Forum on Jihad vs McWorld
ArchPundit
Forum on Jihad vs McWorld
Body and Soul has some thought provoking e-mails on the subject that are well worth reading.
Uncategorized
Dock Workers Brad DeLong argues
Dock Workers
Brad DeLong argues the dock workers make out better with Taft-Hartley injunction. My guess is he is right. A bunch of pissed off longshoreman can work by the rules and not be fined (as the comment suggested). They simply follow the strict orders of management and by management makes mistakes. Usually labor helps watch for those, but they don’t have to and they are fully doing their job.
I believe someone made the argument that all of the gummint regulations were clearly a problem since one had to ignore them to make the docks work. This is a poor understanding of the modern workplace. While some of the OSHA rules are a bit arcane, overall the most burdensome regulations are from insurance companies.
Dart Target is the coming
Dart Target
is the coming Democratic landslide according to Steve Neal. And he is probably right. Dart is bright and promising and has a good shot with how the Illinois race is shaping up. I still prefer Topinka simply as a check on the rest of the government. She, a moderate R, might end up being the only Republican with any influence.
Kaus swings and misses Kaus
Kaus swings and misses
Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee has been making unsubtle threats to bolt the Republican party and give Democrats control of the Senate if the Republicans pick up a seat in the coming election. But here’s a thought experiment: Suppose the Republicans were to pick up three Senate seats in the coming election, giving them a majority of two. Is there the slightest chance that Chafee would then bolt and become a Democrat — which would involve leaving the majority party to join the minority? No, there is not a chance. What does that say about how principled Chafee’s chafing is? … 3:04 A.M.
Actually, if Mickey payed attention (instead of blathering about how a politician might do something for political gain) Chafee is a flake. And while his most recent answer was in relation to a dead lock, he has previously indicated he might jump if the Rs win a majority whether or not he is the deciding vote.
I wish I’d said that
I wish I’d said that
I was chatting with my barber the other day. He is generally a good guy, but not very politically astute. I, and a couple other customers from his comments, am about the extent of his political discussion. I’m moderately for the war, but have deep reservations about the current administrations handling of the war. He had recently become strongly against it because he thought Bush was out for revenge. We chatted a bit, and I acknowledged his point, but still hold to my position. The problem is I have this gnawing feeling about the administration I can’t shake. Tbogg expresses it for me.
Before Bashing Away I don’t
Before Bashing Away
I don’t like the misuse of the term terrorism, but I think aside from that, Sullivan has a good point here. And he doesn’t resort to the veiled racism that many bloggers out there do. We’ll now return to the regularly scheduled Sullivan bashing.
Semantic Vandalism I really try
Semantic Vandalism
I really try not to concentrate too much time on the crank known as Sully, but this crap is amazing.
They claim he didn’t mean that Reagan’s policy toward the Soviet Union was actually containment and appeasement (although he used both those words), he was just kidding! What Meyerson really meant, they argue, was that Reagan’s policy toward the Soviets was the same as the left’s policy toward Iraq today and that if we call that Iraq policy containment and appeasement, we have to say the same thing about Reagan. If I missed that ironic pirouette, I can’t have been the only one. But even reading his word use that way, I think my argument just got stronger. What distinguished Reagan’s policy – what differentiated it from Nixon Republicans and Carter Democrats and most of the foreign policy establishment of the time – was that he broke from containment, let alone appeasement. As I summarized his policy in Salon, it included
Actually, I think you were the only one. It was bloody obvious. He was making fun of Sully and his ilk who, unlike some intelligent conservatives who have a vocabulary capable of distinguishing between appeasement and containment and deterrence. In fact, it is semantic vandalism.
It is semantic vandalism to say that Scowcroft and others who share his apprehensions are “appeasers.” Appeasement is the policy of resolving a conflict by making concessions to the most truculent side. Scowcroft believes, probably mistakenly, that containment and deterrence — which when applied to the Soviet Union resulted in regime change — can suffice to make Saddam Hussein’s regime something America can live with. Or at least Scowcroft believes that the risks of reliance on containment and deterrence are less than those of regime change by war and its aftermath. This may be wishful thinking; it is not appeasement.
Sullivan tries to brand containment and deterrence as appeasement. They are completely different strategies. Sullivan tries the usual trick of branding the left as some amorphous, but unified block with a single position. What would, of course, be more productive is to deal with the Meyerson?s argument. He makes an explicit argument for containment and deterrence?the same policy the US followed for 45 years against the Soviet Union. Sullivan attempts to distinguish between containment and deterrence under Nixon and Carter and under Reagan, but the difference is one of degree?not overall strategy.
One can disagree with Meyerson?s assessment that containment and deterrence will work. I do. However, he is not arguing for appeasement. He is arguing for the same tactics that Reagan used towards the end of the Cold War. You might disagree that such tactics are sufficient and that is reasonable, but they aren?t appeasement. Appeasement would have been ignoring Hussein in 1990. We didn?t. Now it is an argument over containment and deterrence or war. Loonie lefties might argue for appeasement, but Meyerson is not.
Perhaps Meyerson?s argument was too subtle for Sully, but it gets worse:
rhetorical and diplomatic break in 1980 with the detente of the 1970s; a huge and costly defense buildup; financing and military support of counter-Soviet insurgencies from Nicaragua to Afghanistan; the pursuit of Star Wars; the refusal at Reykjavik to accept any deceleration in space defense spending; the description in London of the Soviet Union as destined for the “ash-heap of history”; the call on Gorbachev in Berlin to “tear down this wall”; the insistence on autonomy for the member states of the Soviet empire (yes, that one was an empire); the establishment of a united Germany in NATO; NATO membership all the way to Russia’s borders; and on and on.
I’m sorry but I fail to see how anyone can construe that as containment, let alone appeasement, which is why Meyerson didn’t support it at the time.
Afghanistan and Nicaragua were explicitly efforts at containment. There is no doubt. SDI certainly was an element of deterrence. And the rest could be right out of George Kennan?s mouth in describing how to morally contain the Soviet Union. His last line is telling though?he refuses to use the word deterrence, which Meyerson did. Why? One can only conclude it is because he doesn?t want to look foolish.
The Importance of Governors John
The Importance of Governors
John Ellis is usually not cited here unless it is for something really funny like the following two items:
Thursday, October 10, 2002
Posted 6:09 PM by John Ellis
They’re So…..MidlandIf you want to read a piece that just drips with effete condescension, look no further than today’s New York Times editorial about Laura Bush. The editors aren’t just better than she is, they know better too.
The article was quite complimentary.
or this:
Saturday, October 12, 2002
Posted 11:15 AM by John Ellis
Sniper Terrorism?Steve Dunleavy has a remarkably strong column today on the possibility that the Washington-area sniper(s) may well be terrorists. Read it.
Remarkably strong? I’m not sure when blathering navel gazing with no evidence is remarkably strong, but it is John Ellis after all.
Ellis does have a great analysis of the importance of Govenors for Presidential Elections.
Death by 1000 cuts Jeb’s
Death by 1000 cuts
Jeb’s real problem is that everyone around him is so worried about winning, they are making him look much worse. Suppressing a critical report is far worse than a critical report.
File Under: The Adults are
File Under: The Adults are Back in Charge
and they are friggen’ Bold. Via &c