Neocons and the New:

What do you do when your policy over the years has turned out to be a dud? You try to sell a continuation of that policy as something "new". New plans. New personnel. And you quickly dismiss the failures of the last four years (explicitly or implicitly). Witness these examples (excerpts, emp add).

Stephen Hadley in the Washington Post: (h/t BusyBusyBusy)

• The new plan for Baghdad specifically corrects the problems that plagued previous efforts.
• ... there is a new operational concept ...
• ... new rules of engagement ...
• ... Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of our forces in Iraq ...
• ... reinforcing U.S. troops is necessary for this new plan to succeed.
• ... the new strategy doubles the number of provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in Iraq.
• The new strategy incorporates other essential elements of the Baker-Hamilton report ...

Robert Kagan in the Washington Post:

• In Iraq, American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad ...
• ... they've embarked on these operations with the expectation that reinforcements will soon be on the way: the more than 20,000 troops President Bush has ordered to Iraq and the new commander he has appointed to fight the insurgency as it has not been fought since the war began.

Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard:

• A new general, David Petraeus, is taking over in Iraq with a credible new strategy, counterinsurgency.

Bush in the State of the Union Address:

• We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq ...
• Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work.

Bush's January 10 address to the nation:

• The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
• Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed ...    Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes.
• The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday (21 Jan):

• It’s all totally irresponsible. It’s just unbelievable. The president is sending over a new commander, he’s sending over troops, and the Democratic Congress, in a pseudo-binding way or non-binding way, is saying, ‘It won’t work.'
• ... let’s give it a chance to work.

posted by Quiddity at 1/29/2007 07:59:00 PM

Avoiding the obvious:

Dinesh D'Sousa writes in the Washington Post and defends himself against charges that his most recent book, "The Enemy at Home", is a dishonest attempt to vilify "the left". After listing the many, many harsh criticism of the book, D'Sousa writes: (emp add)

So why has "The Enemy at Home" been so intemperately excoriated? I can imagine only two reasons. The first is given by James Wolcott himself. I am not, as he says, an unqualified right-wing hack. Rather, I am a scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, so Wolcott fears that I will be taken seriously.

The second reason can be gleaned from the common theme in the reviews: that mine is a dangerous book. But if a book says things that are obviously untrue and can be disproved, then it is not dangerous -- it is merely fiction and should be ignored. A book is dangerous only if it exposes something in the culture that some people are eager to keep hidden.

As to the first reason, yes, people are concerned that D'Sousa be taken seriously. We should all be worried that a crackpot might be taken seriously, especially if that person is trying to initiate hostilities (as opposed to a harmless UFO-fanatic).

But D'Sousa errs when he says "if a book says things that are obviously untrue ... then it is not dangerous". One such book that was "obviously untrue" and very "dangerous" was this:

Since D'Sousa's book peddles falsehoods and illogic in order to divide the nation and to attack an innocent group, just like the Protocols did, it's not a surprise that he fails to see that it's dangerous. Well, actually, D'Sousa knows that his book is dangerous, and he's merely pretending to be innocent about the impact of "obviously untrue" books. He's a scholar at the Hoover Institution, as he takes pains to point out.

ADDENDUM: Why is D'Sousa, somebody whose reasoning is simplistic and often wrong, given a prominent forum in the Washington Post? I've read better offhand comments in blogs (on the right and left).


posted by Quiddity at 1/28/2007 12:45:00 AM

Apparently Bush is unfamiliar with the legend:

From CBS News we learn:

In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered the president's minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of 21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new "way forward" for U.S. forces in Iraq.

"He's tried this two times — it's failed twice," the California Democrat said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.' "

What legend does this remind oneself of? That of Canute the Great:

Canute is perhaps best remembered for the legend of how he commanded the waves to go back. According to the legend, he grew tired of flattery from his courtiers. When one such flatterer gushed that the king could even command the obedience of the sea, Canute proved him wrong by practical demonstration [...] to demonstrate that even a king's powers have limits.

posted by Quiddity at 1/26/2007 09:00:00 AM

Predicting the 2008 candidates:

This blog predicts that the candidates that will get the party nomination for president will be:

• Democrats: John Edwards
• Republicans: Sam Brownback

Why? Edwards is pursuing the key demographic that a Democrat needs to win in the primaries (just like Bill Clinton did in 1992). Brownback is the only viable social conservative. Romney is too weird. McCain is too old and making a mess of things.

UPDATE/QUALIFICATION: If Gore decides to run, then he'll probably get it.


posted by Quiddity at 1/25/2007 12:03:00 AM

Baby Einstein blog hub:

• Buzzfeed - lots of links
• Opensecrets.org - The founder of Baby Einstein's husband William E. Clark is a Republican Party contributor of up to $7,100 in the last few election cycles
• Reason.org blog

  I swore when my daughter was born that we wouldn't buy anything labeled "Baby Einstein," "Junior Genius," "Newborn Vulcan," etc., and I've kept to that promise; my only exposure to Baby Einstein's series of Warholian videos for toddlers has come at other parents' homes. But we did receive one or two Baby Einstein books as presents. Here's a quote from Who Lives in the Pond, written by the presidentially approved Julie Aigner-Clark herself:

  Tadpole scoots through the water. He spies a spotted salamander slide along the mossy green bank.

  "Slide"..."sliding"...what's the diff? It's all the same to us Einsteins, right?

• Word of the people blog

  What does the Surge and Baby Einstein have in common?
  
  They don't work.

• Mother Jones blog

  Baby Einstein in SOTU--WTF?
  
  Ok, so what was up with Bush pimping the woman who founded Baby Einstein? What was her great moment or heroism or contribution to the country? Maybe Baby Einstein is an OK product or maybe, like some charge, it is a harmful scam, but I just don't see how it rates the SOTU gallery of heroes treatment.

• Silicon Valley Mom's blog

  Baby Einstein! Give me a break. This is the woman that convinced parents that it's perfectly OK to prop up babies in front of the television because it's educational (they don't even have to be old enough to sit)! The woman that found the perfect combination of music and colors to hypnotize a baby into complete docility, to ensure that the next generation really will be passive observers, not interacting or caring much about the people around them or their environment.
  
  Or, perhaps, this is the woman that has found the way to raise the perfect Republican...

• Adfreak blog (part of adweek.com)

  Apropos of nothing, the Baby Einstein Co. got a valuable plug in last night’s State of the Union address. President Bush praised gallery guest Julie Aigner-Clark (r.) of Centennial, Colo., for launching the kids video company and cashing out by selling to Disney Corp. Aside from its entrepreneurial roots, some bloggers and pundits wondered why this product earned placement in an address normally reserved for mysterious aluminum tubes and yellowcake. “Huh?” says Time’s James Poniewozik. “Clearly she’s a canny businesswoman and believes in her product. But what did Baby Einstein do, other than convince nervous yuppie parents that it was educational to buy mesmerizing video crack for babies—replete with product placements—by vaguely linking them to art, literature and questionable research on the brain-building benefits of classical music for infants?” Maybe Bush wishes he had been a Baby Einstein.

• courant.com blog

  Einstein Wept
  
  [...]
  
  ... the presence of the Baby Einstein woman in the First Lady's box was, I think, symbolic of the president's vision of the great entrepeneurial spirit of America. Educational smoke and mirrors for self-congratulatory well-to-do people. Like so many Bush ideas, there is not necessarily any compelling reason to suppose that this one works.

• Nell Minow's blog

  It is appalling that President Bush used the founder of Baby Einstein as an example of American entrepreneurial zeal in his State of the Union address. It's like some intrusive product placement. Worst of all, he has turned the annual address to the nation into an infomercial promoting DVDs for infants and toddlers, a product that is contrary to the recommendations of the American Pediatric Association that children under age 2 have no "screen time" at all in front of a television or computer. Not one study has shown any benefit to children from these materials (which is why they say they make no "educational" claims and admitted to me that their materials are not "research-based"). Several studies have documented deficits in what children learn from them compared to what they learn from direct observation and interaction.
  
  A President who is married to a former teacher and host of the National Book Festival should know better. No child left behind? Then maybe he could recommend that parents read to their children instead of sitting them down in front of the television.

• Time blog (referenced in the Adfreak post above)

  ... what did Baby Einstein do, other than convince nervous yuppie parents that it was educational to buy mesmerizing video-crack-for-babies--replete with product placements ...

  Baby Einstein actually has a webpage that promotes product placement in their videos. Here's what they say:

  Toys Seen in Baby Einstein Videos and Products
  
  Baby Einstein is proud to feature toys from many manufacturers in our award-winning line of developmental DVDs and videos.
  
  Although Baby Einstein does not sell these products, we do provide as much information as possible for those interested in obtaining these items. Click on any of the Baby Einstein videos below to view a list of toys featured in each.

  Just to pick one video link at random, here is the list of toys featured in the Baby Bethoven video:

  Crystalites by West Coast Design Studios
  Stacking Links & Rings by Tiny Love
  Sandie Sea Crab by International Playthings
  Floppie Fellow by International Playthings
  Boppin' Bench by International Playthings
  Hamster Wheel by Carlisle Company
  Fiber Optic Flower Bouquest by Carlisle Co.
  Motion Lamps by Carlisle Company
  Triple Ooze Tuby by Carlisle Company
  Run, Giraffe, Run by Carlisle Company
  Space Shuttle by Carlisle Company
  Spiral Timer by Carlisle Company
  Motion Wave by Carlisle Company
  Solar Motion Lamp Ferris Wheel by Carlisle
  Space Wave by Carlisle Company
  Plush Dog w/raingear by Cool Things
  Green Dragon Marionette by Daniel Oates
  Walking Owls by Toysmith
  Pull-Along Bull Frog by Hearthsong
  Caterpillar by Heros
  Wooden Wagon by Heros
  Pull-Along Pony by Tolo Toys
  Jack-in-the-Dogg by Jack Rabbit Creations
  ZooCubes Nesting by Jack Rabbit Creations
  Jungle Gears by International Playthings
  Musical Fantasy by International Playthings
  Silkworm by International Playthings
  Playful Penguin Race by DYToy
  Peter Puppy by Somersault
  Little Knotties by Learning Curver
  Magnetic Door Puzzle by Lights, Camer & Interac
  Worm Cone Puppet by Manhattan Toy
  Spinwheel Trio Rainbow by New Tech Kites
  Sunny by New Tech Kites
  Wooden Green Turtle
  Solar Swing Set & Tumbling People
  Donkey Cone Puppet by Petra Toys
  Two Boys on Seesaw by Petra Toys
  Double Run by Petra Toys
  Rabbit Walker by Petra Toys
  Harlequin Cone Puppet by Petra Toys
  Saxophone by Bontempi
  Kids Floor Tom Tom by Remo
  Music In Motion Mobile by Sassy
  Fun Wheel Ferris Wheel by TAG Toys
  Tetra Tops by Duncan Toys
  Tetra Tops by Duncan Toys
  Soft Sorter by Learning Curve
  Mr. Piano by Mega Blocks
  Thingamabotz by Uncle Milton
  Thingamabotz: Spinfidget by Uncle Milton
  Mr. Bacon
  RC Webster by Ready, Set, Grow
  S Kenetic Art
  

Just to be clear, this blog harbors no ill will towards the Baby Einstein business (and let's not forget that it's a Disney subsidiary now). They are free to sell their videos and books, and if that means product placement, that's fine. Toys can often be a good learing tool. But it was the mention in the State of the Union address that was off. Bush presented it as an example of the "enterprising spirit of America". Well, maybe. But Baby Einstein is a big player in the home schooling movement. And that's something that conservatives love to promote.


posted by Quiddity at 1/24/2007 05:48:00 PM

Bush's Civilian Reserve Corps:

In the SOTU, Bush said this:

A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

Checking the reports on the speech, all they have is a repeat of Bush's words, with no further elaboration.

But what is this Civilian Reserve Corps that Bush proposes, and how is would it be different from, say, the National Guard or the Army Reserve?


posted by Quiddity at 1/24/2007 03:12:00 PM

Many of the readers of this blog are rich! (according to the Washington Post)

Wednesday's New York Times editorial:

Mr. Bush’s [healthcare] plan would put a new tax on Americans who were lucky enough to still have good health-care coverage through their employers. Some large portion of those are middle class and represented by the labor unions that Mr. Bush and the Republicans are dedicated to destroying.

And how does the Washington Post characterize those with good health-care coverage? From Monday's editorial: (excerpts, emp add)

A Healthy Initiative

Tax the rich to help others buy health insurance? That's what Mr. Bush proposes.

Because richer people tend to have more expensive insurance, the reform would slightly increase tax rates for people in the top fifth of the income distribution while slightly reducing tax rates for others, according to the White House.

posted by Quiddity at 1/23/2007 11:25:00 PM

Shorter George Bush health proposal:

For those of you with good health plans, I'll make it more expensive. And for the uninsured poor, I'll make it easier for you to spend the money you don't have.


posted by Quiddity at 1/23/2007 05:31:00 PM

Liz Cheney is wrong:

It's hard to know where to start in commenting on Liz Cheney's op-ed in the Washington Post (like, what credentials does she have besides being the daughter of the vice president?). In any event, in her defense of the administration's Iraq policy, she writes: (emp orig)

We are at war. America faces an existential threat. [...] We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them ...

America does not face an existential threat from terrorists. They don't have the capability.

Speaking of capability, how about the news yesterday that al Qaeda in Iraq were planning to send operatives (using student visas) to the United States. Did you notice that in all the fuss, there was no mention of what they were planning to do?


posted by Quiddity at 1/23/2007 11:32:00 AM

Potentially pathetic:

Early reports are that in the SOTU speech, Bush will call for higher fuel economy numbers for automobiles, but not for trucks. If that's the case, Bush will be leaving out half the market which, in addition, has much lower fuel numbers (cars get 27 mpg, trucks 22 mpg). Talk about a weak proposal.


posted by Quiddity at 1/23/2007 10:27:00 AM

Will he or won't he?

Ever since Reagan, presidents have taken a few minutes during the State of the Union speech to point out "heroes" in the gallery. These individuals are usally props to support whatever policy the president is currently doing, or advocating. From the January 2004 SOTU: (emp add)

Month by month, Iraqis are assuming more responsibility for their own security and their own future. And tonight we are honored to welcome one of Iraq's most respected leaders: the current President of the Iraqi Governing Council, Adnan Pachachi.

Sir, America stands with you and the Iraqi people as you build a free and peaceful nation.

From the February 2005 SOTU:

One name we honor is Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, who was killed during the assault on Fallujah. His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine, and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote, "When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said, 'You've done your job, Mom. Now it is my turn to protect you.'" Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom's defenders, and our military families, represented here this evening by Sergeant Norwood's mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood.

From the January 2006 SOTU:

... those who know the costs also know the stakes. Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay was killed last month fighting in Fallujah. He left behind a letter to his family, but his words could just as well be addressed to every American. Here is what Dan wrote: "I know what honor is. ... It has been an honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to.... Never falter! Don't hesitate to honor and support those of us who have the honor of protecting that which is worth protecting."

Staff Sergeant Dan Clay's wife, Lisa, and his mom and dad, Sara Jo and Bud, are with us this evening. Welcome.

Questions:

• Will Bush have any "hero" present during the speech?
• If so, will it be someone connected with what's going on in Iraq?

This blog votes no in both instances. While it's possible that Bush will include somebody of merit (a medical researcher or volunteer in a charitable organization), it is extremely hard to see an "Iraq hero" being feted.

What say you?

UPDATE: Boy, was I wrong! Bush not only had a "heroes" section, but had four, count 'em, four of them:

• An immigrant from Africa who gave up the study of medicine in order to become a basketball star. That'll send the right message to the inner city. Spend your time practicing your jump shot instead of reading textbooks.
• A women who developed a line of children's products that was then sold to Disney for big bucks. Just like those exciting success stories you see on late-night informercials (for systems of trading stock options, making money in real estate, etc). Bush certainly is the salesman-in-chief, isn't he? UPDATE2: Turns out the lady created the "Baby Einstein" product line which is vastly overrated as tool to help kids develop their minds (and may even be counter-productive).
• The guy who saved a kid from being run over in the New York subway. Great story, but what does this have to do with national policy?
• A soldier in Iraq who won the Silver Star (just like John Kerry). Note, in the previous two SOTUs, Bush heralded a solder that was killed in the conflict. Clearly, that's taboo nowadays.

posted by Quiddity at 1/23/2007 03:58:00 AM

A bleak view - from Robert Kagan, et al.

Over at Belgravia Dispatch, there is an interesting excerpt from the AEI Kagan Keane "surge" proposal. Here it is: (emp add)

The [current level of the] Army and Marine presence in Anbar is inadequate to maintain even the most basic security in that province. The situation in Diyala is almost as dire. Pulling troops from either province to reinforce operations in Baghdad would almost surely lead to the further collapse of those regions. Salahuddin is similarly problematic, while security in Ninewah is extremely precarious.

Do you know where all those places are? Here's a map showing the provinces: (from Wikipedia)



The regions colored (above) are where the situation is grim. And that assessment is from people who think a surge in Baghdad (red) and Anbar is going to help make the Iraq venture a success.

Fat chance.


posted by Quiddity at 1/22/2007 01:19:00 PM

Deciding:

This time Bush can't blame it on the generals. From the interview on the News Hour:

• ... I have made the decision that it is best to try to help this government stop this sectarian violence.
• ... some of my decisions actually have worked, like getting rid of Saddam Hussein and helping the Iraqi government form a unity government ...
• I made the decision, let's succeed; let's work for success not work for failure.
  
• ... I thought long and hard about the decision [to add troops]
• Obviously it's a big decision for this theater in the war on terror ...
• ... I want the Iraqi government to work. And it's in our interests that we help it work, it seems like to me, and that's why I made the decision I made.
  
• ... the decision I had to make was, does it make sense to help the Iraqis with additional U.S. forces ...

And then there was this exchange:

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask you a bottom-line question, Mr. President. If it is as important as you've just said - and you've said it many times - as all of this is, particularly the struggle in Iraq, if it's that important to all of us and to the future of our country, if not the world, why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something? [...]

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night.

So you see, we've all been sacrificing.


posted by Quiddity at 1/16/2007 07:27:00 PM

"Bush’s war"

Have you noticed that in the last day or so, the expression "Bush’s war" is being used more and more?


posted by Quiddity at 1/11/2007 12:18:00 AM

Bush's big Iraq speech:

Was that boring, or what? No passion. It was like listening to an accountant.


posted by Quiddity at 1/10/2007 06:55:00 PM

James Carroll on Bush:

Wow! (emp add)

The harsh fact is that the Shi'ite dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki, in its contemptible treatment of a man about to die, laid bare the dark truth of Bush's war. This is what revenge looks like, and revenge (not weapons of mass destruction, not democracy) drove the initial US attack on Saddam Hussein every bit as much as it snuffed out his life at the end. The hooded executioners took their cue from George W. Bush.

[...]

Bush rejected appeals for clemency in every death penalty case that came before him. The Texas death chamber, with its lethal injection gurney, is a place of decorum. And savagery. That executions defined the main public distinction that Bush brought to the US presidency sums up the national disgrace, while suggesting also how little surprise there should be that America is presided over now by an executioner-in-chief.

[...]

George W. Bush is the impresario of unnecessary violence. America has followed him into the death chamber of this war, and now he wants us to believe that the way out is through more death.

[...]

With his lies at the beginning of this war, and his fantasy now that an honorable outcome remains possible, the president is a taunting killer, caught in the act. He lacks nothing but the black hood. Stop this man.

posted by Quiddity at 1/10/2007 12:44:00 AM

Will Bush mention, and if so, how often?

In Bush's speech (scheduled for Wednesday) calling for more troops to be deployed in Iraq, will he mention any of the following:

• Terrirism
• Al Qaeda
• Bin Laden
• Iran
• Syria
• oil

Or will he stick to a tightly focused program that is designed to quell the violence in Iraq and establish a secure "unity" govermnemt?


posted by Quiddity at 1/09/2007 12:44:00 PM

This is American Fascism:



Commentary at Sullivan, Drum, TPM (w/YouTube), newsrack blog, Blue Girl, Red State.

Wikipedia: Enemy of the state:

An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason. Falsely describing individuals in this way is often a manifestation of political repression. For example, an authoritarian regime may purport to maintain national security by describing social or political dissidents as "enemies of the state".

• In the case of Ancient Rome, see "Proscription".
• In the Soviet Union during the period of Stalinism, the corresponding term was Enemy of the people.
• For a prominent example in fiction, see Emmanuel Goldstein.

Wikipedia: Proscription:

Proscription (Latin: proscriptio) is the public identification and official condemnation of enemies of the state. It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a "decree of condemnation to death or banishment" and is a heavily politically-charged word frequently used to refer to state-approved murder or persecution.

From Blue Girl, Red State: (emp add)

On Sean Hannity's new Sunday night show, he is designating an Enemy of the State. No kidding. Enemy of the State. He is selecting a fellow American every week and accusing them of treason, a capital offense. [...] You don't go around branding your fellow Americans as guilty of treason. This is the kind of thing that emboldens the Eric Rudolph's and the Tim McVeigh's and the zealots who gun down doctors for providing abortions. It incites the unstable to commit terrorism against their fellow Americans.

posted by Quiddity at 1/08/2007 10:30:00 PM

Against the surge:

Charles Krauthammer:

... the Maliki government ... stands for Shiite unity and Shiite dominance above all else. We should not be surging American troops in defense of such a government.

Oliver North:

A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in U.S. troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves, is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets.

Reaction to Bush's speech on Iraq next week will be fascinating. It may be the tipping point of his presidency.


posted by Quiddity at 1/05/2007 10:57:00 AM

Now it makes sense:

Remember back on November 3, 2006, when this was reported:

Cheney Vows 'Full Speed Ahead' on Iraq War

"I think it'll have some effect perhaps in the Congress," he said of the election's outcome, "but the president's made clear what his objective is. It's victory in Iraq. And it's full speed ahead on that basis. And that's exactly what we're going to do."

Some were wondering why Cheney seemed to be channeling David Farragut ("Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!") since a well known naval order hardly seemed appropriate for a desert war.

But it's clear now. From the Washington Post:

The administration also intends to nominate Navy Adm. William J. Fallon to head the Central Command, replacing Gen. John P. Abizaid as the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East. Some military officials consider Fallon an unusual choice, because he is a naval officer in charge of the Pacific Command with limited experience in the Middle East and would be in charge of two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, an admiral is just what you want. Perhaps the much discussed "surge" will include sending the fleet into Anbar province. And using mine-sweepers to clear out the region of IEDs.


NAVAL TRIVIA: Former president Gerald Ford, who died last week, reached the position of Lieutenant Commander while he was in the navy. That rank is also held by the fictional Quinton McHale of the 1960's-era comedy McHale's Navy.


posted by Quiddity at 1/05/2007 10:16:00 AM

Worst quarter ever:

It's a statistical artifact (there have been bloodier consecutive 3 month periods), but telling none the less. Here are the U.S. fatalities in Iraq, measured by quarter. (March 2003, with 65 deaths omitted)



Even discounting this peculiar statistical result, it sure doesn't look like progress is being made.


posted by Quiddity at 1/04/2007 09:41:00 PM

Get ready for it:

In Bush's speech next week laying out a change in policy for the Iraq occupation, expect to hear:

• That the number of troops stationed in Iraq will be reduced to 170,000.
  
  
• Also, that the chocolate ration, per soldier, will be increased to 20 grams.

posted by Quiddity at 1/04/2007 02:30:00 PM

The George Will trick:

Many have commented on George Will's op-ed opposing the minimum wage. Yes, he did call labor a "commodity" which the market should set the price for. (What isn't a commodity, when you get down to it?) But there was a rather clever bit of obfuscation elsewhere in the essay. Will wrote:

Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum lives in families with earnings below the poverty line.

To a reader, it sounds like

Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum lives in a poor household (and therefore, perhaps, deserves a decent wage).

But if a household has earnings above the poverty line, how well off is it?

Here are the poverty lines for the U.S. (ex Alaska and Hawaii)

Persons in Family Unit	Amount
1	$9,800
2	$13,200
3	$16,600

If you are someone earning minimum wage in a two person household that brings in a whopping $15K, you are above the George Will threshold of pain and therefore don't merit a raise. (Actually, Will doesn't care even if you are below the poverty line; he doesn't want the minimum wage under any circumstances.)

The real point of using the poverty line as a threshold was to find a number as low as possible so that Will could present the minimum wage as helping a mere 20% of those who get it.


posted by Quiddity at 1/04/2007 01:30:00 PM

Bush isn't going to "surge"

He's going to "splurge".

splurge

1. to indulge oneself in some pleasure, esp. a costly one
2. to show off.

posted by Quiddity at 1/04/2007 10:53:00 AM

"sacrifice" = ?

From the BBC:

The BBC was told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.

Its central theme will be sacrifice.

Here's what it boils down to:

• If you are in the military (or National Guard), "sacrifice" = "risking life and limb"
  
  
• For everybody else, "sacrifice" = "giving Bush a free hand for two more years"

posted by Quiddity at 1/03/2007 12:15:00 AM

Did you notice?

That during all the New Year's Eve partying (especially in New York City) there was no talk of terrorists. Not even from the police who were interviewed by various television hosts.

But by Bush's logic (and many others) the threat hasn't receeded, we've still got to fight them, it's the challenge of our generation, etc.


posted by Quiddity at 1/01/2007 09:42:00 PM

Belgravia Dispatch is back!

With lots of new stuff since the blog-stoppage of 12 December.

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/


posted by Quiddity at 1/01/2007 09:40:00 PM