New Year’s Eve is associated with many things; the ball dropping in Time’s Square, a kiss as the countdown ends, singing Auld Lang Syne, making resolutions, and of course imbibing too much alcohol. The last item is the one that has most come to epitomize the day and mindless drunkenness will be prevalent throughout the land tonight.
There are many labels for the advanced state of inebriation that many will proudly achieve tonight. One of my favorites is “knee walking drunk” which is oft employed (and occasionally personified) by one Brian “Saint Paul” Ward. Another is “over served” which seems to place responsibility for one’s intoxication on another actor. If it wasn’t for that meddling bartender who kept pushing drinks my way. I’ve witnessed this sort of projection first hand when neighbors seek to explain their over indulgence by blaming it solely on the two cocktails they consumed at our basement bar. Yeah, that was it. It wasn’t the six drinks you had before that or the five afterward.
Anyway, it’s always fun to try to come up with new ways to indicate that someone has had one or thirteen too many. And sometimes the best source for new material is mining the past.
Today’s WSJ has a sampling of from “The Drinker’s Dictionary” in the Pennsylvania Gazette, published by Benjamin Franklin, Jan. 13, 1737:
A: He is Addled, He’s casting up his Accounts, He’s Afflicted
B: He’s Biggy, Been at Barbadoes, Drunk as a Wheel-Barrow
C: Cherry Merry, Half Way to Concord, Sir Richard has taken off his Considering Cap
D: Kill’d his Dog, Has Dipp’d his Bill, He’s seen the Devil
E: He’s Prince Eugene, Wet both Eyes, Got a brass Eye
F: He’s Fishey, Crump Footed, Been to France, His Flag is out
G: Groatable, Been before George, Globular, Got the Glanders
H: Half and Half, Top Heavy, Hammerish, Loose in the Hilts
I: He’s Intoxicated
J: Jambled, Going to Jerusalem, Been to Jerico, Juicy
K: The King is his Cousin, Got Kib’d Heels, Knapt, Het his Kettle
L: Lordly, Light, Lappy, Limber
M: He sees two Moons, Mountous, Muddy, Rais’d his Monuments
N: He’s eat the Cocoa Nut, Nimptopsical, Got the Night Mare
O: He’s Oil’d, Smelt of an Onion, Oxycrocium, Overset
P: Priddy, Has scalt his Head Pan, Been among the Philistines, In his Prosperity
Q: He’s Quarrelsome
R: Raddled, Lost his Rudder, Been too free with Sir Richard, Like a Rat in Trouble
S: In the Sudds, Swampt, as Stiff as a Ring-bolt, Staggerish, Stew’d, Has Sold his Senses
T: Tongue-ty’d, Topsey Turvey, Has Swallow’d a Tavern Token, He’s Thawed, He’s Trammel’d
V: He makes Virginia Fence, Valiant, Got the Indian Vapours
W: He’s wise, He’s been to the Salt Water, He’s very Weary
Feel free to use your favorites this evening and tomorrow morning to describe the state of your friends, family, strangers, or even yourself. But please, don’t blame the bartender.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
HWX: A Merry Candidate Christmas
It’s a very special Tuesday night edition of HWX, with Brian Ward and Paul Happe reconvening to discuss the crucial issues of the day. Topics addressed include:
- Santa Claus is coming to town! Should he be concerned about entering households in states with the Castle Doctrine?
- Lindsey Graham withdraws from the GOP Presidential race. Will the kid’s table debates ever be the same? Including a special tribute to the highlights of his campaign, with an exciting new commercial sponsor.
- Hillary Clinton and the state of the Democrat party Presidential race, including Hillary’s reaction to Donald Trump’s recent comments that she was “schlonged” in 2008.
- A musical tribute to the magical mix that is Christmas and Presidential comments, featuring carols from Bobby Jindal, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.
- A preview of the release of a new holiday music classic, The Hillary and the Ivy, featuring the former first lady’s special touch on your favorite holiday music.
- The release of the latest Star Wars movie, and it’s cultural significance. Also, an analysis of the recent Ipsos poll on how Star Wars characters would do if they were running for President.
HWX is brought to you by Harry’s Shave. For the finest in shaving products, with the ultimate in convenience, and at an amazingly low price, check out Harry’s. It the perfect gift for anyone who grows hair on their face in your family. Enter HWX at checkout for an additional $5 off.
There are many ways to hear the podcast, including over on the mother ship at Ricochet. You can be sure to never miss an episode by subscribing via iTunes. Or you can just use the player embedded in the upper right hand corner of this website. If all of these fail, send me an email and I'll come to your house and read from a written transcript. Hope you enjoy.
Wednesday, December 02, 2015
HWX: Nobody Does It Better
HWX returns, with Brian Ward and Paul Happe reconvening for a very special Wednesday night broadcast to address the critical issues of our time. Topics addressed include:
* The state of the
GOP Presidential race and whatever happened to that deep bench, including a
special tribute to the magic that was the Bobby Jindal campaign.
* Jeb Bush’s
machismo offensive, including his pledge to kill baby Hitler. Also featured, a preview of this holiday
season’s expected cinema blockbuster, Back to the Future IV: Get Baby Hitler.
* This week’s Donald
Trump media mini-explosions on Muslim watch lists and thousands celebrating the
9/11 attacks. The familiar pattern of journalistic
scandal baiting, and Trump’s refreshing ability to avoid any collateral damage.
* Blogger John
Hinderaker and lessons to be learned from his professional, well-reasoned
approach during his interview with Washington Post columnist Dana Millbank.
* The Paris Climate
Change Conference as the ultimate rebuke to terrorism, and can Obama actually
sign us up for anything without Congress?
The HWX Podcast is bright to
you by Harry’s Shave! For the finest shave at the best price, go to Harrys.com and use the coupon code HWX at checkout for big
savings on your order.
HWX is also sponsored by SaneBox.
Is your email inbox out of control? Get it back in control with SaneBox. Try
it yourself with two free weeks of SaneBox. Visit sanebox.com/ricochet to start your trial.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Bigger Fish to Fry
In the next few weeks, as the climate hype in Paris builds to the boiling point, there are several critical points to keep in mind. In Saturday’s WSJ, Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser helpfully presented Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate:
It cannot be what is happening to world temperatures, because they have gone up only very slowly, less than half as fast as the scientific consensus predicted in 1990 when the global-warming scare began in earnest. Even with this year’s El Niño-boosted warmth threatening to break records, the world is barely half a degree Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was about 35 years ago. Also, it is increasingly clear that the planet was significantly warmer than today several times during the past 10,000 years.
Is the planet getting warmer? Yes, but not nearly as fast as climate models had predicted.
Is the warmer caused at least in some part by human activity? Probably, but just how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural is difficult if not impossible to pinpoint.
But the bigger question is whether the warming that has occurred and the future warming that is predicted to occur will be disastrous for mankind and the planet?
Nor can it be the consequences of this recent slight temperature increase that worries world leaders. On a global scale, as scientists keep confirming, there has been no increase in frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts, while deaths attributed to such natural disasters have never been fewer, thanks to modern technology and infrastructure. Arctic sea ice has recently melted more in summer than it used to in the 1980s, but Antarctic sea ice has increased, and Antarctica is gaining land-based ice, according to a new study by NASA scientists published in the Journal of Glaciology. Sea level continues its centuries-long slow rise—about a foot a century—with no sign of recent acceleration.
So while the Syrian civil war and the ensuing rise of ISIS may be at least partially due to drought in the region there is no evidence that said drought was the result of increased carbon emissions.
Okay, so the impact of global warming hasn’t hit us yet. But what about the future?
Perhaps it is the predictions that worry the world leaders. Here, we are often told by journalists that the science is “settled” and there is no debate. But scientists disagree: They say there is great uncertainty, and they reflected this uncertainty in their fifth and latest assessment for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It projects that temperatures are likely to be anything from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer by the latter part of the century—that is, anything from mildly beneficial to significantly harmful.
As for the impact of that future warming, a new study by a leading climate economist, Richard Tol of the University of Sussex, concludes that warming may well bring gains, because carbon dioxide causes crops and wild ecosystems to grow greener and more drought-resistant. In the long run, the negatives may outweigh these benefits, says Mr. Tol, but “the impact of climate change does not significantly deviate from zero until 3.5°C warming.”
Mr. Tol’s study summarizes the effect we are to expect during this century: “The welfare change caused by climate change is equivalent to the welfare change caused by an income change of a few percent. That is, a century of climate change is about as good/bad for welfare as a year of economic growth. Statements that climate change is the biggest problem of humankind are unfounded: We can readily think of bigger problems.” No justification for prioritizing climate change over terrorism there.
And that is the most important point of all. We should be talking about climate change, what the realistic impacts will likely be, and what can be done to mitigate its negative consequences without placing undue burdens on the global economy and limiting less developed countries from growing their way out of poverty. But we should not pretend that it is the greatest threat facing us today and that it should be the primary focus of world leaders as the gathering in Paris would have you presume. There are a lot of problems in the world that require our attention. Climate change is not at the top of that list.
UPDATE--For more of the pragmatic perspective on climate change, check out this Prager U video featuring Bjorn Lomborg:
It cannot be what is happening to world temperatures, because they have gone up only very slowly, less than half as fast as the scientific consensus predicted in 1990 when the global-warming scare began in earnest. Even with this year’s El Niño-boosted warmth threatening to break records, the world is barely half a degree Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was about 35 years ago. Also, it is increasingly clear that the planet was significantly warmer than today several times during the past 10,000 years.
Is the planet getting warmer? Yes, but not nearly as fast as climate models had predicted.
Is the warmer caused at least in some part by human activity? Probably, but just how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural is difficult if not impossible to pinpoint.
But the bigger question is whether the warming that has occurred and the future warming that is predicted to occur will be disastrous for mankind and the planet?
Nor can it be the consequences of this recent slight temperature increase that worries world leaders. On a global scale, as scientists keep confirming, there has been no increase in frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts, while deaths attributed to such natural disasters have never been fewer, thanks to modern technology and infrastructure. Arctic sea ice has recently melted more in summer than it used to in the 1980s, but Antarctic sea ice has increased, and Antarctica is gaining land-based ice, according to a new study by NASA scientists published in the Journal of Glaciology. Sea level continues its centuries-long slow rise—about a foot a century—with no sign of recent acceleration.
So while the Syrian civil war and the ensuing rise of ISIS may be at least partially due to drought in the region there is no evidence that said drought was the result of increased carbon emissions.
Okay, so the impact of global warming hasn’t hit us yet. But what about the future?
Perhaps it is the predictions that worry the world leaders. Here, we are often told by journalists that the science is “settled” and there is no debate. But scientists disagree: They say there is great uncertainty, and they reflected this uncertainty in their fifth and latest assessment for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It projects that temperatures are likely to be anything from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer by the latter part of the century—that is, anything from mildly beneficial to significantly harmful.
As for the impact of that future warming, a new study by a leading climate economist, Richard Tol of the University of Sussex, concludes that warming may well bring gains, because carbon dioxide causes crops and wild ecosystems to grow greener and more drought-resistant. In the long run, the negatives may outweigh these benefits, says Mr. Tol, but “the impact of climate change does not significantly deviate from zero until 3.5°C warming.”
Mr. Tol’s study summarizes the effect we are to expect during this century: “The welfare change caused by climate change is equivalent to the welfare change caused by an income change of a few percent. That is, a century of climate change is about as good/bad for welfare as a year of economic growth. Statements that climate change is the biggest problem of humankind are unfounded: We can readily think of bigger problems.” No justification for prioritizing climate change over terrorism there.
And that is the most important point of all. We should be talking about climate change, what the realistic impacts will likely be, and what can be done to mitigate its negative consequences without placing undue burdens on the global economy and limiting less developed countries from growing their way out of poverty. But we should not pretend that it is the greatest threat facing us today and that it should be the primary focus of world leaders as the gathering in Paris would have you presume. There are a lot of problems in the world that require our attention. Climate change is not at the top of that list.
UPDATE--For more of the pragmatic perspective on climate change, check out this Prager U video featuring Bjorn Lomborg:
Monday, November 23, 2015
Moral Grandiosity and Failing Performance
Walter Russell Mead (by no means a fire breathing neo-con) weighs in how Brussels is a microcosm on what is ailing the West. The City of the Whited Sepulchres:
The West as a whole these days is cursed by moral grandiosity and failing performance. Our self-esteem has seldom been more robust, or our performance more pitiable. We busy ourselves with what we think is the last unfinished work of implementing universal egalitarianism, by for example tending to high school students who identify with a gender other than that into which they were born, ensuring that they can use the restrooms toward which their aspirations lead them. We see ourselves as courageous warriors even as the foundations of our world are beginning to crack. We claim that tolerance and diversity are the touchstones of our civilization, and have raised a generation of weaklings who cannot bear to be exposed to unorthodox ideas or to the bustle and collisions that life in a diverse society inevitably brings. To cite another of Jesus’ condemnations of hypocrisy, we ‘tithe mint and dill and cumin, and neglect the weightier matters of the law.’ That is, we busy ourselves obsessively over small bore issues, and ignore the graver challenges that face us on every side.
We may choose to ignore those graver challenges, but they won't ignore us.
The West as a whole these days is cursed by moral grandiosity and failing performance. Our self-esteem has seldom been more robust, or our performance more pitiable. We busy ourselves with what we think is the last unfinished work of implementing universal egalitarianism, by for example tending to high school students who identify with a gender other than that into which they were born, ensuring that they can use the restrooms toward which their aspirations lead them. We see ourselves as courageous warriors even as the foundations of our world are beginning to crack. We claim that tolerance and diversity are the touchstones of our civilization, and have raised a generation of weaklings who cannot bear to be exposed to unorthodox ideas or to the bustle and collisions that life in a diverse society inevitably brings. To cite another of Jesus’ condemnations of hypocrisy, we ‘tithe mint and dill and cumin, and neglect the weightier matters of the law.’ That is, we busy ourselves obsessively over small bore issues, and ignore the graver challenges that face us on every side.
We may choose to ignore those graver challenges, but they won't ignore us.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Family Matters
William Galston is by far the most liberal/progressive writer whose work regularly appears in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. So it was with no small amount of surprise that I opened today’s paper to find him talking about the undeniable benefits of marriage and the importance of families.
The Poverty Cure: Get Married:
Of the many barriers to equal opportunity for African-Americans, differences of family background may well be the most consequential—and the least likely to yield to public policy. This is the gravamen of research made public in recent weeks, much of it collected in the fall 2015 issue of the academic journal the Future of Children.
Although there were signs of trouble to come in the 1960s, racial differences in marriage rates remained modest until 1970, when 95% of white women and 92% of black women had been married at least once. By 2012, however, a large gap had emerged: 88% of white women age 40-44 were or had been married, compared with only 63% of black women.
Education makes a difference: Among black women with a bachelor’s degree or more, the ever-married rate is 71%; for those with no more than a high-school diploma, it is only 56%. But race also matters. The ever-married rate for college-educated black women is 17 percentage points lower than for white women, while the black/white gap among the least-educated women is a stunning 31 points.
As a result, other differences are stark. Consider that 71% of African-American infants are born to unmarried women, compared with 29% for white women. The birth of a child doesn’t motivate many African-American couples to get married: 66% of black children are not living with married parents. Nor does it keep their unmarried biological parents together. About seven in 10 white children, from newborn to 18 years of age, are living with their biological parents, compared with one in three black children.
This matters because—as family-structure researchers Sara McLanahan and Isabel Sawhill note in the Future of Children, “most scholars now agree that children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide variety of outcomes.”
The statement in bold is basic common sense and should be something that everyone can agree on regardless of political leanings. However, for at least the last twenty years our society has been deluged with messages arguing exactly the opposite. It doesn’t matter if kids have one mother or one father or two mothers or two fathers or any other combination other than the traditional family. All families are the same. Except that they’re not.
It turns out that the effects of family instability are measurably worse for boys than for girls—and worst of all for African-American boys. In a landmark new study, a research team headed by MIT’s David Autor and Northwestern University’s David Figlio find that relative to their sisters, boys born to poorly educated unmarried mothers have higher levels of truancy and behavioral problems throughout elementary and middle school, are less likely to graduate from high school, and are more likely as juveniles to commit serious crimes. Many of the gaps between brothers and sisters are larger for blacks than for whites.
The researchers study—and reject—the hypotheses that these differences reflect higher prenatal sensitivity to factors such as stress and poor nutrition or that they are entirely attributable to dangerous neighborhoods and poor schools. There are independent effects of family background that contribute to the large gaps between boys and girls. In fact, the researchers conclude, neighborhoods and schools are less important than the “direct effect of family structure itself.”
Why is this? The research team finds that boys’ problems are far more behavioral than cognitive. For example, truancy and classroom disciplinary issues lead to suspensions, which play the largest role in explaining the boy-girl high-school graduation gap. But the presence of fathers in the household substantially reduces the gaps between boys and girls in absences and suspensions. It turns out that boys need fathers as well as mothers even more than girls do, and suffer even more when fathers are absent from their lives.
Again, the damage done to boys by not having fathers involved in their lives should be obvious for all to see and beyond dispute. But again, we’ve been told over and over again that this basic fact of life is wrong and that even mentioning it as one of the underlying causes of the problems facing African-Americans is racist.
One of my biggest (of many) disappointments with President Obama is that he not focused nearly enough attention on this matter. It’s not that he hasn’t mentioned it at all, it’s just that he had an opportunity to make it a priority for his administration along with the bully pulpit to ensure the message was heard. Now that would have been a legacy worth celebrating and remembering.
The Poverty Cure: Get Married:
Of the many barriers to equal opportunity for African-Americans, differences of family background may well be the most consequential—and the least likely to yield to public policy. This is the gravamen of research made public in recent weeks, much of it collected in the fall 2015 issue of the academic journal the Future of Children.
Although there were signs of trouble to come in the 1960s, racial differences in marriage rates remained modest until 1970, when 95% of white women and 92% of black women had been married at least once. By 2012, however, a large gap had emerged: 88% of white women age 40-44 were or had been married, compared with only 63% of black women.
Education makes a difference: Among black women with a bachelor’s degree or more, the ever-married rate is 71%; for those with no more than a high-school diploma, it is only 56%. But race also matters. The ever-married rate for college-educated black women is 17 percentage points lower than for white women, while the black/white gap among the least-educated women is a stunning 31 points.
As a result, other differences are stark. Consider that 71% of African-American infants are born to unmarried women, compared with 29% for white women. The birth of a child doesn’t motivate many African-American couples to get married: 66% of black children are not living with married parents. Nor does it keep their unmarried biological parents together. About seven in 10 white children, from newborn to 18 years of age, are living with their biological parents, compared with one in three black children.
This matters because—as family-structure researchers Sara McLanahan and Isabel Sawhill note in the Future of Children, “most scholars now agree that children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide variety of outcomes.”
The statement in bold is basic common sense and should be something that everyone can agree on regardless of political leanings. However, for at least the last twenty years our society has been deluged with messages arguing exactly the opposite. It doesn’t matter if kids have one mother or one father or two mothers or two fathers or any other combination other than the traditional family. All families are the same. Except that they’re not.
It turns out that the effects of family instability are measurably worse for boys than for girls—and worst of all for African-American boys. In a landmark new study, a research team headed by MIT’s David Autor and Northwestern University’s David Figlio find that relative to their sisters, boys born to poorly educated unmarried mothers have higher levels of truancy and behavioral problems throughout elementary and middle school, are less likely to graduate from high school, and are more likely as juveniles to commit serious crimes. Many of the gaps between brothers and sisters are larger for blacks than for whites.
The researchers study—and reject—the hypotheses that these differences reflect higher prenatal sensitivity to factors such as stress and poor nutrition or that they are entirely attributable to dangerous neighborhoods and poor schools. There are independent effects of family background that contribute to the large gaps between boys and girls. In fact, the researchers conclude, neighborhoods and schools are less important than the “direct effect of family structure itself.”
Why is this? The research team finds that boys’ problems are far more behavioral than cognitive. For example, truancy and classroom disciplinary issues lead to suspensions, which play the largest role in explaining the boy-girl high-school graduation gap. But the presence of fathers in the household substantially reduces the gaps between boys and girls in absences and suspensions. It turns out that boys need fathers as well as mothers even more than girls do, and suffer even more when fathers are absent from their lives.
Again, the damage done to boys by not having fathers involved in their lives should be obvious for all to see and beyond dispute. But again, we’ve been told over and over again that this basic fact of life is wrong and that even mentioning it as one of the underlying causes of the problems facing African-Americans is racist.
One of my biggest (of many) disappointments with President Obama is that he not focused nearly enough attention on this matter. It’s not that he hasn’t mentioned it at all, it’s just that he had an opportunity to make it a priority for his administration along with the bully pulpit to ensure the message was heard. Now that would have been a legacy worth celebrating and remembering.
Friday, October 23, 2015
It Just Doesn't Matter
There is a lot of talk in the media today about how yesterday’s Benghazi hearings produced more heat than light and that there were no new revelations that emerged. The reality is that what emerged was beyond a doubt proof that the Obama Administration, including Secretary of State Clinton, played fast and loose with the truth in the immediate aftermath of the attack. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that the reason for this dissembling was to protect President Obama’s campaign claim that Al Qaeda was irrelevant and the war on terror was essentially won. In other words, they twisted the truth about national security for political purposes.
Which makes today’s charges that the GOP has politicized the hearings more than a touch ironic. Yesterday’s hearing also confirmed that the argument Mitt Romney tried to make on the matter in 2012’s second presidential debate was accurate. We well remember how the impartial, objective moderator Candy Crowley shut down Romney’s efforts at the time and let President Obama slip off the hook.
So Romney was right about Benghazi, right about the danger of Chinese hacking, and right about Russia being a geopolitical threat. Truly a man before his time.
In case you missed yesterday’s hearing, Kimberly Strassel has captured the relevant moments in a piece in the WSJ called She Knew All Along:
What that House committee did Thursday was finally expose the initial deception. To understand the willful depth of that trickery, let’s briefly recall the history.
In early September 2012, at the Democratic National Convention, Vice President Joe Biden summarized to thunderous applause the administration’s re-election pitch: “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.” Translation: The president had revived the economy, even as he had put “al Qaeda on the run,” as Mr. Obama put it. Five days later, four Americans in Benghazi were dead. It appeared the White House had slept through a terror attack on the anniversary of 9/11.
The administration instead immediately presented the attack as a spontaneous mob backlash to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. At 10:30 on the night of the attack, Mrs. Clinton issued a statement about the violence, blaming the video. She repeated the charge in a speech the next day. President Obama gave his own speech that day, referring to the video and refusing to use the word “terrorism.”
The next day, Mrs. Clinton mentioned the video twice more. The day after that, Press Secretary Jay Carney said: “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” Mrs. Clinton promised the father of one of the victims that the administration would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” In his weekly address, Mr. Obama talked about the video. When the Libyan president said there was evidence the attack was planned months in advance, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice contradicted him. She instead told five Sunday talk shows—five days after the attack—that “based on the best information we have to date,” the attack “began spontaneously” in response to “this hateful video.” Mr. Obama for two full weeks continued to talk about YouTube.
Here’s what the Benghazi committee found in Thursday’s hearing. Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.
That same evening, Mrs. Clinton spoke on the phone with Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf, around 8 p.m. The notes from that conversation, in a State Department email, describe her as saying: “We have asked for the Libyan government to provide additional security to the compound immediately as there is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.” Ansar al Sharia is al Qaeda’s affiliate on the Arabian Peninsula. So several hours into the attack, Mrs. Clinton already believed that al Qaeda was attacking U.S. facilities.
The next afternoon, Mrs. Clinton had a call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil. The notes from it are absolutely damning. The secretary of state tells him: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” And yet Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Rice and Mr. Obama for days and days continued to spin the video lie.
A simple compare and contrast would seem to demonstrate rather conclusively that what Mrs. Clinton was saying publicly about the attacks did not at all match what she was saying “privately” (scare quotes since God only knows how many folks had access to her e-mail server by that time). Just for fun replace the last name Clinton with Cheney and imagine the uproar that such prevaricating on the reasons for the attack would have created.
However, I don’t think there will be any lasting impact from these most recent revelations. We’ve reached the point on Hillary where most people’s position are pretty well firmed up. A good chunk of the country wouldn’t trust to be a school crossing guard to say nothing of commander in chief. And an equally if not perhaps larger portion (we’ll find out for sure next November) simply doesn’t seem to care what she does (or did or plans to do). They hear the latest news from the Benghazi hearings or the FBI investigation of her e-mail and only one thought goes through their minds.
Which makes today’s charges that the GOP has politicized the hearings more than a touch ironic. Yesterday’s hearing also confirmed that the argument Mitt Romney tried to make on the matter in 2012’s second presidential debate was accurate. We well remember how the impartial, objective moderator Candy Crowley shut down Romney’s efforts at the time and let President Obama slip off the hook.
So Romney was right about Benghazi, right about the danger of Chinese hacking, and right about Russia being a geopolitical threat. Truly a man before his time.
In case you missed yesterday’s hearing, Kimberly Strassel has captured the relevant moments in a piece in the WSJ called She Knew All Along:
What that House committee did Thursday was finally expose the initial deception. To understand the willful depth of that trickery, let’s briefly recall the history.
In early September 2012, at the Democratic National Convention, Vice President Joe Biden summarized to thunderous applause the administration’s re-election pitch: “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.” Translation: The president had revived the economy, even as he had put “al Qaeda on the run,” as Mr. Obama put it. Five days later, four Americans in Benghazi were dead. It appeared the White House had slept through a terror attack on the anniversary of 9/11.
The administration instead immediately presented the attack as a spontaneous mob backlash to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. At 10:30 on the night of the attack, Mrs. Clinton issued a statement about the violence, blaming the video. She repeated the charge in a speech the next day. President Obama gave his own speech that day, referring to the video and refusing to use the word “terrorism.”
The next day, Mrs. Clinton mentioned the video twice more. The day after that, Press Secretary Jay Carney said: “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” Mrs. Clinton promised the father of one of the victims that the administration would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” In his weekly address, Mr. Obama talked about the video. When the Libyan president said there was evidence the attack was planned months in advance, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice contradicted him. She instead told five Sunday talk shows—five days after the attack—that “based on the best information we have to date,” the attack “began spontaneously” in response to “this hateful video.” Mr. Obama for two full weeks continued to talk about YouTube.
Here’s what the Benghazi committee found in Thursday’s hearing. Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.
That same evening, Mrs. Clinton spoke on the phone with Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf, around 8 p.m. The notes from that conversation, in a State Department email, describe her as saying: “We have asked for the Libyan government to provide additional security to the compound immediately as there is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.” Ansar al Sharia is al Qaeda’s affiliate on the Arabian Peninsula. So several hours into the attack, Mrs. Clinton already believed that al Qaeda was attacking U.S. facilities.
The next afternoon, Mrs. Clinton had a call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil. The notes from it are absolutely damning. The secretary of state tells him: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” And yet Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Rice and Mr. Obama for days and days continued to spin the video lie.
A simple compare and contrast would seem to demonstrate rather conclusively that what Mrs. Clinton was saying publicly about the attacks did not at all match what she was saying “privately” (scare quotes since God only knows how many folks had access to her e-mail server by that time). Just for fun replace the last name Clinton with Cheney and imagine the uproar that such prevaricating on the reasons for the attack would have created.
However, I don’t think there will be any lasting impact from these most recent revelations. We’ve reached the point on Hillary where most people’s position are pretty well firmed up. A good chunk of the country wouldn’t trust to be a school crossing guard to say nothing of commander in chief. And an equally if not perhaps larger portion (we’ll find out for sure next November) simply doesn’t seem to care what she does (or did or plans to do). They hear the latest news from the Benghazi hearings or the FBI investigation of her e-mail and only one thought goes through their minds.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Too Easy
First, let’s start with the obvious and state that Hillary “won” last night’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas. I place scare quotes around won because otherwise the word implies that the debate was a contest where Hillary’s opponents had the capability or intent of besting her. That clearly was not the case last night.
Think about this, if Hillary had been able to stage the debate would it have looked any different than what we saw last night? I think not. It wasn’t a real debate in the manner that we’re accustomed to. It was a show designed to make Hillary look good.
It had Jim Webb staking out the right flank of the Democratic party (a lonely position these days) so Hillary could demonstrate her progressive bona fides.
It had Martin O’Malley with all the energy of a sloth on Quaaludes so Hillary could show her vim and vigor.
It had Lincoln Chafee who appeared incapable of running a carpool to say nothing of a country so Hillary could come off as competent and in command.
Finally, the debate featured everyone’s favorite crazy uncle Bernie Sanders so that with the most minimal tacking to the center Hillary would appear to be a moderate and reasonable choice.
From start to finish the debate was all about Hillary. The other candidates were merely props for her to play off to further her own purposes. The other candidates weren’t there to win, they were there to play their particular role which they all dutifully did. Sure she took some hits and didn’t always perform perfectly. But like a professional wrestling match where the no name scrub occasionally gets the best of the well know star only to always lose at the end, the outcome of last night’s debate was never in doubt.
So yes Hillary “won” the debate. And now Democrats and the media will crow about her stellar performance, talk about how she’s got her groove back, marvel at what a formidable candidate she will be in the general election, and compare her new position of strength with all the messing infighting on the Republican side.
However, I wonder if at some point in the future we’ll look back on this as a hollow victory. While it’s possible that the brutal battles among the GOP candidates could weaken the eventual nominee and hurt them in November 2016, it’s also quite possible that such struggles end with a nominee who’s tried, tested, and stronger as a result. When the general election campaign starts Hillary won’t be facing off against cupcakes, but against a real candidate with the conviction and capability to defeat her. And the debates will be real.
Think about this, if Hillary had been able to stage the debate would it have looked any different than what we saw last night? I think not. It wasn’t a real debate in the manner that we’re accustomed to. It was a show designed to make Hillary look good.
It had Jim Webb staking out the right flank of the Democratic party (a lonely position these days) so Hillary could demonstrate her progressive bona fides.
It had Martin O’Malley with all the energy of a sloth on Quaaludes so Hillary could show her vim and vigor.
It had Lincoln Chafee who appeared incapable of running a carpool to say nothing of a country so Hillary could come off as competent and in command.
Finally, the debate featured everyone’s favorite crazy uncle Bernie Sanders so that with the most minimal tacking to the center Hillary would appear to be a moderate and reasonable choice.
From start to finish the debate was all about Hillary. The other candidates were merely props for her to play off to further her own purposes. The other candidates weren’t there to win, they were there to play their particular role which they all dutifully did. Sure she took some hits and didn’t always perform perfectly. But like a professional wrestling match where the no name scrub occasionally gets the best of the well know star only to always lose at the end, the outcome of last night’s debate was never in doubt.
So yes Hillary “won” the debate. And now Democrats and the media will crow about her stellar performance, talk about how she’s got her groove back, marvel at what a formidable candidate she will be in the general election, and compare her new position of strength with all the messing infighting on the Republican side.
However, I wonder if at some point in the future we’ll look back on this as a hollow victory. While it’s possible that the brutal battles among the GOP candidates could weaken the eventual nominee and hurt them in November 2016, it’s also quite possible that such struggles end with a nominee who’s tried, tested, and stronger as a result. When the general election campaign starts Hillary won’t be facing off against cupcakes, but against a real candidate with the conviction and capability to defeat her. And the debates will be real.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Games That People Play
Garry Kasparov-a man who knows a thing or two about strategy and Putin-takes to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to detail how the Russian leader is playing for keeps in the real world while President Obama is playing make believe in a fantasy land where everyone actually plays by the rules.
The continued slaughter of Sunnis in the region will draw in more support from the Saudis and more foreign fighters from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Russia. The situation will metastasize like a cancer, which suits Mr. Putin fine. War and chaos create more enemies and more opportunities for him to look like a tough guy on Russian state TV. Iran’s regime needs conflict for similar reasons, which is why it can never give up “Death to America.” A growing war will also drive up the price of oil, a benefit that isn’t lost on Tehran or Moscow.
These consequences may be acceptable to Mr. Obama, but he cannot pretend to be ignorant of his role in creating them. I, too, would like to live in the world of diplomacy and law that Mr. Obama seems to believe we inhabit. But unfortunately we do not. Power and action still matter, and in places like Syria and Iraq you cannot have power without action.
Mr. Putin didn’t say anything new at the U.N., because he didn’t need to. He knows that he has concrete assets that are more effective than mere words. He has tanks in Ukraine, jet fighters in Syria, and Barack Obama in the White House.
The cliche that some invoke is that Putin is playing chess while Obama is playing checkers, but for that to be true the President would actually have to moving pieces on the board. We would be lucky if he were even that engaged. The reality is that while Putin is outmaneuvering the United States on almost every front our leader is not even in the game.
The continued slaughter of Sunnis in the region will draw in more support from the Saudis and more foreign fighters from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Russia. The situation will metastasize like a cancer, which suits Mr. Putin fine. War and chaos create more enemies and more opportunities for him to look like a tough guy on Russian state TV. Iran’s regime needs conflict for similar reasons, which is why it can never give up “Death to America.” A growing war will also drive up the price of oil, a benefit that isn’t lost on Tehran or Moscow.
These consequences may be acceptable to Mr. Obama, but he cannot pretend to be ignorant of his role in creating them. I, too, would like to live in the world of diplomacy and law that Mr. Obama seems to believe we inhabit. But unfortunately we do not. Power and action still matter, and in places like Syria and Iraq you cannot have power without action.
Mr. Putin didn’t say anything new at the U.N., because he didn’t need to. He knows that he has concrete assets that are more effective than mere words. He has tanks in Ukraine, jet fighters in Syria, and Barack Obama in the White House.
The cliche that some invoke is that Putin is playing chess while Obama is playing checkers, but for that to be true the President would actually have to moving pieces on the board. We would be lucky if he were even that engaged. The reality is that while Putin is outmaneuvering the United States on almost every front our leader is not even in the game.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Gooning It Up
For the last few months, many conservatives have struggled to understand and explain the appeal and popularity of Donald Trump among Republicans. While many theories have been thrown out there, I think this analysis by Leon H. Wolf might be the best I’ve come across yet. Glenn Beck is Right:
Let me draw an analogy that will be familiar to people who are even casual fans of hockey. Every hockey team at pretty much every level of play has a guy who is commonly referred to as an “enforcer.” I can recall that for many years, my favorite team (the Nashville Predators) had a guy on the team named Jordin Tootoo. Year after year, Tootoo was voted the most hated player in hockey. He was dirty, he started fights, he drew penalties, he got under the other team’s skin on purpose, and he had few appreciable hockey skills.
All these things made Tootoo a natural target for every opposing team in the league and their fans. But in Nashville, Tootoo was far and away one of the most popular guys on the ice because he played for us. We loved the way he got to the other teams. But every other team had a guy that we loved to hate, and when you asked any of us why we hated that person, it would read like a list of things that we loved about Tootoo – e.g., he doesn’t do anything but start fights, he’s a goon, he’s just out there to try to draw penalties against more skilled players or goad them into a fight.
Wolf goes on to explain that Trump is serving the goon role for many on the right. It doesn’t matter what his positions are, it just matters that he’s wearing the right jersey (with a big R on the front) and he’s willing to take cheap shots at the other side. So when they say they like him because “he fights” what they really mean is he fights the way they want to with no punches pulled and no holds barred.
To be fair, I think there is some logic in this. After seven years of President Obama insulting his opponents at every turn and using every available lever of power to advance his agenda (some ultimately determined to be extra Constitutional) it’s understandable that conservatives would be clamoring for a candidate willing to win at any cost. But if that’s the case, they should make no pretense otherwise. They want a goon. They want Trump.
Let me draw an analogy that will be familiar to people who are even casual fans of hockey. Every hockey team at pretty much every level of play has a guy who is commonly referred to as an “enforcer.” I can recall that for many years, my favorite team (the Nashville Predators) had a guy on the team named Jordin Tootoo. Year after year, Tootoo was voted the most hated player in hockey. He was dirty, he started fights, he drew penalties, he got under the other team’s skin on purpose, and he had few appreciable hockey skills.
All these things made Tootoo a natural target for every opposing team in the league and their fans. But in Nashville, Tootoo was far and away one of the most popular guys on the ice because he played for us. We loved the way he got to the other teams. But every other team had a guy that we loved to hate, and when you asked any of us why we hated that person, it would read like a list of things that we loved about Tootoo – e.g., he doesn’t do anything but start fights, he’s a goon, he’s just out there to try to draw penalties against more skilled players or goad them into a fight.
Wolf goes on to explain that Trump is serving the goon role for many on the right. It doesn’t matter what his positions are, it just matters that he’s wearing the right jersey (with a big R on the front) and he’s willing to take cheap shots at the other side. So when they say they like him because “he fights” what they really mean is he fights the way they want to with no punches pulled and no holds barred.
To be fair, I think there is some logic in this. After seven years of President Obama insulting his opponents at every turn and using every available lever of power to advance his agenda (some ultimately determined to be extra Constitutional) it’s understandable that conservatives would be clamoring for a candidate willing to win at any cost. But if that’s the case, they should make no pretense otherwise. They want a goon. They want Trump.
Friday, September 11, 2015
On Loss and Losers
Acknowledgement to MPR Classical for a full day of mourning and tribute songs in honor of 9/11. Glorious. None more so than this from the Henry V sound track, Non Nobis Domine.
Nothing mourns and consoles like Latin. Although Donald Trump would probably call it "music for losers,"
And what a scene from Henry V in that video, from the 1989 version direct by the star, Kenneth Branagh. In one continuous tracking shot (incorporating layers, with the foreground and background adding different details in different scale), depicting the entire story of the Battle of Agincourt, how it was fought, by whom (each primary character making an appearance), and the results of the battle. Masterful.
Branagh did get Oscar nominations for Best Director and Best Actor, but didn't win either. Yep, he's a loser. Which may have facilitated his ability to appreciate this song.
Note, Oliver Stone beat him out for Best Director with Born on the Fourth of July (my tribute to which is here).
Daniel Day Lewis beat him out for Best Actor in My Left Foot.
MY SHOULDER TRUMP: This guy Branagh? He couldn't beat a guy who was acting with one foot. You call him masterful? Gimme a break. I've seen better acting in foot powder commercials.
Nothing mourns and consoles like Latin. Although Donald Trump would probably call it "music for losers,"
Branagh did get Oscar nominations for Best Director and Best Actor, but didn't win either. Yep, he's a loser. Which may have facilitated his ability to appreciate this song.
Note, Oliver Stone beat him out for Best Director with Born on the Fourth of July (my tribute to which is here).
Daniel Day Lewis beat him out for Best Actor in My Left Foot.
MY SHOULDER TRUMP: This guy Branagh? He couldn't beat a guy who was acting with one foot. You call him masterful? Gimme a break. I've seen better acting in foot powder commercials.
Friday, September 04, 2015
Breaking the Ball Barrier
At U.S. Open, the Ball Boys and Girls Are Grown-Ups:
Before Steven Slater, a 47-year-old stay-at-home dad, tried out for a part-time job this summer, he had to get ready. He added miles to his runs. He started doing yoga three times a week. Then he went to a park near his apartment in Manhattan and threw tennis balls against a wall.
At this year’s U.S. Open, Mr. Slater is a rookie ball person, a job that requires a rocket arm. The Open is the only one of the four Grand Slam tennis tournaments where the people who fetch balls between points also throw them to each other, rather than roll them.
From the Seinfeld episode The Lip Reader:
Kramer: You got it. Hey Jerry, do me a favor. The next time you see that lineswoman ask her how those ball boys get those jobs. I would love to be able to do that.
Jerry: Kramer, I think perhaps you've overlooked one of the key aspects of this activity. It's ball *boys*, not ball men. There are no ball men.
Elaine: Yeah I think he's right. I've never seen a ball man.
Kramer: Well there ought to be ball men.
Jerry: All right I'll talk to her. If you want to be a ball man go ahead, break the ball barrier.
Before Steven Slater, a 47-year-old stay-at-home dad, tried out for a part-time job this summer, he had to get ready. He added miles to his runs. He started doing yoga three times a week. Then he went to a park near his apartment in Manhattan and threw tennis balls against a wall.
At this year’s U.S. Open, Mr. Slater is a rookie ball person, a job that requires a rocket arm. The Open is the only one of the four Grand Slam tennis tournaments where the people who fetch balls between points also throw them to each other, rather than roll them.
From the Seinfeld episode The Lip Reader:
Kramer: You got it. Hey Jerry, do me a favor. The next time you see that lineswoman ask her how those ball boys get those jobs. I would love to be able to do that.
Jerry: Kramer, I think perhaps you've overlooked one of the key aspects of this activity. It's ball *boys*, not ball men. There are no ball men.
Elaine: Yeah I think he's right. I've never seen a ball man.
Kramer: Well there ought to be ball men.
Jerry: All right I'll talk to her. If you want to be a ball man go ahead, break the ball barrier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)