*How Do You Get To America? *Pirate, pirate, pirate
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-21-pirate-crewinteraction_N.htm>!
A crewmember from a U.S. ship attacked by Somali pirates said the
sole surviving pirate from the group counted himself lucky to have
raided an American vessel and carried himself as the pirates' leader.
. . .
"He told me then when I was with him that it was his dream to come
to the USA," said ["Zahid"] Reza, who immigrated to the U.S. from
Bangladesh in 1999.
Don't laugh. Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse is now in New York, on an
all-expenses-paid trip.
(With apologies to all those who have practiced hard to get to Carnegie
Hall.)
- 2:45 PM, 22 April 2009 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/April2009_3.html#jrm7313>
*The New York Times War On Science: *All right, that's too strong a
title, but I couldn't resist the temptation. Let me restate it, with a
little more accuracy: The New York Times skirmishes against a social
science finding they don't like.
First, the finding --- as reported by the Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/us/31bar.html?hpw>.
But studies have found indications that liberal nominees do better
in the process than conservative ones. The latest, to be presented
next month at the Midwest Political Science Association, found
evidence consistent with ideological bias.
"Holding all other factors constant," the study found, "those
nominations submitted by a Democratic president were significantly
more likely to receive higher A.B.A. ratings than nominations
submitted by a Republican president."
The differences matter, said Amy Steigerwalt, a political scientist
at Georgia State and an author of the study, along with Richard L.
Vining Jr. of the University of Georgia and Susan Navarro Smelcer of
Emory.
(I have skimmed through the paper, which you can download here
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1368891>. It seems
quite well done, certainly better than any of the previous papers they
discuss. And the conclusion seems plausible. Most people would be
surprised to find that a group of leftist lawyers treated conservative
nominees as well as leftist nominees.)
And here's what the editorial writers
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/opinion/14tue2.html> said about the
study:
As the A.B.A. resumes this role, a new study suggests that it may
have a liberal bias. There is little support for this claim.
Indeed, there are signs that the group has been cowed by
conservative critics in recent years into approving
less-than-qualified nominees. The A.B.A. needs to ensure that its
evaluators make assessments based on the nominees' merits, not on
political pressure.
. . .
A study by a University of Georgia professor and two other political
scientists reviewed those ratings from 1985 to 2008 and found that
President Clinton's nominees were 14 percent more likely than the
Republican presidents' choices to receive a "well qualified" rating.
Rather than being a result of bias, this disparity may reflect the
degree to which recent Republican presidents put ideology ahead of
excellence in selecting judges. Based on the last eight years, it
is especially hard to argue that the A.B.A. has been a liberal force
on judicial selection.
If you aren't familiar with academics, you may not realize just how
nasty that second sentence is. By saying that there is "little support
for this claim" the Times is implying that the three political
scientists' study is worthless. That's like saying that a doctor
doesn't help his patients, or a restaurant is selling food that isn't
nutritious.
I doubt very much whether anyone on the Times editorial board is
qualified to review this paper. To understand it, you would need to
know, among other things, what a "logit" model is. Such knowledge is
not common among journalists.
But the Times was willing to condemn the paper anyway (and come close to
slandering the authors) --- because they didn't like the principal
finding. One would almost think that they are anti-science.
(The Times did print a letter
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/opinion/l21judges.html> in reply to
the editorial. The Times doesn't say whether the letter came in as an
attachment to a letter from a law firm.)
- 2:14 PM, 22 April 2009 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/April2009_3.html#jrm7312>
*GM Is Doing Very Well: *In China
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/global/22auto.html?ref=business>.
Ford may be standing taller than General Motors in Detroit these
days --- flush with cash while its rival is forced to go repeatedly
to Washington, hat in hand, seeking government bailouts. But in
China the tables are turned.
G.M. is a powerful presence here with 8 to 10 percent of the market
for cars, minivans and sport utility vehicles, making it the
second-largest automaker in China for such vehicles, passed only by
Volkswagen. One of G.M.'s local joint ventures, Wuling, dominates
the sale of bare-bones pickups and vans, hugely popular in rural
areas, with nearly half the market.
Unfortunately the Chinese market is not as large as the American market.
But this does show what GM can do --- in places where it does not have
to negotiate with the UAW, or satisfy the EPA.
- 1:04 PM, 22 April 2009 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/April2009_3.html#jrm7311>
*What Is The CIA Doing About Terrorism These Days? *Not much, according
to David Ignatius
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042102969.html?hpid=opinionsbox1>.
At the Central Intelligence Agency, it's known as "slow rolling."
That's what agency officers sometimes do on politically sensitive
assignments. They go through the motions; they pass cables back and
forth; they take other jobs out of the danger zone; they cover their
backsides.
Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of
interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, "hit
the agency like a car bomb in the driveway." President Obama
promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out
lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him.
They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and
retribution.
The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down.
Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a
counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.
I can't verify what Ignatius says about the CIA. (And wouldn't tell
you, if I could.) But anyone familiar with bureaucrats will find his
conclusions all too plausible.
Sadly, I have to say that I can understand why those officers might not
believe Obama. (Some might, for instance, have heard about his promise
to renegotiate NAFTA
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/April2009_3.html#jrm7307>.)
(Incidentally, after revealing the damage that Obama has done to the
CIA, Ignatius says that he still favors Obama's release of those memos.
He didn't persuade me, but you may want to look at his argument, such
as it is, yourself)
- 10:31 AM, 22 April 2009 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/April2009_3.html#jrm7310>
*Happy Earth Day? *In general, I am more than willing to wish people
well when they are celebrating religious holidays, even when I don't
share their beliefs or traditions. That may be irrational
theologically, but I think that attitude helps us get along in a country
that has always had a wide variety of religious beliefs.
But I can not wish most of the participants in today's religious
celebration well. If they were satisfied just to plant new trees, or
dance around and worship old trees, or something similar, then I would
have no trouble wishing them well. (And, admittedly, enjoying a private
chuckle at their expense.) But they are not content to just hold their
own worship services; instead, they want to force all the rest of us
into following their religious beliefs. And some of those beliefs are
destructive.
At this point, I should probably say, wearily, that /of course/ I favor
cleaner air and water, and have for years. (And on the whole have
supported politicians who worked to bring those good things to us.) And
I suppose that I should mention that I love hiking, would like to do
some backpacking again, and love to see our natural wonders --- not that
that will surprise regular readers of this site.
But I value cleaner air and water, and seeing natural wonders, because
those things make human lives better, not because I think the earth is
sacred. And that is where I differ from many of those who will
celebrate Earth Day. I haven't bothered to search, but I will
confidently predict that many speakers at the celebrations today will
use religious language to justify their positions. That's a safe
prediction, because some of them always do.
And many of them will ignore the most basic, and obvious, scientific
facts. For instance, the world's population of polar bears has been
growing for decades, mostly because we have cut back on hunting the
carnivores. Everyone who has taken an even casual glance at the matter
knows that --- but you will still hear, if you attend the religious
festivities today, warnings that polar bears are endangered. Oddly, the
speakers will rarely follow that up by saying that we should stop
hunting the bears entirely.
(I say in general, because there are some religions that I would prefer
not to see celebrated, for example, that of the Thuggees
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee>, assuming the traditional
description of them is roughly correct.)
- 9:55 AM, 22 April 2009 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/April2009_3.html#jrm7309>
*Good Question: *From Andrea Tantaros
<http://www.andreatantaros.com/1/2009/04/Miss-Liberal-USA.cfm>:
I didn't hear the outrage when Joe Biden said that he and Barack
Obama are against gay marriage. No incendiary language, no insults,
no four letter obscenities.
Why is it acceptable for Obama and Biden to have this opinion but
not a conservative female?
(In particular, Miss California, Carrie Prejean.)
The answer is obvious. Many on the cultural left believe --- perhaps
correctly --- that Obama and Biden don't really believe what they say
about gay marriage.
(By way of HotAir <http://hotair.com/>.
And I can't help adding that it seems strange to bring in a man like
Perez Hilton, who would not watch a woman's beauty contest for the same
reasons that I would, to judge such a contest.)
- 6:14 AM, 22 April 2009
*Update: *The Instapundit used similar language to make the same point
<http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/77150/> I did. His post was put up
last night, but I had not seen it when I wrote mine.
- 6:42 AM, 22 April 2009 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/April2009_3.html#jrm7308>
*Remember Obama's Promise To Renegotiate NAFTA? * Never mind
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/business/21nafta.html?ref=business>.
The administration has no present plans to reopen negotiations on
the North American Free Trade Agreement to add labor and
environmental protections, as President Obama vowed to do during his
campaign, the top trade official said on Monday.
"The president has said we will look at all of our options, but I
think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement,"
said the official, Ronald Kirk, the United States trade
representative. It was perhaps the clearest indication yet of the
administration's thinking on whether to reopen the core agreement to
add labor and environmental rules.
. . .
Not only Mr. Obama but also one of his rivals for the presidency,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, had promised during their campaigns to
renegotiate the accord --- a politically popular position in some
electorally important Midwestern states that have lost thousands of
manufacturing jobs.
Maybe the New York Times will send a reporter out to talk to some of the
voters who believed Obama's promise. Just kidding. Of course the Times
won't do that.
(One important question is still open. When Austan Goolsbee reassured
the Canadians last year, did Goolsbee have inside knowledge
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/February2008_4.html#jrm5858>?
Did Obama tell Goolsbee, or even hint to Goolsbee, that his promise to
renegotiate the treaty was just campaign talk?)
- 2:55 PM, 21 April 2009 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/April2009_3.html#jrm7307>
*Obama And That $100 Million Savings: *When politicians make obvious
mistakes, like Joe Biden's stingy charitable contributions
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/April2009_3.html#jrm7295>, it
often tells us something about how they think.
Obama asking his Cabinet to find $100 million in savings was an obvious
flub. When even the Associated Press and the New York Times find the
action of a Democratic president funny, then that president has almost
certainly goofed. Big time.
So why did Obama make that mistake? I can only speculate, and over the
last two days I have come up with a nasty speculation. As of now, I
lean against thinking that it is true, and I certainly hope that it is
not true. But it makes just enough sense so that I will share it with
you anyway.
Perhaps, to Obama, that $100 million is big money, even in the context
of the federal budget. Until he became president, the largest budget
that Obama ever had to administer was the budget for the Chicago
Annenberg Challenge, which spent less than $200 million totally. Obama
was not on either of the two big money committees in the Senate,
Appropriations and Finance.
Much about his academic career is obscure, but from what is known
publicly, there is no reason to think that Obama took any courses in
mathematics or statistics after, perhaps, his first year at Occidental.
Perhaps --- and as I said, I would prefer not to believe this --- Obama
is so unused to thinking with large numbers that he did not see that his
$100 million would be laughable. (And none of his aides were willing to
tell him.)
Let me repeat that I am just speculating. But I will be looking for
more evidence on Obama's skill, or lack of it, with numbers. (And if
you see some evidence, on either side, I would appreciate hearing about
it.)
- 1:58 PM, 21 April 2009 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/April2009_3.html#jrm7306>
*"Patently False" *Mark Thiessen calls President Obama a liar
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html?hpid=opinionsbox1>.
Or, if you want to be kind, badly misinformed.
In releasing highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation
program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used
to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is
patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in
sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.
Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that
"the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these
interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to
launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' .
. . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable
to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including
[Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced
techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced
techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about
future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.'" Once the
techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific,
actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount
of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."
News accounts over the years have generally supported Thiessen's
conclusion, not Obama's.
(My own opinion? Obama did not care whether what he said was true or
false. He needed to say that the techniques did not make us safer for
political reasons, and so he did.)
- 9:58 AM, 21 April 2009
*Even Obama's own intelligence chief* says the techniques made us safer
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1>.
President Obama's national intelligence director told colleagues in
a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques
banned by the White House did produce significant information that
helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
"High value information came from interrogations in which those
methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al
Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country," Adm. Dennis C.
Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last
Thursday.
Time for some enterprising reporter --- Jake Tapper perhaps --- to ask
the Obama administration about this apparent disagreement between Obama
and Blair.
Logically, high value information must have made us safer, or it
wouldn't have been of high value. Unless Blair and Obama have
non-standard definitions of the words that they have been using.
- 10:10 AM, 22 April 2009
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
