| EdDriscoll.com |
|
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Posted
4/10/2004 07:56:20 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/10/2004 01:21:09 PM
by Edward Driscoll
We now know that the secret to curing hunger and poverty is capitalism and free trade. We have seen that demonstrated irrefutably in East Asia, which has experienced the greatest alleviation of poverty in the history of man. In half a century, places like Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea have gone from subsistence to First World status. And now free markets and free trade are lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty in India and China. And what has been the Democratic reaction to the prospect of fulfilling Humphrey's (and their party's) great dream? Fear and loathing. Democrats today thunder against the scourge of ``outsourcing'' -- American firms giving (what would otherwise be American) jobs to Indians and Chinese and other menacing foreigners. The anti-outsourcing vogue is part of a larger assault on free trade, which until recently -- meaning the Clinton administration -- Democrats had supported. Remember Al Gore's televised debate with Ross Perot, in which Gore demolished Perot's anti-free-trade arguments? Which makes the recent Democratic assault on free trade so jarring, never more so than when John Edwards and John Kerry competed with each other before Super Tuesday to see who was against more trade agreements with more Third World countries.Krauthammer adds, "Democrats have given up the mantle of tribune of the world's poor -- precisely at a time when we have finally figured out how really to rescue them".
Posted
4/10/2004 01:02:14 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Friday, April 09, 2004
Posted
4/9/2004 11:00:11 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/9/2004 04:55:27 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/9/2004 02:03:40 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/9/2004 12:21:42 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/9/2004 12:06:10 AM
by Edward Driscoll
An arbitrary date? Tell that to Abu Zarqawi and other terrorists opposed to Iraq's democratic transition. What we're witnessing in Fallujah and Ramadi is the execution of Zarqawi's playbook -- in the form of a letter addressing future insurgent strategy. In this letter, captured by Kurdish soldiers, Zarqawi fretted that time is running out for the insurgency. In response, Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist linked to al Qaeda, urged sparking a civil war between Iraq's Shia and Sunni Muslims, and most importantly, to do so before June 30, the date the US officially begins its transition of power to Iraq. At that point, Zarqawi noted, any further insurgency will be seen as a fight against fellow Muslims instead of a fight against America. Zarqawi said, "...if we fight them [Shia], that will be difficult because there will be a schism between us and the people of the region. How can we kill their cousins and sons and under what pretext, after the Americans start withdrawing? The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority. This is the democracy, we will have no pretext." Were we to follow the leadership of John Kerry, and push back our transfer date, we would be delivering a gift-wrapped package to the promoters of chaos and instability in Iraq, just as the Spanish population delivered them a victory by capitulating to terror. It is imperative that coalition authorities stay the course. But in a repeat of last summer, armchair strategists are misdiagnosing the issue. With every milestone achieved putting more Iraqis in control, the insurgent factions -- whether former Saddam loyalists, Iranian-supported Shiite extremists or al Qaeda network terrorists -- lose ground. They are threatened by the June 30 transition date because on that day forward an insurgent attack is no longer against "occupiers" but against Muslims. Their argument and support will erode. Sen. Kerry isn't alone, unfortunately. Over the weekend two frequent Republican critics of the president, Senators Richard Lugar and John McCain (but of course!), joined Democratic Senator Joe Biden in advocating moving the transition date. The issue is thus added to the rest of the red herrings that never die in the course of this war: The most notable others being "more troops required" and a lack of an "international face" in Iraq.RTWT. Thursday, April 08, 2004
Posted
4/8/2004 11:35:22 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/8/2004 08:18:54 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/8/2004 06:46:03 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/8/2004 06:30:32 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/8/2004 03:29:47 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/8/2004 01:24:53 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/8/2004 01:11:53 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/8/2004 12:58:28 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/8/2004 11:49:46 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Yesterday on CNN, John Effin’ Kerry was asked how he would handle the situation in Iraq, after his strident criticisms of the Bush administration’s handling of the war. His response:As someone wrote on Charles' comments section, "I don't see what all the confusion is about, Kerry is clearly forgenst Bush's handling of the war."“Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I’m not the president, and I didn’t create this mess so I don’t want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven’t made.”
Posted
4/8/2004 11:36:57 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/8/2004 11:29:57 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Posted
4/7/2004 10:22:38 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/7/2004 09:14:44 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/7/2004 08:28:56 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/7/2004 08:09:20 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/7/2004 07:17:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
The last of the Minuteman III missiles will receive their new motors by 2008. It costs about $5.2 million to replace the rockets on each missile. The new rocket motors, which have to comply with EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) rules, will have a shorter range than the original motors.Via James Taranto, who adds, "If nuclear missiles have to comply with EPA regulations, what about the warheads?"
Posted
4/7/2004 05:31:33 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Bush Admin has approached France, which led opposition to the war in Iraq, as well as India, Pakistan and other nations that were reluctant to join the U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq. The list includes 'a good global mix,' said a State Department official familiar with the proposed force. But no Arab countries or neighbors of Iraq are on the list, with Turkey notably absent.Senator Kerry told NPR today: The alternative to that is to get off your high horse and begin to show a little humility and begin to share responsibility and share risk and ask the world to come to this effort. The world has a legitimate effort, a legitimate interest in not having a failed Iraqi state. The world has a legitimate interest in beating back terror, and it is astonishing to me that given the legitimacy of that interest, this administration has managed to proceed so unilaterally. There are so few allies who are genuinely there both in serious numbers of troops taking risks and serious amounts of money committed to this.Let's see if Kerry's friends agree with him.
Posted
4/7/2004 04:59:36 PM
by Edward Driscoll
SOUND ADVICE FROM MICHAEL GRAHAM (especially after the Toricelli and Paul Wellstone episodes in 2002): "Don't assume you know who's on the Democratic ticket until Election Day."Recently, Thomas Lifson wrote: Keep in mind that there are still almost 200 days left before the election. There is plenty of time for second and third thoughts about Kerry, on the part of America's non-ideological voters, and plenty for them to think over. The vetting of candidate Kerry has only just begun. But of course, Kerry isn't really the nominee yet. He is only the "presumptive nominee." So it is time to seriously wonder if the Democrats might not exercise what we can call the "Torricelli Gambit.""And we all know who is waiting in the wings", Lifeson somewhat ominously adds. In a way, it makes a bit of sense. Arnold Schwarzenegger chose the shortened time period of the recall election to announce his candidacy, rather than face the heightened scrutiny of a full campaign slog. He may very well have started a precedent. If you feel you're popular enough to win, and have enough superstar clout to pull it off, why go through a full, bruising campaign when you can abbreviate things? Besides, your biggest attacks invariably come in October. Why not keep your bullets fresh?
Posted
4/7/2004 04:42:21 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/7/2004 04:02:40 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/7/2004 03:25:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/7/2004 02:33:57 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/7/2004 12:43:52 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Posted
4/6/2004 11:32:33 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/6/2004 11:13:02 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/6/2004 06:56:23 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/6/2004 06:20:31 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/6/2004 05:52:46 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/6/2004 05:22:04 PM
by Edward Driscoll
All of this fuss over a network whose outlets numbered five low-powered, low-rated AM stations, whose airtime was purchase in blocks by the network. Not one program director in the entire country decided on his own that the potential listenership was attractive enough to merit carriage of the network as a commercial venture. Even worse, Air America’s radio outlets in the two largest markets, New York and Los Angeles, formerly served black and Hispanic ethnic audiences. There has already been one protest rally in New York, as “community leaders” protest the loss of their ethnic broadcasts. Not since Howell Raines published dozens of stories about Martha Burke’s efforts to force Augusta National to admit women members, while she was only able to muster a handful of demonstrators at the climax of her campaign, has there been such an obvious case of obsessive-compulsive coverage. But Raines was one (now-unemployed) editor. The Air America overkill was collective. Nobody who pays attention to the news has been able to escape repeated exposure to the story. All this for an operation reaching, in all probability, fewer people than a single evening newscast in a decent-sized TV market. You don’t have to be a Ronald Reagan worshipper to think to yourself, “There they go again.”Thomas Lifson, the author of the piece writes, "The proper term for this phenomenon is clear. It is a death spiral". Needless to say, RTWT. UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds has some additional links (there's a shocker!) on the topic.
Posted
4/6/2004 03:52:41 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/6/2004 03:18:25 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/6/2004 03:11:57 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/6/2004 02:09:42 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/6/2004 02:03:09 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/6/2004 01:56:20 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/6/2004 11:55:31 AM
by Edward Driscoll
The Atlantic is still a great magazine, but it seems to be inching further and further into official Liberal Magazine Land. One can be a liberal magazine and still be a great magazine, The New Republic has proved that more than a few times. But what made the Kelly and post Kelly era Atlantic particularly special was its effort not to be predictably on one side of the political ledger.Goldberg writes the Atlantic's current pieces, "contribute to the continued Slateification of the magazine, by which I mean that 'post-partisan smart' is defined as a certain kind of enlightened liberalism which enlightened liberals see as simply correct, not liberal".
Posted
4/6/2004 10:44:17 AM
by Edward Driscoll
He added: "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that." Mr. Kerry apparently meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.I don't expect anybody who's speaking extemporaneously to the press and the public to have a perfect command of the facts. But it does seem that Republican gaffes get far more coverage than Democratic ones, don't they?
Posted
4/6/2004 10:40:54 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Yes, Cleland was crippled as the result of an accident, not as a result of combat. However, Cleland did win a Silver Star for valor in combat a short time before the accident which ended his tour. A Silver Star is a serious combat medal, not the sort of thing they just hand out to anybody. Coulter said that Cleland was 'no hero', and I think that's what got her into trouble. I'm no fan of either Coulter nor Cleland, but Cleland has earned my respect for his service. He's a victim, and a hero, one right after the other.Mike also has news of an amazing marketing feat by Reason magazine, one that's gotten them surprisingly positive press in that other hardcore libertarian publication, the New York Times.
Posted
4/6/2004 12:22:37 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Monday, April 05, 2004
Posted
4/5/2004 11:15:55 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Despite his unquestioned eloquence, elegance and charm, Mr. Valenti presided over history's most disastrous decline in the audience for feature films. In 1965, the year before he left the Johnson administration to assume his plush position as chief mouthpiece for the entertainment industry, 44 million Americans went out to the movies every week. A mere four years later, that number had collapsed to 17.5 million. In other words, some potent, puzzling force drove more than half of the nation's film fans to break the habit of movie going.Read the whole thing. UPDATE: Meanwhile, Chris Kanis notes the difference a change in administrations makes when it comes to Hollywood and foreign policy.
Posted
4/5/2004 04:07:57 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/5/2004 01:53:47 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/5/2004 01:30:44 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam. There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is presented to the American people. Terry McAuliffe goes around saying, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic." Mr. Cleland, a word of advice: When a slimy weasel like Terry McAuliffe is vouching for your combat record, it's time to sound "retreat" on that subject. Needless to say, no one ever challenged Cleland's "patriotism." His performance in the Senate was the issue, which should not have come as a bolt out of the blue inasmuch as he was running for re-election to the Senate.And Crowley never mentions the Dan Quayle like gaffe that Kerry made in January on Meet The Press in defending Cleland: We saw what they did to challenge the patriotism of Max Cleland, a triple amputee, a man who left three of his limbs on the ground in Vietnam. They challenged his patriotism. His regret is he didn’t stand up and fight back.To be fair though, Crowley does quote a particularly poor choice of wording by Kerry, although he fails to telegraph it to his readers: "If they're going to try to question my commitment to the defense of our country, then I'm going to fight back," Kerry said at a February campaign event. "Because they did that to Max Cleland ... and I'm not going to stand for it."Neither of course, is Cleland. Had Quayle or George W. Bush made either gaffe, both men would be crucified by the press. But Kerry's gaffes always get a pass. In general though, Crowley is right: the Democrats, in constantly portraying themselves as the party of victims and "losers of life's lottery", may find themselves real losers in November, unless they start offering ideas other than "vote for Kerry, because he's not President Bush." UPDATE: Mike Spenis of Feces Flinging Monkey has an update to Coulter's article. Click here or scroll up to read it.
Posted
4/5/2004 12:24:22 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/5/2004 11:25:50 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/5/2004 01:16:42 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Posted
4/4/2004 12:24:45 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
4/4/2004 11:52:39 AM
by Edward Driscoll
''Oh sure. I follow and I'm interested,'' says John Kerry. ''I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important . . . I'm still listening because I know that it's a reflection of the street and it's a reflection of life.'' Really? You're ''fascinated'' by rap and ''listening'' to hip-hop? You're America's first flip-flopper hip-hopper? The best riposte to Kerry came from an encounter a few years ago between his predecessor Al Gore and Courtney Love, lead singer of the popular beat combo Hole, when they chanced to run into each other at a Democratic party night in Hollywood. ''I'm a really big fan,'' gushed the vice president. ''Yeah, right. Name a song,'' scoffed Courtney. The panicked vice panderer floundered helplessly. Fortunately, his Secret Service guys moved in before he wound up completely riddled by Hole. As wise old campaign consultants always say, the politician's First Rule of Holes is: When you're in one, stop digging. Al introduced us to a Second Rule: When you're with one, stop pretending to dig her. If only that MTV guy had said to Kerry, ''Yeah, right. Name a song.'' Think Kerry could've? Reckon if you bust into his pad and riffled through his and Teresa's CD collection you'd find a single rap album? Of course, you wouldn't find any in George and Laura's CD collection either. The difference is that President Bush doesn't feel the need to pretend.Needless to say, read the whole thing. (Hat tip to Betsy Newmark.)
Home |