* * political doodle * *

Biding His Time? [John Ennis]

Joe Biden has been put in deep-freeze by the Obama team:

Bidentity Crisis: Where's Joe?

By CAROL E. LEE | 11/27/08 6:01 PM EST

CHICAGO — More than three weeks into the transition, and Vice-President elect Joe Biden generates less buzz than the non-existent first puppy.

The vice president-elect has not spoken publicly since the election, and was at Barack Obama's side just once this week as the president-elect delivered a series of grim news conferences on the economy.

Obama instead appears to be at the center of his longtime Chicago circle.

His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and senior adviser David Axelrod were each at two of Obama's press conferences, and Valerie Jarrett, another senior adviser, joined him during a media-frenzied local lunch stop last Friday. Emanuel and Axelrod have also both already made the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows, where Biden used to be a familiar face.

Here's more insight from The New York Times (emphasis added):

Aides say Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama sometimes rib each other in private meetings, and they maintain that Mr. Obama was not unduly angry at Mr. Biden for his gaffe predicting that Mr. Obama would be tested by a world crisis in his first six months in office.

Since then, however, Mr. Biden has not had much to say to the news media. Through a spokeswoman, he declined to be interviewed for this article, itself a break from his voluble past.

"Not unduly angry" means Obama was.. angry.

Yet I'm still being told that the Governor of Alaska was the disastrous vice-presidential nomination of 2008. Events are undermining that assertion. It's true that Obama won despite Biden, but that doesn't make him an inspired choice. Jennifer Rubin states it well:

Are you really surprised about a “precipitous drop in profile” for Joe Biden? It’s well deserved and indicative of the superior talent that the President-elect has at his disposal. Who would you listen to on Iraq — Biden or Robert Gates? On the economy — Paul Volker or Biden?

Indeed.

In fairness, I guess I'd want Biden's opinion on Amtrak, but only if he kept his answer to 250 words.

 

Did We Write That? [John Ennis]

On July 8, 2007, The New York Times editorial board wrote the following (emphasis added):

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

What exactly will be 'dumped' on the Obama Administration? This week the Iraqi Parliament approved a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States that will leave troops in their country through 2011. President-elect Obama has also agreed to keep Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to oversee the strengthening of Iraq's institutions as it prepares for new elections next year. Of course, if Bush had listened to the Times, there might never have been elections in Iraq. This was their advice before the first ones were held in 2005:

When the United States was debating whether to invade Iraq, there was one outcome that everyone agreed had to be avoided at all costs: a civil war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims that would create instability throughout the Middle East and give terrorists a new, ungoverned region that they could use as a base of operations. The coming elections - long touted as the beginning of a new, democratic Iraq - are looking more and more like the beginning of that worst-case scenario.

It's time to talk about postponing the elections.

The Times wanted to delay elections for "only" a few months - but I feel one delay would have led to further without accomplishing anything. Delaying the elections was bad advice.

When the Times begins writing the obituary of the Bush Administration, they will focus on the supposed-incompetency of the Iraq occupation. There is room for criticism. But, the Times should not forget some of their own atrocious opinions. Their July 8, 2007 surrender memo has not stood the test of time.

All major wars have blunders. To deny this is to ignore history. There are numerous reasons why Iraq disintegrated in 2004-06, and then turned a corner in 2007-08. Bush's perseverance amidst the mounting opposition from the East Coast Establishment to withdraw will not be front and center in the media wrap-ups of his presidency as he leaves office.

It will have to wait for the history books.

The Language of Diplomacy [John Ennis]

Early last year, President Bush commented that he didn't expect to have U.S. troops out of Iraq by the time he left office. Hillary Clinton, while campaigning in Iowa, said “I think it’s the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." She urged the President to "extricate our country" from Iraq by January 2009.

Worse for Mrs. Clinton, it now seems the Iraqi Parliament is also conspiring to keep American troops in Iraq past said date. This is from yesterday's International Herald Tribune:

With a substantial majority, the Iraqi Parliament on Thursday ratified a sweeping security agreement with the United States that sets a course for the end of the war and marks the beginning of a new relationship between the two countries.

The pact, which still must be approved by the three-person Iraqi presidential council, a move expected in the next few days, sets the end of 2011 as the date by which all American troops must be out of the country.

That would leave troops in Iraq almost three years after Bush's departure.

While Clinton won't inherit Iraq as Bush's successor, but as the next Secretary of State, her resentment must still be palpable. I eagerly await her statement about the "irresponsibility" of the Iraqi Parliament's vote.

 

Lessons From Our Scholars [John Ennis]

I don't know what we would do if we didn't have universities to enlighten us. From Canada's National Post:

Ottawa university boots cystic fibrosis from charity drive

OTTAWA -- The Carleton University Students' Association has voted to drop a cystic fibrosis charity as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, supporting a motion that argued the disease is not "inclusive" enough.

Cystic fibrosis "has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men" said the motion read Monday night to student councillors, who voted almost unanimously in favour of it.

Universities have reached the point where they are beyond the ridicule of satire. They are now doing things in the name of political correctness you couldn't even make up. How can a satirist invent something more absurd than this?

Here is Victor Davis Hanson, earlier this year, reminding us in six minutes why political correctness is pernicious and hypocritical. 

 

Joe Klein, journalist [John Ennis]

As the Bush Administration winds down, Time columnist Joe Klein is out to take his last swipes. He even acknowledges that today's column is probably ungracious:

It is in the nature of mainstream journalism to attempt to be kind to Presidents when they are coming and going but to be fiercely skeptical in between. I've been feeling sorry for Bush lately... So I've been searching for valedictory encomiums.

Klein goes on to mention some positives, and then lays into him:

...but that was neutered in my memory by his ridiculous, preening appearance in a flight suit on the deck of the aircraft carrier beneath the "Mission Accomplished" sign. The flight-suit image is one of the two defining moments of the Bush failure. The other is the photo of Bush staring out the window of Air Force One, helplessly viewing the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. This is a presidency that has wobbled between those two poles — overweening arrogance and paralytic incompetence.

I'm hesitant to blame natural disasters on other people. It's called scapegoating. I thought the Enlightenment was supposed to have put an end to all that?

If Klein wants to argue that it was the "incompetent" federal first response to Katrina that he's really blaming Bush for, I'd like to know when the federal government became responsible for first responses? It was my understanding that FEMA is in no position to be much of a first response to any disaster. It's up to the state and local authorities to provide a first response while FEMA comes in afterward to write checks to the victims.

The initial response to Katrina was incompetent because the police department of New Orleans quit. I was in New York on September 11, 2001, and the NYPD did not quit. There were officers everywhere to keep order, and there was no societal breakdown. I don't recall seeing any FEMA employees.

What is also interesting about Klein's critique about Bush is that it's focused on images: the image on the flight deck, the image after Katrina, etc. Not only is it not substantive, but the media has a mighty role in creating and shaping a politician's image. It seems odd for a journalist to complain about an artificial creation (an image) he had a hand in making and continues to feed in the very column. It's like an arsonist burning down his neighbor's house and then complaining that the empty lot drove down his own home's value.

Klein tries to include substance, but it sounds like drivel:

Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness.

Similarly, John Ennis will never understand what Joe Klein meant in this paragraph. 

When historians try to figure out the Bush years, I have a feeling Bush will come across a lot better than the media. Even mainstream journalists are now beginning to realize that their coverage of the 2008 campaign was an abomination. The negative images of Bush that were repeated ad nauseam might be seen by an objective historian as the product of a media class so compromised that it must be tainted. They might have also rehabilitated the idea that we shouldn't blame hurricanes on our leaders.

Klein had time in his piece to mention all the wonderful things Obama is working on:

He promised an enormous stimulus package that would somehow create 2.5 million new jobs, and began to maneuver the new Congress toward having the bill ready for him to sign — in a dramatic ceremony, no doubt — as soon as he assumes office.

I'm guessing the "dramatic ceremony" will be one of many positive and defining images the media will supply for Joe Klein to savor in the forthcoming Obama Administration. As for my take on the plan, Newsbusters has explained that the Obama camp has clarified that the goal is to create OR SAVE 2.5 million jobs. This important detail, overlooked by Klein, changes everything - seeing as it will be impossible to show that the plan DID NOT save 2.5 million jobs. Similarly, I have a feeling that no matter what happens in an Obama Administration, as it is winding down, it will be impossible for Klein not to show that Obama was one of the greatest presidents ever.

Joe Klein, journalist.

We Predicted Death & Destruction, And We Want Some Now! [John Ennis]

Andrew Revkin of The New York Times has an interesting blog post today about Obama's use of the phrase "shock to trance" to describe our approach to combating climate change. As Revkin sees it, we go through a period of "shock" when faced with a sudden increased consciousness concerning global warming, and then a "trance," where we don't act. Revkin fears we're about to enter into another "trance" after the "shocks" of Katrina and "An Inconvenient Truth." He blames the "trance" on declining oil prices and the economic downturn. I'd blame it on declining global temperatures.

Revkin wonders how to avert another "trance." My advice would be to document a causality between CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures that is beyond trivial. Seeing as it's been estimated that "(w)ater vapor in the atmosphere is around 1000-10,000 times as important as atmospheric CO2" when it comes to influencing temperature, one can see why Revkin wouldn't consider this angle.

Instead he spoke with Joe Romm, who thinks we'll mobilize ourselves once we get a natural disaster that the alarmists can exploit. Romm wrote:

We will need a WWII-style approach, but that can only happen after we get the global warming Pearl Harbor or, more likely, multiple Pearl Harbors.

Revkin lists some examples of what he means:

4) A megadrought hitting the SW comparable to what has hit southern Australia.
5) More superstorms, like Katrina
6) A heatwave as bad as Europe’s 2003 one.
7) Something unpredicted but clearly linked to climate, like the bark beetle devastation.
8) Accelerated mass loss in Greenland and/or Antarctica, perhaps with another huge ice shelf breaking off, but in any case coupled with another measurable rise in the rate of sea level rise,

Numbers 4, 5, 6 & 7 are single events that would in no way help to advance or detract from the thesis of climate change. Climate change is about long-term trends, not isolated incidents. He's indirectly advocating the use of scaremongering tactics. Revkin not only knows this, but acknowledged this earlier in the post (emphasis added):

Other serious researchers in the field, while convinced of the building long-term danger, warn that nature will almost surely jostle chaotically through cool and warm spells along the way to what Dr. Hansen calls “a different planet.” They warn not to read too much into current events (particularly hurricanes) unless you’re ready to explain the quiet seasons and cold snaps along with the tempests and heat waves.

As for point 8, we had warming over the last century, and that only produced a 20 cm rise in sea levels. That's NOTHING compared to what natural process can do without human "interference", and it's now getting colder.

Revkin is one of the more respectable climate alarmists in the media, but this post has an air of desperation to it.

Klein's Doctrine is Shot [John Ennis]

I find it interesting when a best-selling author's theories are tested by actual events. Let's take a look at Naomi Klein's 2007 tome

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Here's a

summary of its thesis from the author's website:

In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world--through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.

Her webpage ominously quotes Milton Friedman, a free-market advocate, as once saying: "only a crisis, actual or perceived, produces real change."

I don't know what's going on with America's economy right now, but it seems like a crisis to me. Is this an opportunity for free-market zealots to inject their unpopular ideas on a nation in turmoil? According to Klein's thesis it is, so, is that what's been happening? Was the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street straight from the Friedman playbook?

Faced with this conundrum, Klein implausibly tries to use the bailout to support her thesis. On her website, under the banner of "Disaster Capitalism in Action", she links to articles supposedly justifying her claims. Almost all have to do with the bailout, but, how they justify her thesis is never explained. Seeing as free marketers are against the bailout, and the bailout has been called socialistic, I would say it contradicts her ideas.

At the same time, someone from the Left seems to think these uncertain times might lead to some positive changes. As Seton Motley at Newsbusters noted, Obama's incoming Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, recently had this to say about the economy:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

I don't think Emanuel is talking about doing things Friedman would approve of, but maybe Klein does?

Motley argues that this quote implies that the Obama Team is enjoying the current uncertainty and instability in the economy and might explain why they have not named a potential Treasury Secretary (naming one would reduce market instability). His argument is credible, but the real point is that Klein's thesis is shaky. Leftists can't help but notice that free-market ideas dominate the global landscape, so they argue it came about through chaos and treachery. With Emanuel, we have an example of someone on the left thinking about using a crisis to enact change. Will Klein label that process as an undemocratic imposition? Will it make it into the second edition of her book?

Northern Justice [John Ennis]

This came over the wires yesterday:

OTTAWA (Reuters) – Obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on flights within Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday.

It was left unclear whether restaurants are now required to offer the obese two entrees for the price of one.

Hollywood Rejects The New Puritanism [John Ennis]

AP has a story out today about a strategic shift in Hollywood's global warming agenda. Gone are the days when the Left Coast produced environmental disaster flicks like "The Day After Tomorrow" and "An Inconvenient Truth." It's time for them to repackage and tone down the alarmism (emphasis added):

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Hollywood insiders and climate change experts agree that they can't shove messages about global warming down audiences' throats.

They met at the Skirball Cultural Center on Tuesday to discuss how storytelling in film and TV can translate broad issues about climate change to everyday audiences.

"The storytelling has to trump everything," said "West Wing" actor Bradley Whitford.

 The key syllable there being "story". Later on:

Howard Frumkin, director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agreed that viewers are turned off by accusations and hectoring. He said dispensing incorrect information about climate change can also elicit depression and a "sticking-your-head-in-the-sand" attitude from the public.

"One thing we've learned is that apocalyptic stories don't work very well," said Frumkin.

How are you going to get people to spend 50% more on energy without threatening them with the apocalypse? Here's one idea:

David Rambo, a writer and supervising producer for CBS' "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," pointed to the eighth-season episode "The Case of the Cross-Dressing Carp," which explores the issue of water treatment contamination, as an example of how an environmental topic can be woven into a compelling story — and not offend advertisers or public officials.

"It is a challenge," said Rambo. "A lot of the industries that we point the finger at when we talk about climate change are the very ones that make our livelihoods possible, but there's so much pressure on the corporations that advertise to be responsible world citizens, at this point, they pretty much make their own case for the things they're doing."

In the bold segments, Mr. Rambo is referring to television taking advertising money from companies that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But, isn't Hollywood also a monumental emitter of CO2? Rambo is distancing himself from a company like GM, which might advertise on CSI, but how about the production company that makes CSI? Can Rambo separate himself from that? After all, studio lots are not exactly energy efficient.

The AP writer might have seen this problem and notes in the next, and last, paragraph:

Many attendees said the major studios have successfully gone green in recent years. They cited e-mailing scripts and call sheets instead of printing them on paper, employing reusable cups instead of plastic water bottles and using hybrid production vehicles for transportation on set instead of gas guzzlers.

I'm sure their carbon footprint is now close to nothing.

It's clear why selling the apocalypse or lecturing was not working for Hollywood - who can stomach having a jet-setting starlet tell you that your car and lightbulb are threatening the globe? So, Mr. Rambo's approach might get better results:

1. Argue that your own industry is green (we know it's implausible, but the media is not going to attack your industry, which it either is owned by or depends upon).
2. "Point the finger" at other companies.

Under this battle plan, global warming is no longer the fault of people, it's the fault of bad corporations. Therefore, there'll be no more hectoring of individuals, and global warming alarmism is now guilt free!

We all knew when push came to shove Hollywood was never going to be convincing salespople for The New Puritanism. Their behavior is too divorced from their beliefs. So, they'll no longer lecture Iowans about driving SUVs, they'll smear the auto companies for not making more efficient ones.

What's truly audacious is that television will continue to take advertising dollars from companies while ripping their products as Earth-threatening. How do they get around the hypocrisy? Rambo has the answer in his quote: rationalize, and say there's already pressure for these companies to be good citizens - we're only doing our bit. (Of course, Hollywood started that pressure and broadcast it for decades, but let's avoid that chicken/egg quandary).

So, get ready for Hollywood to start taking more shots at corporate America. It won't just be toxic polluters, nuclear power plants and gun manufacturers in the vice. Get ready for evil corporate execs to include the manufacturers of fluorescent lightbulbs. The Wizard of Menlo Park is now a public enemy.

Polygamy: The Last Civil Rights Frontier? [John Ennis]

If you thought last Tuesday was Leftist America's liberation day from the tyranny of the Bush/Cheney junta - think again. It wasn't all progressive 'wine & roses', as the New York Times' Judith Warner points out in her blog this week. Amid the fanfare and hoopla of the defeat of racist America she was sent an email by a friend (emphasis added):

"I wanted to make sure you knew and appreciated that despite this seeming like an amazing step forward for all who have suffered discrimination and/or who are deeply committed to eliminating it, this election was anything but that for G.L.B.T. people and our families,” she wrote. “Especially in California, but in three other states as well, the electorate convincingly voted to deny us basic civil rights and made clear that we are a long way from being seen and treated as equal. Protecting traditional marriage is simply code for discrimination. There is no ‘triumph’ for us, and the long period of pain, indignity and injustice continues.”

There’s nothing worse than being told you have a major blind spot. That your self-assured joyousness is built upon exclusion.

Particularly when the person telling you this is right.

I guess there can be no guilt-free joy in Warner's world until gays can marry and the exclusion has ended. (I'm beginning to see why liberals have no sense of humor).

Warner's hyperbole aside, let's look at the argument that the marriage laws discriminate against gays. Is the discrimination Warner's correspondent referring to the same as past discrimination that blacks experienced under Jim Crow? Are gays and lesbians denied the vote? Are they sitting at the back of the bus? Are they being denied access to the lunch counter?

No, no and no.

Are gay and lesbians being denied the right to marry?

No.

The marriage laws being objected to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians can still be married under those laws. The problem isn't that they're denied access to the lunch counter, the problem is they don't like what's on the menu.

So, they advocate for expansion of the menu. That's their prerogative, but it's hard to make a discrimination claim when the menu's the same for everyone.

For those who want to analogize the current situation with anti-miscegenation laws, those statutes said marriage is between a white man and white woman or between a black man and black woman. For an analogy to today's issue to work, our laws would have to say marriage is between a straight man and straight woman or between a gay man and gay woman. Clearly, the anti-miscegenation comparison collapses.

For those readers who still think it's discrimination because gays and lesbians are denied to marry who they'd prefer to marry rather than what the law allows, let me ask this: Do our marriage laws also discriminate against polygamists? If gay activists have a winning argument, how do we deny consenting adults from marrying multiple people? How do we argue the law won't allow that?

I suggest we stop using the language of inalienable rights when we talk about expanding the marriage laws. If these are rights as gays proclaim, than polygamists have rights, and polygamy is horrible for society. We don't want to go there.

On the other hand, if you insist on gay marriage and don't care about discriminating against polygamists (who would use you very own arguments), then who is the bigot now?