| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Monday, May 31, 2010
What gets Israel in trouble is NOT incidents such as what happened today when the Israelis boarded and took control of a ship in violation of Israel's blockade of Gaza... what gets Israel in trouble is its weak-assed response to such incidents as today's.
Israel gets in trouble because its enemies sense weakness. They know that as soon as the shooting stops, Israel is going to cry and apologize and come across as the erring party. And sensing that weakness, Israel's enemies push and push and continue to whittle away at what little remains of Israel's support. And Israel makes it easy for its supporters to back away... when Israel itself acts like it done wrong, it is only natural for other countries to distance themselves from the offender. If however, instead of crying and apologizing, blah, blah, blah, about the 'loss of life, yadda, yadda, yadda, Israel had instead stood up and defended its actions and promised to do the exact same thing the next time such an incident arose, Israel's enemies would get no traction and Israel's supporters wouldn't have the opportunity to distance themselves as much. As someone just wrote, Israel acts as if they're trying to avoid both bloodshed and condemnation... and they end up with both. Israel's enemies know this and thus stage stunts like today's. They know there may be some price to pay but not much. If Israel stood its ground, and actually was a bit more aggressive in defending its position, its enemies wouldn't be able to recruit so easily (it is much harder to recruit volunteers for a mission that is 100% fatal than it is for a mission where the chance of death is in the single digits). Israel (like the United States) has always had the military ability to defeat its enemies, both conventionally and the so-called asymmetrical variety. Unfortunately, its political leaders (as is also the case with the United States) doesn't have the brains or fortitude to stand up against its enemies. To the politicians, an enemy is someone to win over, not someone to kill. Israel (like the United States) would be a lot safer it focused on killing its enemies and stopped trying to persuade its enemies that they should all live together in peace. Wednesday, May 26, 2010
According to a number of police chiefs, the recently passed Arizona immigration law will lead to an INCREASE in crime.
Now why would that be the case? Well, let's look at this logically... Crime can only go up if more crimes are being committed. In order for this to happen, either those who currently obey the law need to start breaking the law or there needs to be an increase in the number of crimes committed by those who are already criminals. As for the former, is it the position of these law enforcement officials that people who are now obeying the law are going to start breaking the law? And if they think so, why do they think so? Out of protest at what they believe to be an unjust law? If so, what is it about this law that is going to drive people to a life of crime... when there's very little history of this type of behavior happening in America? Prohibition didn't drive people to start drinking to protest. I don't like my taxes getting raised, but I am not going to go and rob a bank in protest (hint to cops: if a bank is robbed, it ain't me). As for the latter, why do they think criminals are going to start committing more crimes? Given that a lot of crime is inversely correlated to the extent the criminal believes he will be apprehended, I would infer they're arguing that criminals will think that their chances of getting caught will be lower because some number of street cops will be inquiring of the legal status of some of the people they stop during the course of their shift. And why would that be the case? Well, their argument is that illegal immigrants who are otherwise law abiding will refuse to cooperate with the police out of fear that they'd be arrested and deported... and that this will lead to fewer arrests... and fewer arrests would lead to more crimes being committed. But given that the Arizona law specifically excludes from questioning people who haven't been 'stopped' by the police, this seems like it is more a matter of these witnesses staying quiet out of ignorance than a legitimate fear of being deported... an ignorance that is likely a result of the lies spread by opponents of the Arizona law. Rather than blast the law, these esteemed law enforcement officials could be working on ways to make sure their communities know they have no fear from cooperating with the police. That would seem to be the simplest and best way to address those concerns... and a nice way of making sure the Arizona law doesn't result in an increase in crime. Put another way, these officials have the power to make sure the Arizona law doesn't lead to an increase in crime... but they'd rather b***h about the law rather than do their jobs. Note: It doesn't surprise me that Montgomery County Maryland is part of this group. Once upon a time, the police in Montgomery County were top-flight professionals who had the respect of the community and who did a great job of keeping crime down. But a number of years ago, like they did in so many other ways, Montgomery County decided to show how socially advanced they were... they dumbed down the police entrance exams and they went with just about every fad that came out instead of focusing on simply arresting criminals and keeping crime down. Now Montgomery County is a lot unsafer than it used to be, there are entire sections of the county that normal folks are just plain crazy to go into at night... and instead of concentrating on arresting criminals, the police spend their time complaining about a law passed in a state three two time zones away. Typical. Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Imagine if the Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress, instead of spending all that time and effort last year forcing through a health care bill overwhelmingly opposed by the public, had devoted their attention to an issue the public very much cares about.... making sure that federal resources were properly in place to respond to offshore drilling accidents.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
With a sizable majority of Americans approving of Arizona's recently passed immigration law, Obama doesn't have far to look if he wants to find a "federal fix the nation could embrace".
Of course, Obama, like with health care and cap and trade, doesn't want to implement a policy backed by a majority of Americans, he is interested in ramming his solution down our collective throat.
With mortgage delinquencies rising, a sign of continued economic trouble, what is Obama doing to get things going in the right direction?
Is he giving speeches that promote economic confidence? Is he proposing to relax regulations that retard hiring? Is he doing anything that would make the average American think the worst is behind us? No, he's bashing Arizona's recently passed immigration law. Tuesday, May 18, 2010
In the category of 'Do they really believe this s**t?"...
Hillary Clinton today announced that China and Russia have agreed to impose 'tough' new sanctions on Iran. According to the article, "Details were not immediately released, but the sanctions are expected to broaden economic penalties on Iranian officials and institutions". And she thinks this will do what? The purpose of sanctions isn't simply to impose a price to be paid by the offending party for engaging in undesired conduct. No, the goal of imposing sanctions is to make things so bad that the offending party decides it is in their best interests to concede and stop doing whatever it is that bothering the sanctioning party than to continue suffering the effects of the sanctions. In other words, for sanctions to work, the negatives imposed have to be greater than the positives flowing from the offending behavior. Given how important the nuke program is to the Mad Mullahs, it would take some pretty harsh sanctions to produce the desired behavioral change on their part. So does she think these sanctions are going to be so tough that the targeted "Iranian officials and institutions' are going to pressure the Mad Mullahs to give up their nuke program? And even if they did petition the Mad Mullahs, does she think the Mad Mullahs are going to agree to give up their nuke program? No, ain't going to happen. The only question is whether she knows this and is playing dumb.... or whether she really is dumb enough to believe that these sanctions are going to make a bit of difference. Friday, May 14, 2010
My guess is that when Obama starts talking about 'stopping the finger pointing', as he did today in talking about the Gulf oil spill, it isn't because he is genuinely interested in working with all parties to fix the problem but rather because he figures the fingers are soon going to be pointed at him and his Administration.
Three words for all the Cleveland fans distraught over not only the Cavs losing to the Celtics but the possibility (likelihood) that LeBron James will leave Cleveland to play in Chicago or New York: GET OVER IT!
What kind of sad sacks are you that you get upset because one group of millionaire basketball players beat another group of millionaire basketball players? Are you all really so pathetic that your emotional well-being is influenced by whether the guys who wear 'Cleveland' on their jerseys win the championship? The Cavs losing doesn't mean that Boston is a better city than Cleveland. Actually, Boston is a better city than Cleveland but that has precious little to do with the quality of the sports teams that play in the two cities, it has much more to do with the quality of life, employment, education level of residents, crime and so on. And that would have remained the case had Cleveland won, Cleveland still would be way, way, way down on the list of cities that people want to live in. Yes, I know that for many of you, your lives aren't going so well so you're looking for positives anywhere you can find them... but this ain't the place to look. Unless you're playing for the team (or had a role to play in putting the team together), their success and your emotional and financial health should have absolutely no correlation. They win, you're still the same person, with the same going for you or not going for you that you have if they lose. Your boss isn't going to give you a raise if they win, he's not going to fire you if they lose. Your credit card debts weren't going to disappear if the Cavs had won, nor would the value of your house have jumped thousands of dollars. Basketball, like a lot of other sports, is fun to watch. But that is all it is. Stop acting like it means anything more than that. Thursday, May 13, 2010
I yield to no one in my contempt for the idea that Obama's 'reset' was going to turn the world into our friends... but at the same time, I'm not getting excited about Russia's supposed warning the United States against unilaterally imposing sanctions on Iran.
What's Russia going to do if we don't listen? Ship defense weaponry to Iran? They're already doing that. Help Iran build their nuke program? They're already doing that. Russia isn't going to sacrifice its own economy in a show of solidarity with Iran. They're not going to cut off oil supplies to the West (Russia needs the money). They're not going to close down the borders to foreign investment (that would deny them shakedown targets). They're not going to sail their Navy into the Persian Gulf to protect Iranian tankers (they know they wouldn't fare too well). In a way, I'm actually encouraged by this. Russia wouldn't be trying to warn us off if they didn't think we were heading down the path towards unilateral (defined as not including Russia) sanctions. So Russia's protests could be a sign that the United States is moving to stop talking and actually do something about the Mad Mullahs pursuit of nuclear weapons. Yeah, I know that doesn't mean much, that there's no way Obama will actually agree to take the steps that would succeed... but something is better than nothing. Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Elena Kagan, Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, banned military recruiters from Harvard Law School because of the military's - don't ask, don't tell - discrimination against gays... a policy that was shot down 8-0 by the Supreme Court.
As I've written before, I think being on the losing end of a unanimous decision is a strong signal that one is way outside the mainstream. What better defines someone as off the wall than the fact that not a single justice could bring him or herself to support Kagan's position? Some commenters suggest that her position was motivated by an anti-military bias. If so, what might account for it? Well, she may also be gay (no one is asking, no one is telling). Question: are the two connected? Did her (possible) sexual orientation factor in any way into her decision to support a policy that not a single Justice could support? Was her support of ban on recruiters driven by her anger at the military's declaration that 'people like her' were not welcome in the military? Heck, I know I'd be pissed if some group declared someone like me was defective and thus not worthy of membership. Note, I'm not making a judgment on her orientation, whatever it is... but I do wonder whether she can rule based on the law and not on whether she personally is bothered by the actions of one or another of the parties appearing before the Supreme Court. I don't care if Kagan is a Justice who is gay, but I don't want a 'gay' Justice any more than I want a 'black justice' or a 'female justice' or a 'Jewish justice' or any of the other fill-in-the-blank justices. I don't want Justices deciding cases based on whether a particular outcome would be good for their fellow blacks or fellow women or fellow Jews or people who share their sexual orientation. To use Roberts' 'Justice as umpire' metaphor, I don't want my umpires making calls based on whether they like the person at bat, or whether they've had words with the catcher. I want my umpires to put aside their personal feelings towards the parties involved and the issues and rule based on what the rule book says. I'd oppose her nomination anyway, and mostly because I figure anyone who Obama would nominate would rule to validate his agenda... but I'd feel better if Kagan could offer up a legitimate rationale for why she took the position she did... but given that she was on the losing end of an 8-0 decision, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for her to do so. I assume that not every law school dean who supported the ban on recruiters was gay... but as they all took positions that were outside the mainstream, I'm left concluding that they all did so because of their personal feelings towards the military. Some might have done so because of a general anti-military bias, others in solidarity with the gays excluded from service. Either way, they were wrong and none of them belong on the Court. Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Up to today, I was stuck on who to root for between the Phoenix Suns and the San Antonio Spurs. On the Suns, I live Steve Nash and Grant Hill, and I like Ginobli, Duncan and Popowich on the Spurs.
But that was before Robert Sarver, the owner of the Suns decided he'd cast his lot with opponents of Arizona's recently passed immigration enforcement law. Being that I'm part of the 60 plus percent of America who supports the law, if he wants to express his solidarity with those on the other side of the issue, he makes it easy for me to root for the team on the other side of the court.
What a load of s**t, George Huguely, the UVA lacrosse player accused of murdering Yeardley Love, reportedly said that he "kicked in her bedroom door, shook her, and her head repeatedly hit the wall" (italics mine).
Heads just don't happen to hit the wall... not once and certainly not repeatedly. Heads hit walls when someone hits said head against the wall... or when someone throws another person against the wall in such a way that their head hits the wall. He hit her head against the wall... repeatedly. It wasn't enough for him to hit/shake/smack her head against against the wall just once, he did so multiple times. And what a load of s**t coming from the guy's attorney, who said (her) "death was not intended, but an accident with a tragic outcome". This was no accident. An accident is when the underlying incident takes place without someone wishing for it to take place. This wasn't a case of the guy wildly gesturing and accidentally hitting the girl. The guy intended to hurt her and in a way that reasonably could be anticipated to cause her death... that may not be the legal definition of premeditated murder but it fits my definition.
According to the AP, the Times Square bomber's motive is a 'mystery'...
Huh? Maybe it is a mystery in the sense that nobody really can know what goes on in a person's brain.... but aside from that, which I don't think the AP is referring to, there's no mystery. The guy wanted to kill Americans. Because he doesn't like us. Because he thinks we're responsible for whatever it is that pisses him off. Because the thought killing a bunch of Americans would further his cause. The only mystery is how the AP can be so clueless. Monday, May 03, 2010
Today's winners in the 'Business Journalists Who Don't Understand Business' are Carrick Mollenkamp and Serena Ng of the Wall Street Journal who write "In one case, a $38 million subprime-mortgage bond created in June 2006 ended up in more than 30 debt pools and ultimately caused roughly $280 million in losses to investors..."
Well... I'm not privy to the details of this particular bond... and I don't work or cover Wall Street... but I do know that line is very misleading, as while it is true that some investors may have lost $280 million, other investors would have made almost as much in profits. (not exactly as sexy a story, is it, to have to write that there were winners as well as losers?) Wall Street is a zero-sum game, what one investor makes in profit another investor loses... and when one investor loses money, there is someone else putting profits into their pocket. Yes, it is possible that one $38 million bond could have had multiples of that floating around in the form of derivative wagers. Exclude the $38 million in original mortgages and there could have been $242 million in derivative bets floating out there. But, as with Las Vegas or your neighborhood bookie, if you win that means someone else lost. You can't have two winners, you can't have two losers, you can't have a winner without a loser and you can't have a loser without a winner. That means that for every investor who took a hit of part of that $242 million in losses, there are investor who won $242 million. As for the original mortgages, those buying the mortgages lost their $38 million investment. But here too there can't be losses without winners. In this case, the winners were those people who sold their houses for prices higher than they would have been able to get if mortgages were limited to buyers with prime credit. So how and why do so many business writers fail to pick up simple pieces of reality? Do they, like their political colleagues, know better but are trying to push a particular agenda? Or do they really not know any better?
I applaud his actions, but the street vendor who alerted cops to the car-bomb SUV in Times Square is NOT a hero...
A hero must place his or her own life in danger in the course of saving someone else from harm. The latter without the former is good... and the former without the latter is stupid... but one needs to do both to justifiably be called a hero... at least the way I define hero. And the 'hero' didn't do so. He saw smoke and heard noises and he went and told a cop. Good, yes, let's thank him for his actions, but it isn't heroic.
|