* * political doodle * *

LUCILLE: John Ennis Revisited

Just for shits and giggles, here's a re-post of an earlier John Ennis comment:

Lucille, we're not in a recession. Unemployment is still at around the post-WWII average. People can still afford to eat at McDonalds. Retail stores are closing because people buy more and more stuff on-line. We know the deficit went up after 9/11. U.S. debt has increased during every war we've ever fought. Our debt/GDP is reasonable.

The housing crisis is a direct result of 9/11. The Fed lowered interest rates to prevent a recession and kept them low too long which created the housing bubble. The bubble burst, but home prices are still above where they were five, or even, three years ago. It's not a disaster.

Mature economies are cyclical. We are in a modest down-cycle. Things are worst now than they've been since, oh, I dunno... 2001. The sky is not falling. Remember the 1970s? This isn't even close.

Why do you think electronics are going to stop getting cheaper? That was weird.

Posted by: John Ennis | August 21, 2008 at 09:53 AM

Ah, yes, he certainly knows his stuff!

Operation: Back Barack [John Ennis]

New York Times columnists continue to take their last shots at the Bush Administration. Timothy Egan has another today. Nestled in the middle are the following two paragraphs concerning Iraq (emphasis added):

Down the road, Iraq may fall back into the chaos of sectarian violence, and if that happens, Bush will wash his hands of it. That’s the premise of a new book, “Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America’s Enemies,” by Peter W. Galbraith.

“The pretense that the surge is a success and that therefore the United States is winning the Iraq war,” he writes, “is the opening salvo in a coming blame game as to who lost Iraq.”

For that last sentence to make any sense, one must assume the Iraq War has already been lost, and it is a fait accompli. Galbraith has made this assumption and is now providing cover for the Obama withdrawal he will clamor for when the sectarian violence is reignited. Egan hasn't gone that far, but is warning Bush that anything bad that happens in Iraq will always be his fault. Of course, Egan's argument is grossly unfair. If Iraq "may fall back into chaos", it also may not (the former Yugoslavia hasn't). If Iraqi sectarian violence resumes on Obama's watch, his role will deserve scrutiny. Hence, Egan uses Galbraith's quote to provide an argument that it's already over and there is nothing for Obama to do if violence does increase.

Egan's choice of words when he says Bush "will wash his hands of it" are also unfair. Constitutionally, Bush has to leave the Presidency and pass responsibility of Iraq over to his successor. If Bush argues against withdrawal if Iraq wobbles, he's not washing his hands. Egan wants to create the impression that Obama is cleaning up the mess of a man who walked away. What worries Egan is that in the event of renewed violence Obama will withdraw, Bush will say the civil war is Obama's fault, and the charge might stick.

Therefore, Egan has constructed an argument that absolves Obama of responsibility of anything regarding Iraq. What's the correct or incorrect Iraq policy going forward is not even worth considering for Egan. The drop in violence since the surge isn't a success - it doesn't matter. Nothing matters but protecting Obama politically. Many on the Left still want to lose Iraq and have it pinned on Bush. My advice to them is to instead focus on what's in the United States best interests. That alone should drive Obama's Iraq policy. Abandoning our newly formed alliance with Iraq is not in the interest of the United States.

LUCILLE: I'm not going to take it anymore

Yes, I am sick and tired of John Ennis - in the guise of a blogger - simply cutting and pasting the work of other writers, putting a comment or two in between, and calling that a post. And I'm not going to take it anymore.

That's not blogging, John, it's plagiarism. Maybe not in the technical sense of the word, but for all intents and purposes, it is. Just because you attribute someone's words doesn't mean you can quote them endlessly. And even if you could, it serves no purpose. Why do we even need your comments? The idea if to add something to the discussion, not just repeat it.

As a result, we're taking down Political Doodle temporarily so it can be reworked. Thanks to all for your contributions.

I'll be back.

'Peace On Earth... Once the Zionist Regime And The Great Satan Are Destroyed' [John Ennis]

Tomorrow, the UK will be getting a Christmas message from an unlikely source:

Jewish groups were up in arms today when it was revealed that Channel 4's "alternative" Christmas Day broadcast is to be delivered by President Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Mr Ahmadinejad's speech will go out at 7.15pm, four hours after the Queen's traditional Christmas Day message is broadcast on the main channels. His message is a spiritual one but includes some more nakedly political elements - including the implicit claim that if Jesus Christ were alive today, he would oppose US hegemony.

How is the channel coping with the controversy?

... Dorothy Byrne, Channel 4's head of news and current affairs, defended the choice. "As the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East, President Ahmadinejad’s views are enormously influential," she said. “As we approach a critical time in international relations, we are offering our viewers an insight into an alternative world view."

I wonder just how open Ms. Byrne is to alternative world views? One gets the feeling that Channel 4 is looking for a specific world view that is not entirely foreign to Britain, and Ahmadinejad will play ball. Hence, the Iranian President will focus on his opposition to supposed American hegemony, and stay away from his opinions concerning homosexuality or women's rights.

Channel 4's acquiescence in normalizing a dictator who denies the Holocaust and threatens to destroy Israel and America while seeking nuclear weapons is quite dispiriting. What's most appalling, though, is that Iran has been known to put bounties on British authors whose books they find disagreeable. Giving its leader a soapbox on national television is absurd.

Arguments Too Big To Ignore [John Ennis]

Some issues have become so politicized that it's nearly impossible to find reliable data. One side has its studies, the other its own, and objective research is hard to come by. The gun control debate suffers from this problem.

The New York Times, however, claims they have found the study to end the debate (where have I heard that before?). Here is its opening paragraph from an editorial yesterday:

For years, the gun lobby has defeated new gun control laws partly by arguing that stronger laws do not deter crime. A study prepared by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group headed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston, should finally put that myth to rest.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns might be "bipartisan" but they are not impartial. The idea that a study they conducted would put to rest any "myths" is dubious. Here is part of what the study 'found' (emphasis added):

The study analyzed trace data for guns used in connection with crimes during 2007. The data reveal a strong correlation between weak state gun laws and higher rates of in-state murders, police slayings and sales of guns used in crimes in other states. ...

[snip]

Weak gun laws also put a state’s own citizens at risk. There were nearly 60 percent more gun murders in the 10 states where exports were highest than in the states with low export rates — and nearly three times as many fatal shootings of law enforcement officers.

Is the Times playing fast and loose with the data? The editorial didn't link to any, so I haven't checked - but look at the two highlighted sentences. In the earlier paragraph, weak gun laws lead to higher in-state murder rates. But, later on in the editorial, weak gun laws lead to more "gun murders". So, which is it? I ask because if the gun murder rate increases, but the overall murder rate stays the same - you're not killing "myths." After all, if weaker gun laws lead to both more murders and more gun murders, wouldn't the Times' argument be stronger by focusing on the increased murder rate?

But here's the real problem with the Times' argument - winning the data debate is not enough. Even if you prove that more guns equal more deaths, you still have two major issues to overcome:

• Do guns serve a utilitarian function important enough that we would tolerate increased deaths just as we tolerate deaths from automobile accidents? I think they do, because I believe an armed population is more difficult to tyrannize than an unarmed one.
• How de we balance specific gun control measures with the Second Amendment?

The Times completely ignores these two issues, which is their prerogative, but, they are not helping their cause. I support some gun control legislation. I'm sympathetic to a few of the arguments. But when your editorial simply ignores huge parts of the debate, you lose me.  

A 5000 Word Analysis With A One Word Answer: Bush [John Ennis]

Here is an admittedly over-simplified list of the major factors that brought about this year's financial crisis:

1. Government-sponsored agencies provided guarantees to subprime mortgages removing the risk of default from the lending entity.
2. The Fed kept interest rates too low for too long after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, inflating housing prices and creating a bubble.
3. Relatively new financial instruments allowed mortgages to be packaged in such a way that the riskier lending was grouped together offering larger returns, but the possibility of a complete loss if defaults rose. These instruments also divided up ownership of the mortgage, so there was no single lender who could renegotiate defaulting mortgages as housing prices declined.

4. Credit rating agencies incorrectly assumed that U.S. housing prices wouldn't decrease because they hadn't since the Great Depression. Thus, financial instruments involving mortgages were graded as much safer than they should have been.

Of course, the above explanation might be inadequate to many Americans. These are the Bush years, where all problems must be blamed on the outgoing president. For those of such a persuasion, The New York Times has just published a six-click monstrosity that blames the financial crisis on Bush. Don't worry, there is hardly any mention of the previous administration, the Fed, or Congress. They might allude to other causes, but if it doesn't touch the White House, it's not in this piece. If Bush did anything right, it only gets a one sentence mention and is immediately hedged. Finally, it contains plenty of justification for Obama to intervene massively in the markets.

Everything is seen through a liberal prism. For liberals in the audience, enjoy.

For conservatives, remember this: if the White House were at fault, the Democratic Congress would drag as many as possible to the Hill for some grandstanding hearings like they did over the Justice Department firings. The fact that they haven't tried in this case says a lot.

We Don't Need No Ventilation, We Don't Need No Temp Control [John Ennis]

From across the pond:

CHILDREN are falling asleep in class because new eco-friendly schools have appalling ventilation, experts warned today.

Builders have created air-tight classrooms which are intended to reduce heat loss but also stop carbon dioxide escaping.

Higher CO2 levels in newly-built schools are leaving children drowsy and less able to concentrate, researchers from University College London and Reading University found.

The studies will come as a blow to Children's Secretary Ed Balls, who wants every new school to be "zero-carbon" from 2016. ... [snip]

Kim Knappett, a science teacher from Forest Hill School in Lewisham, said her new classrooms were either far too hot or freezing. Stiflingly hot classrooms lead to an increase in disruptive behaviour as pupils become "irritable", she said.

"It's just too hot and everybody falls asleep or gets ratty," Ms Knappett told the Standard. "They can't work properly." ... [snip]

A separate study by Reading University tested the reaction times and memory of pupils in rooms with high levels of CO2. Professor Derek Clements-Croome, who led the research, said: "When the CO2 was very high, the reaction times would slow and memory would be affected. The kids would also get drowsier.

"You may not even detect that it's getting stuffier in the room but once higher CO2 levels are breathed in it gets into the blood and goes to the brain."

This is an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences: Because of a fear of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere, Britain now has schools with excessive CO2 in its classrooms.

Additional problems occur when secondary objectives usurp primary ones. Because the engineers are focused on greenery, the classrooms are no longer at comfortable temperatures - contradicting the main reason to construct buildings in the first place.

President-elect Barack Obama might be on board with this new way of doing things. As reported by the AFP last May:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

Indeed. Britain won't keep its schools at 72 degrees when there are pupils inside, let alone at all times. But, before Obama follows this eco-education model, he shouldn't miss the potential benefits of maintaining our outdated attachments to ventilation, heating and air conditioning. As other developed countries' students underperform in their new somnolent classrooms, the United States should be able to close its test score gaps in reading and mathematics. Because, as everyone should now know, too much CO2 in the classroom makes you stupid.

What's The Problem Here? [John Ennis]

Here's the headline and first three graphs from yesterday's New York Daily News:

Records show Caroline Kennedy failed to cast her vote many times since 1988

Caroline Kennedy wants to be the next senator from New York, but her voting record is already spotty, the Daily News has found.

City Board of Elections records show Kennedy has failed to vote in many elections since she registered in the city in 1988 - including votes for the Senate seat she hopes to fill and numerous Democratic faceoffs for mayor.

"It doesn't speak to a deep-felt commitment to the electoral process," Baruch College political scientist Doug Muzzio said when told of Kennedy's ballot breakdowns.

This is from paragraph seven (emphasis added):

A review by The News found that of the 38 contested elections since 1988, Kennedy skipped about half, almost all of them primaries.

Should primary elections and general elections be lumped together in this way? I can not think of a single compelling reason why they should. How is not voting in your party's primary evidence of a lack of civic mindedness? Aren't there legitimate reasons why one would abstain from intra-party voting?

Of course, if The News hadn't lumped them together, they'd be left with the fact that Kennedy missed about two of 20 general elections. Good luck writing a headline for that story.

It's tough being in the newspaper business when the truth is boring.

Was The Stasi That Bad? [John Ennis]

Times Watch has revealed its Quotes of Note for 2008. These are the quotes that most dramatically reveal the liberal bias of the New York Times. This headline, over an October review of a new novel, was by far my favorite:

East Germany Had Its Charms, Crushed by Capitalism

It's timeless. 

Only Days Until The End Of The Iraq Occupation [John Ennis]

Eli Lake has a must-read in the most recent edition of The New Republic. In it, he takes a closer look at the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) ratified last month by the Iraqi Parliament which calls for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011. Lake concludes that there is enough in the agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq well past said date:

For all the talk of withdrawal and timetables, however, nothing like that is likely to happen. It is true that, as a result of the successful surge that the Democrats and some Republicans opposed, tens of thousands of American troops will begin to exit Iraq in the next three years. But American and Iraqi military and diplomatic officials insist that a residual U.S. force of considerable size is likely to remain for the medium to long term, as will the U.S. bases in Iraq that Democrats over the last two years have insisted must not be permanent.

Lake relied on a memo written last month by retired General Barry McCaffrey which estimated a residual American force of 20,000 to 40,000 troops based on the assumption that the Iraqis will ask the U.S. to stay past 2011. Here's the key reason why (bold is mine):

McCaffrey's reasoning rests in part on his view of the Iraqi military, an institution he says has vastly improved yet still needs mentoring, equipment, and support from Americans on the ground. In his report, McCaffrey writes that Iraq's border-control service is "anemic" and that the army cannot currently conduct military operations without U.S. support and equipment. "The confidence of the Iraqi combat force is still dependant on US mentoring and backup," he writes. "Their officers are very explicit on this point--THE IRAQI SECURITY FORCES DO NOT WANT THE U.S. COMABT [sic] UNITS TO LEAVE--YET." The capital letters are McCaffrey's.

Backing up McCaffrey's assessment is the fact that Iraq's military has requested everything from U.S. surveillance equipment to F-16 fighter jets. With U.S hardware also comes U.S. training. "It is extremely important that the Iraqis have made it clear they want to purchase Western military systems and particularly American military systems," Fred Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who helped craft the surge strategy in 2006, says. Such purchases, Kagan explains, "impl[y] an expectation of a certain kind of relationship with the supplier. There are upgrades and replacements over time. When you have people training your soldiers on how to use the equipment, how to upgrade it, how to work it into their doctrine, who are those trainers going to be? It is a below-the-line statement of alignment."

Alliances change. But as of now, the Iraqi Army and critical parts of the Iraqi government authorizing the above mentioned purchases expect to be aligned with the United States in the long term.

Another interesting note is that the SOFA allows for individual regions of Iraq to have a strong say in the negotiation of long-term military base leases with the United States - something many expect the Kurds and Sunni Arabs to do, regardless of whether Baghdad objects.

Of course, the most important thing about the SOFA is that the United States will no longer be in Iraq under the auspicies of a post-invasion U.N. Security Council resolution, but through a negotiated agreement with the Iraqi government (emphasis added):

What the SOFA does do, however, is establish the political legitimacy of American troops in Iraq for the next three years and provides a framework beyond that. It is perhaps for this reason that the remnants of Moqtada Al Sadr's organization have protested the agreement, as have more and more of the hard-line clerics in Iran. And it is for the same reason that the antiwar crowd is worried: The SOFA clearly ends any legitimate claim that America's presence in Iraq is an occupation at all. From the looks of it, the end of the war and the beginning of a long-term friendship look very much the same.

Iraqi (especially Shia) public opinion might be hostile to the U.S. remaining in their country past 2011, but the Kurds and the Iraqi Army will want the U.S. to remain. It is quite possible that the U.S. is in the early stages of a long-term alliance much like the ones it has with Germany and Japan. At the very least, in a couple of weeks the U.N. resolution will expire and the SOFA will kick in. On January 1, 2009, the occupation of Iraq will be over.