I had the misfortune of seeing Jimmy Carter on CNN, interviewed by Wolf Blitzer this weekend.
Oh what an awful person!
Carter said two despicable things before I stopped watching.
The first was his claim that the "Bush Administration" deliberately misled the American People, and the World, to go to war in Iraq.
Three times Wolf pressed him to explain if Carter meant Bush actually lied, or if the CIA generated poor intelligence.
And three times, Carter wouldn't give a straight answer, but each time suggested it was a deliberate lie by someone, somewhere, in the administration, who "twisted" the intelligence.
And the second thing Carter did was to lie himself, as he plugged his new book, to declare that the Bush doctrine is wrong, by mis-stating it as, to paraphrase Carter, "that if there's a leader somewhere we don't like, we can use force before that country is a threat to America."
The key word he used was "threat."
See the lie?
He's claiming Bush's pre-emption doctrine can come out of the blue, before an actual threat is detected. Implicitly that also means Carter thinks Iraq was not even a threat.
But that's a false statement of the Bush doctrine.
By Carter's incorrect formulation, that would mean we could attack, say, Bulgaria, just in case it might become a threat someday.
That's a lie.
The actual reasoning is that for counries that we know to already be a threat, we don't have to wait for an actual attack to be successfully completed to respond to the known threat.
See the difference in pre-empting something before it's a threat, versus before it's an attack?
What does Carter's faux moral high ground gain us, other than increasing the risk of chaos and destruction?
Jimmy Carter -- Worst President EVER!!!
Quote of the Week
Ok, I know just reposting other people's words is lame, but it's easy, so here goes.
A nice soundbite found in the comments at Belmont Club concerning the week of muslim riots on the outskirts of Paris:
A nice soundbite found in the comments at Belmont Club concerning the week of muslim riots on the outskirts of Paris:
politicized Muslims are not looking for their slice of the pie. They want the whole thing and the rest of us restricted to the kitchen to cook it.Sums it up.
Islam grew rapidly because it provided a rationalization and a group cohesiveness to take material goods from others. Mohammed was a brigand by trade and the first Muslims were nothing more than gang members. Like it or not, Islam was then and has always remained a Mafia with rituals.
There is no appeasment. Only a quiet period between battles.
Jughead
So, the movie Jarhead is soon to debut.
It is based on a book by the same name, being a memoir by a Marine in the old Desert Storm of Bush the First.
I haven't seen it, but I've browsed the book in the stores and seen the trailer.
It promises to be "a war film like no other."
Judging by recent movies, what, do they mean it will be entertaining and patriotic?
Hardly!
The movie trailer shows the title character alternately freaking out by throwing his helmet around, or standing in frozen befuddled shock as explosions burst all around -- his mental detachment due to wartime stress the only sane response to a world gone mad.
The theme of alienation and futility is underscored by the movie's tagline,
Because, we'll recall, "The Suck" of the ground campaign in Desert Storm lasted all of 100 hours.
If you can't stand The Suck for 100 hours, what business do you have being a Marine?
Butch up, pansy!
MINOR SPOILER AHEAD
I infer from comments about the movie at imdb that the action scenes are few and far between, and that the movie is an exercise in ennui. Maybe this movie timidly won't judge war as right or wrong, exactly, but it surely is presented as pointless.
Apparently.
And it is stated in the comments by advanced screeners that when the action occurs, it happens in a way "different than expected."
As I said, I haven't seen it, but I can hazard a guess that this means the only fighting this unit encounters in the movie would be a friendly-fire accident.
Mark my words.
It is based on a book by the same name, being a memoir by a Marine in the old Desert Storm of Bush the First.
I haven't seen it, but I've browsed the book in the stores and seen the trailer.
It promises to be "a war film like no other."
Judging by recent movies, what, do they mean it will be entertaining and patriotic?
Hardly!
The movie trailer shows the title character alternately freaking out by throwing his helmet around, or standing in frozen befuddled shock as explosions burst all around -- his mental detachment due to wartime stress the only sane response to a world gone mad.
The theme of alienation and futility is underscored by the movie's tagline,
Welcome to The Suck!I can only laugh given the seriousness with which the film approaches this issue.
Because, we'll recall, "The Suck" of the ground campaign in Desert Storm lasted all of 100 hours.
If you can't stand The Suck for 100 hours, what business do you have being a Marine?
Butch up, pansy!
MINOR SPOILER AHEAD
I infer from comments about the movie at imdb that the action scenes are few and far between, and that the movie is an exercise in ennui. Maybe this movie timidly won't judge war as right or wrong, exactly, but it surely is presented as pointless.
Apparently.
And it is stated in the comments by advanced screeners that when the action occurs, it happens in a way "different than expected."
As I said, I haven't seen it, but I can hazard a guess that this means the only fighting this unit encounters in the movie would be a friendly-fire accident.
Mark my words.
The Economy, Stupid
The economy is FANTASTIC.
Doesn't feel that way, does it?
As Dr. Sanity points out, the little voices of the defeatist media who want all good things to happen only under democrats have been whispering doom and gloom.
And yet the objective fact is, the initial reading for third quarter GDP was +3.8%, when only +3.6% was expected, and either one is a really good number.
That also means we've expanded at over 3% for 10 quarters in a row -- a new record!
In fact, BizzyBlog points out:
Unemployment is low, as is inflation.
S&P500 operating earnings have also expanded by double digits, quarter over quarter, for the last 14 quarters!
And in fact, trailing 4-quarter earnings are at RECORD HIGHS.
That's right, the broad market is making record earnings, well above those of the "go go" years of the late 90s.
Yet the market index itself is far below its highs.
Curious.
That's the effect of media-induced malaise, as interest rates are still low.
The market peaked around 1500 in 1Q2000, when earnings had reached a then-record $54 per share. That was too high.
At a Price to Earnings ratio of 20, it should have been around 1100.
Now they have rocketed to $74 per share, but the index is at 1200. That's too low.
At a Price to Earnings ratio of 20, the S&P500 should be about 1500, getting back to its old highs!
So the S&P could go up by 25% tomorrow to new highs, and it would be fairly valued.
Note: I don't want to hear about "long term average PE ratios" being 16 or something like that -- that's irrelevant, as interest rates have fluctuated and the "fair value" PE depends on the interest rate. On an interest-rate adjusted basis, the average historical PE ratio is more like 20.
Doesn't feel that way, does it?
As Dr. Sanity points out, the little voices of the defeatist media who want all good things to happen only under democrats have been whispering doom and gloom.
And yet the objective fact is, the initial reading for third quarter GDP was +3.8%, when only +3.6% was expected, and either one is a really good number.
That also means we've expanded at over 3% for 10 quarters in a row -- a new record!
In fact, BizzyBlog points out:
So when was the last time the economy expanded faster than 3% for 10 straight quarters?The cause, of course, is the Bush tax cuts, along with technologically-driven productivity gains.
It didn’t happen during the 1990s (the longest streak was eight).
It last happened during the 13 quarters from 1Q 1983 through 1Q 1986. Not coincidentally, a president [Reagan] who believed in lowering taxes to stimulate economic growth was in charge the last time it happened.
So despite being at war, despite devastating storms, and despite legislative and regulatory drags on the economy like Sarbanes-Oxley, this has been most consistently growing economy in almost 20 years.
Not only that, the US economy has NEVER had a streak of more than 7 quarters of 3.0% or greater annualized growth at any other time in the 58 years that quarterly GDP statistics have been kept!
Unemployment is low, as is inflation.
S&P500 operating earnings have also expanded by double digits, quarter over quarter, for the last 14 quarters!
And in fact, trailing 4-quarter earnings are at RECORD HIGHS.
That's right, the broad market is making record earnings, well above those of the "go go" years of the late 90s.
Yet the market index itself is far below its highs.
Curious.
That's the effect of media-induced malaise, as interest rates are still low.
The market peaked around 1500 in 1Q2000, when earnings had reached a then-record $54 per share. That was too high.
At a Price to Earnings ratio of 20, it should have been around 1100.
Now they have rocketed to $74 per share, but the index is at 1200. That's too low.
At a Price to Earnings ratio of 20, the S&P500 should be about 1500, getting back to its old highs!
So the S&P could go up by 25% tomorrow to new highs, and it would be fairly valued.
Note: I don't want to hear about "long term average PE ratios" being 16 or something like that -- that's irrelevant, as interest rates have fluctuated and the "fair value" PE depends on the interest rate. On an interest-rate adjusted basis, the average historical PE ratio is more like 20.
Yet More Dating Horror
As I've written about before, I am a (not very successful) user of online dating sites, particularly one that caters to graduates of Ivy-like institutions.
The palpable fear and loathing of religion that many of these well-educated women express is just phenomenal. (My background is moderate Roman Catholic, and though neither an atheist nor even an agnostic, I do not attend church.)
They seem to think Christians are going to burn them at the stake or something.
If only we could get them to see the far more realistic threat they face from islam.
If only...
The hostility expressed is just incredible and widespread.
The new trendiness these days seems to be Buddhism.
I never used to see much of that, but now there are all these anglo-type women professing to be Buddhists, which always makes me howl with laughter.
(UPDATE: no one has complained, but I want to explain why I think that's funny. I'm not complaining about Buddhism per se, but I simply find it amusing that these women feel they can call themselves Buddhists with a straight face when culturally they are surely nothing at all like real Buddhists. Did they formally convert? How does one do that? What do they even mean by the term? You see how silly the designation is?)
I guess they got tired of the old "spiritual but not religious" category.
I just noticed one listing that specified,
I've lost all patience with them and their demands for non-conservative men. One prospect, in her section on political views, stated:
So maybe it was beneath me, but I decided to needle her by sending a bubbly e-mail but slipping in there the statement:
That actually got her to reply! She responded with:
Leftist policies based on science? Uh, Marxism, hello!
And notice the voting-record litmus test! Rather odd thing to ask about, one would think, at such an early get-to-know-yout stage. But not in this polarized day and age.
I responded (for my profile lists me as an Independent, which is true):
Her Inquisition continued, as she replied:
Can't you just feel her horror at the prospect of speaking to a Bush voter?
So, I told her that yes, I did vote for him, at least in 04 (but not in 00).
And since she asked why, I also explained it to her in the following way, as she had sweetly set herself up, by referring her ultimately to Wretchard's Three Conjectures:
But it sure felt good!
I haven't heard from her since.
What a surprise.
The palpable fear and loathing of religion that many of these well-educated women express is just phenomenal. (My background is moderate Roman Catholic, and though neither an atheist nor even an agnostic, I do not attend church.)
They seem to think Christians are going to burn them at the stake or something.
If only we could get them to see the far more realistic threat they face from islam.
If only...
The hostility expressed is just incredible and widespread.
The new trendiness these days seems to be Buddhism.
I never used to see much of that, but now there are all these anglo-type women professing to be Buddhists, which always makes me howl with laughter.
(UPDATE: no one has complained, but I want to explain why I think that's funny. I'm not complaining about Buddhism per se, but I simply find it amusing that these women feel they can call themselves Buddhists with a straight face when culturally they are surely nothing at all like real Buddhists. Did they formally convert? How does one do that? What do they even mean by the term? You see how silly the designation is?)
I guess they got tired of the old "spiritual but not religious" category.
I just noticed one listing that specified,
seeking atheist (unless Buddhist).Isn't that funny? And another one is seeking
a compassionate man who does not believe in God, or who maintains a cordial but distant relationship with Him/him/it.Isn't that just a scream? Their neuroses are so transparent.
I've lost all patience with them and their demands for non-conservative men. One prospect, in her section on political views, stated:
I am pretty far to the left--not super crunchy but solidly pro-choice. I believe legislation and public policy should be based on sound evidence.I thought that was just too delicious to pass up.
So maybe it was beneath me, but I decided to needle her by sending a bubbly e-mail but slipping in there the statement:
I also find it interesting that you desire, you know, "evidence" for public policy! One usually associates pure emotion and the self-contradictory absurdities of political correctness to be the basis of policy for the left...What a refreshing exception you are! :-)I mean, her profile also said she liked to "argue about politics", so I figured I'd oblige her.
That actually got her to reply! She responded with:
I am trying to decide whether to take offense about your characterization of the left :) In fact I think a very strong argument can be made that policies on the left are much more likely to be based on science (and that is certainly true with this administration that seems unable to even entertain the idea of basing social policy like sex education on years of research and experience). I take it you may have voted for George Bush?Oh, that's rich!
Leftist policies based on science? Uh, Marxism, hello!
And notice the voting-record litmus test! Rather odd thing to ask about, one would think, at such an early get-to-know-yout stage. But not in this polarized day and age.
I responded (for my profile lists me as an Independent, which is true):
Gosh, it used to be you'd expect prospective daters to maybe run down your sexual history, maybe do a credit check...now it's come to checking voting history! :)Well she wouldn't let me side-step the question.
If I did, would that be a deal-breaker? I'm actually seeing lots of profiles (not saying you're doing this) these days that begin, "If you voted for W, read no further; other than that, I'm rather open-minded." Or, "Seeking a nice, intelligent, non-Republican man." The irony of the intolerance is quite amusing. It rolls so easily off the tongue: "Other than you being an evil baby-eating troglodyte, of course, I'm very open-minded!"
Her Inquisition continued, as she replied:
Re George Bush and would it be a deal breaker, well my sister voted for him and I have not disowned her, but I would have to say it raises serious issues for me. I do research on women's reproductive health in the US and internationally and as you can imagine, much of what George Bush stands for offends me and makes my work a hell of a lot harder. So, out with it--did you vote for him? If yes I would certainly be curious why."Out with it"?
Can't you just feel her horror at the prospect of speaking to a Bush voter?
So, I told her that yes, I did vote for him, at least in 04 (but not in 00).
And since she asked why, I also explained it to her in the following way, as she had sweetly set herself up, by referring her ultimately to Wretchard's Three Conjectures:
Even if W packs the Supreme Court with Constitutional Constructionists -- which I actually hope he will, which is one reason I voted for him -- and even if they overturn Roe v. Wade, that won't have as much impact as some imagine: it won't oulaw abortion, it will just make it a matter for the States to decide, which perhaps is where they ought to. I can hardly believe that more than a handful of States would enact restrictions worse than the situation today.That wasn't nice of me, I know.
The "right" way to protect women's reproduction rights is to have a national debate and get an Amendment passed, then this whole unstable situation about worrying about the opinions of 5 judicial overlords will go away. That's no way to live! Imagine if women achieved voting rights by judicial fiat, they'd always worry those rights could be taken away. Instead, they got an Amendment passed, and the issue was DONE for good!
The danger of the Christian Right I believe is vastly overstated. No matter how sympathetic to them any official may be, they can never, ever get past the First Amendment. Never.
More important to me, in 04 (unlike 00), was the grave threat to civilization of nuclear-armed Islamic radicals, whose modern jihad against us began at least in 1979, but goes back in some sense to 1683 or earlier. The consequences are so terrible, that I had to choose the course of action that would lead down a decision tree with the smallest chance of jihadists achieving their atomic aspirations. See for example the "3 conjectures" described in this famous blogosphere essay, from which I will quote:
-----------------------------
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html
Conjecture 1: Terrorism has lowered the nuclear threshold
These obstacles to terrorist capability are the sole reason that the War on Terror has not yet crossed the nuclear theshold, the point at which enemies fight each other with weapons of mass destruction. The terrorist intent to destroy the United States, at whatever cost to themselves, has been a given since September 11. Only their capability is in doubt. This is an inversion of the Cold War situation when the capability of the Soviet Union to destroy America was given but their intent to do so, in the face of certain retaliation, was doubtful.
...
Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam
Because capability is the sole variable of interest in the war against terrorism, the greater the Islamic strike capability becomes, the stronger the response will be.
...
Due to the fixity of intent, attacks would continue for as long as capability remained. Under these circumstances, any American government would eventually be compelled by public desperation to finish the exchange: total retaliatory extermination.
...
Conjecture 3: The War on Terror is the 'Golden Hour' -- the final chance
It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day in which all the decisions will have already been made for us.
...
------------------------
W is not my ideal war president by any means, but Kerry was far, far worse. His Willy Loman approach to international relations -- the desire to be well-liked -- would be disastrous as Iran races ahead to build its nuclear bombs. Libya would not have given up its secret nuclear program either had not Hussein been dragged out of a hole: Italian PM Berlusconi reported that right after that, Qadaffi called him and said he saw what happened, and was afraid, and wanted to come clean. This also unraveled the A.Q. Khan nuclear black market out of Pakistan. Iraq will also be a much greater success than the picture painted by the evening news.
Even if our "allies" were cooing nicer sounds in our ears due to a Kerry presidency, they would be no more effective in combatting jihad or deterring Iran as they are today.
Instead, we'd declare victory, come home, and everything would appear rosy until the mushroom cloud appeared.
This can still happen under W, but at least we have more of a chance, in my well-informed opinion...and based on the tangible progress made thusfar, with millions liberated.
This being such a divisive topic, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you ran screaming from such a warmonger as myself; but it is motivated by a desire to save the Islamic world from the total extermination we'd have to subject it to if it became clear they could attack us with atomic bombs in a sustained fashion -- or, we'd just have to surrender to Sharia law unconditionally, and women's rights would suffer far more than you'd even want to imagine.
In fact, as a women's rights advocate yourself, I'd think you'd be supporting W's program of bringing secular democracy to the barbaric world of honor-killing and genital mutilation in the traditional Arab world.
I might even turn the tables, and say a vote for a relativist like Kerry raises serious issues with me! :-) But I wouldn't attribute such a vote to malice, as many seem to imagine a vote for W entails.
But it sure felt good!
I haven't heard from her since.
What a surprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
