equipment and the latest insurgent attack than about 'the thousands of amazing things our troops are accomplishing'...
'The chairman said that part of the problem lies with the military. He said commanders must be more responsive and give more access to reporters. 'We�re working on that,' he told the editors.
'But still, 'a bomb blast is seen as more newsworthy than the steady progress of rebuilding communities and lives, remodeling schools and running vaccination programs and water purification plants'.'
See any edition of my 'Good news from Iraq'.
'Myers challenged the newspaper editors to ensure the American people understand the hundreds of ways their sons and daughters are improving lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'In your profession and mine, (we are) working hard to defend our values, our way of life and our Constitution,' Myers said. 'We risk our comfort, our safety and our lives for what we believe in.' The chairman noted that more than 40 journalists have been killed while covering operations in Iraq. The 'Fourth Estate' always has covered conflicts, Myers noted, but what is different today is the amount of news and that it travels so much faster than in the past.
' 'What questions are the news reports trying to answer?' the chairman asked. 'The theme of the coverage lately seems to be 'When are the troops coming home?' rather than 'What are we accomplishing?'''
That's a rather charitable interpretation and a brave attempt by the General to find some common ground. In fact, 'our values', 'our way of life' and 'our Constitution' quite often tend to mean totally different things to military people and journalists.
'He said the military will work with the press. 'Our task is to give you better access, more timely information and we will do that,' he said. 'In return I would ask you to keep at the task of trying to show as complete a picture as you can. I know our troops deserve that, and I think the American people deserve it as well'.'
As we all know, just because you deserve something, it doesn't mean you're going to get it. Thank God for blogs."
'The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is encouraging newspaper editors to tell America the full story of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'It�s particularly important today... because the American people need to know the full story,' Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said in addressing the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 'because it is going to be their resolve that is so critical to our ability to confront the extremist threat'.'
Which is precisely why many in the media insist on focusing on the bad news. Not all, by any means - many reporters and editors do their best to provide fair and balanced reporting; others are simply naturally biased in favor of the 'exciting' bad news at the expense of the 'boring' good news, whether they're writing from Boston or Baghdad - but a significant minority, which is personally opposed to Republican foreign policy, has been doing its best to repeat the brilliant performance of their Vietnam-era predecessors.
Wellington famously remarked that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton; today, America's wars are being lost in the cafeteria of the Columbia School of Journalism.
'Myers told the editors he reads far more about the problems of servicemembers� equipment and the latest insurgent attack than about 'the thousands of amazing things our troops are accomplishing'...
'The chairman said that part of the problem lies with the military. He said commanders must be more responsive and give more access to reporters. 'We�re working on that,' he told the editors.
'But still, 'a bomb blast is seen as more newsworthy than the steady progress of rebuilding communities and lives, remodeling schools and running vaccination programs and water purification plants'.'
See any edition of my 'Good news from Iraq'.
'Myers challenged the newspaper editors to ensure the American people understand the hundreds of ways their sons and daughters are improving lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'In your profession and mine, (we are) working hard to defend our values, our way of life and our Constitution,' Myers said. 'We risk our comfort, our safety and our lives for what we believe in.' The chairman noted that more than 40 journalists have been killed while covering operations in Iraq. The 'Fourth Estate' always has covered conflicts, Myers noted, but what is different today is the amount of news and that it travels so much faster than in the past.
' 'What questions are the news reports trying to answer?' the chairman asked. 'The theme of the coverage lately seems to be 'When are the troops coming home?' rather than 'What are we accomplishing?'''
That's a rather charitable interpretation and a brave attempt by the General to find some common ground. In fact, 'our values', 'our way of life' and 'our Constitution' quite often tend to mean totally different things to military people and journalists.
'He said the military will work with the press. 'Our task is to give you better access, more timely information and we will do that,' he said. 'In return I would ask you to keep at the task of trying to show as complete a picture as you can. I know our troops deserve that, and I think the American people deserve it as well'.'
As we all know, just because you deserve something, it doesn't mean you're going to get it. Thank God for blogs."
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Praactice Ammo
Bad Example: "CHEAPEST PRACTICE AMMO EVER FOR THE CHEAPEST PRACTICE EVER
(A Guest Post by blogless Peter, for Carnival of Cordite)
Let's face it, few of us can really afford to shoot enough to really get absolutely confident in our skill. It's not just the ammunition costs, either. Range time is expensive and with gas costs it's even expensive driving to the range. Then when we get there, we find there are all kinds of restrictions on how we can shoot. Some ranges don't allow rapid fire, most will go into hysterics if we try to work on a draw, and Lord help you if you need to practice engaging a threat from behind.
There is an answer, actually more than one. Primer powered wax, rubber and plastic bullets. Someone who is already a handloader is at least partially set up to use these handy little wonders. Someone who isn't will need some tools and some supplies. Some you have around the house already - a small hammer, a drill - some you'll have to buy, and there are other things that can speed the process up.
The first thing we need is modified cartridge cases. Unless you are already set up to handload, start with new, unprimed cases. Otherwise it's hard to find something that is thin enough to go through the factory flash hole yet strong enough to knock the spent primer out. Most outfits sell cartridge cases by the hundred. A little later on I'll tell you where to buy them and the priming tool you'll need.
The first thing we must do is drill the primer flash hole a little larger with a three-sixteenth inch drill bit. You'll need to hold the cartridge case with a pair of pliers and work the drill with the other hand...it's really a job for two people unless you have three hands. Hold the case as close to the rim as possible with those pliers, the metal is thicker down there and you won't be as likely to smoosh it and make it so it won't chamber. Whatever you do, do NOT omit this step. For technical reasons, a primer - fired with no powder behind a normal-weight bullet - will back out of the case and tie up a revolver. In an autoloader it might come completely out and get stuck in the works. Just trust me on this. I have the technical information and I'm not afraid to use it, it would only take about two pages to explain it." ETC ETC
(A Guest Post by blogless Peter, for Carnival of Cordite)
Let's face it, few of us can really afford to shoot enough to really get absolutely confident in our skill. It's not just the ammunition costs, either. Range time is expensive and with gas costs it's even expensive driving to the range. Then when we get there, we find there are all kinds of restrictions on how we can shoot. Some ranges don't allow rapid fire, most will go into hysterics if we try to work on a draw, and Lord help you if you need to practice engaging a threat from behind.
There is an answer, actually more than one. Primer powered wax, rubber and plastic bullets. Someone who is already a handloader is at least partially set up to use these handy little wonders. Someone who isn't will need some tools and some supplies. Some you have around the house already - a small hammer, a drill - some you'll have to buy, and there are other things that can speed the process up.
The first thing we need is modified cartridge cases. Unless you are already set up to handload, start with new, unprimed cases. Otherwise it's hard to find something that is thin enough to go through the factory flash hole yet strong enough to knock the spent primer out. Most outfits sell cartridge cases by the hundred. A little later on I'll tell you where to buy them and the priming tool you'll need.
The first thing we must do is drill the primer flash hole a little larger with a three-sixteenth inch drill bit. You'll need to hold the cartridge case with a pair of pliers and work the drill with the other hand...it's really a job for two people unless you have three hands. Hold the case as close to the rim as possible with those pliers, the metal is thicker down there and you won't be as likely to smoosh it and make it so it won't chamber. Whatever you do, do NOT omit this step. For technical reasons, a primer - fired with no powder behind a normal-weight bullet - will back out of the case and tie up a revolver. In an autoloader it might come completely out and get stuck in the works. Just trust me on this. I have the technical information and I'm not afraid to use it, it would only take about two pages to explain it." ETC ETC
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Power Line: Oil-For-Food Investigators Resign
Power Line: Oil-For-Food Investigators Resign: "Oil-For-Food Investigators Resign
Roger Simon had this story first: two top investigators for Paul Volcker's U.N.-sponsored inquiry into the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food program have resigned because they thought the initial Volcker report was too easy on Kofi Annan. 'You follow a trail and you want to see people pick it up,' a spokesman for Volcker's team said. The committee 'told the story' that the investigators presented, he added, 'but we made different conclusions than they would have.' One of those who resigned was the Volcker committee's senior investigative counsel, Robert Parton."
Roger Simon had this story first: two top investigators for Paul Volcker's U.N.-sponsored inquiry into the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food program have resigned because they thought the initial Volcker report was too easy on Kofi Annan. 'You follow a trail and you want to see people pick it up,' a spokesman for Volcker's team said. The committee 'told the story' that the investigators presented, he added, 'but we made different conclusions than they would have.' One of those who resigned was the Volcker committee's senior investigative counsel, Robert Parton."
Monday, April 18, 2005
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Past Prognostications
Our Not-So-Wise Experts
A litany of past failure
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door? etc
A litany of past failure
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door? etc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
