Rethinking the Middle East and Iran - Part I

I don't think I can summarize my changing thoughts on the Middle East in one post, so I will have to roll this out over time. A number of things got me started on this. First, I am taking a leadership class and we had a lesson on systems thinking, including how the structures of the human mind are part of the systems in which we live and operate. They used the Cold War example of each side building an ever greater arsenal of nuclear weapons to ensure that the other side did not gain an advantage. The escalation was portrayed as an endless series of reactions to each sides advances. The example was fine, but didn't really explain how the process was broken and de-escalation and arms reduction ever came about. I want to say that I never believed the Soviets to be irrational, I did not believe that they would ever launch a first strike, as long as there was something like parity. However, it was clear to me that they would have taken bolder actions that would have risked war had they believed they were in an advantageous position to do so. So what stopped the process? In my view, it was Reagan's announcement that the U.S. would embark on a Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) coupled with the Soviets own assessment that they could not keep up because their economy was coming apart. As a result, they took some bold moves to reduce their risks. The same cycle of escalation could in turn become a cycle of de-escalation, as one side reduces, the other side matches, and there is verification of that outcome. However, neither side reduced their armaments to zero, because, as the US/USSR stockpiles dropped, the significance of the stockpiles of third parties, such as the Chinese becomes a factor in an equation that could previously be simplified to two variables.

So turning our attention to Iran's potential possession of nuclear weapons, there are those who say that since containment worked with the Soviets, we should do the same with Iran. I had thought that perhaps that was correct, because I see no reasonable way out of the current predicament. But containment worked in a bipolar world. In the U.S., we think that Iran is primarily threatening the west and Israel. But I am not so sure that is entirely correct. I do not blame the Israelis for feeling threatened, because a nuclear attack on Israel might advance the Persian agenda, but I don't believe that is ultimately the Iranian goal.

Historically, the Persians have though little of the Arabs or their predecessor civilizations such as the Babylonians or Assyrians. They see themselves as superior and the rightful leaders of the Middle East by history and geography. With their ancient enemies in Mesopotamia temporarily incapacitated, I believe they sense an historic opportunity. However, the United States presents a problem. The U.S. has a very strong, long term vested interest in the stability of the nation state and the sanctity of borders. It is our means to ensure peace and stability. The full and clear wisdom of this position was brought to our shores on 9/11, an attack launched from a failed state that could not really control its own territory.

As a result, the U.S. will not tolerate Iranian expansionism. Obtaining nuclear weapons, is Iran's way of raising the stakes for U.S. involvement, but also is a way for them to achieve their objectives without firing a shot, because their Arab neighbors to the south, including the Saudis know that they will not be able to militarily withstand the Iranian might. However, Iran also knows that they cannot successfully invade these nations and hope to achieve their ends. So what is their long term strategy?

To understand that, one must understand that state-on-state agression in the region is carried on by quasi-political groups that operate within particular countries but are funded by state actors. Al Qaeda is no exception. We know that al-Qaeda has been infiltrated by the state security services of a number of middle eastern nations. This is not to say that it is under their control, but they have some influence and have provided training, money and arms. But al Qaeda is only one such group. From Michael J. Totten's interview of Lee Smith (author of The Strong Horse):

For instance, Syria’s relationship with Jordan’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Action Front, and Jordan’s friendliness toward the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, means that these two states effectively deter each other—if you use Islamists against me, I will unleash Islamists on you. Al Qaeda, as a transnational outfit, seems to be a group that has been supported, manipulated and penetrated by a whole number of Middle Eastern security services, including but not exclusive of the Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians, Libya, Pakistan, and Iraq before Saddam’s downfall. This is not to say that any of these regimes have Al Qaeda or any of these terror organizations under their thumb; when you have a group of people with weapons, money and a deadly ideology it is difficult to manage them very closely.

Back to Iran. Given Iran's funding of Hezbollah and similar entities, one could envision a combination of threats the Iranians could use to destabilize the regimes of the region with the long term goal of establishing regimes with loyalties to Iran. This could even take the form of threatening to provide nuclear arms to the non-state actors operating in the Gulf states. The leaders of those states would not feel safe against nuclear armed terrorists. Politically, Iran has paralyzed criticism of their actions by couching the need for their nuclear program in anti-zionist rhetoric. This allows them to shame the other Arab states who are not fully engaged against Israel. Western criticism of Iran only plays into its hands among those who see Arab nationalism through the lens of the past glories of the Muslim Caliphate.

I digress for a moment. I recently criticized the Iranians for murdering a nuclear physicist who was himself critical of the regime. Now, I am not as sure. Considering the manner in which covert activity funded by other nations is a way of life in the region, and the extent to which Iran is a threat to its Arab neighbors, this attack might have been a clever move by the Pakistanis, for example. It simultaneously had a negative impact on the Iranian nuke program, or so it would seem, and discredits the Iranian regime as thuggish. Because right now, regime change in Iran, seems to be the only option, and that is a long shot indeed.

My parting shot on Part I. I was thinking what would be the most diabolical, insanely mad ploy that the Iranians could attempt to further their aims in the Middle East in one quick blow. I believe that if and when they obtain nukes, they will covertly use nuclear weapons to destroy the Dome of the Rock in a manner to implicate the Israelis. Such a move would simultaneously weaken the Israeli government, one of the few counterweights to Iran in the region, as well as bring uncontrollable riots into the major Arab cities in the middle east, leaving the ripe for the plucking by Iranian affiliated groups.

Best SOTU Summary

I know it may be a little late, but I wanted to alert readers to Peggy Noonan's article about Obama's State of the Union address. As usual, she masterfully parses the meaning behind the words, accounting for tone, order of priority and context. She also discusses the larger political issues for the Republican Party and quotes an unnamed source who is spot on in my opinion:

The great issue, this friendly critic added, is debt. The public knows this; Congress and the White House do not. "To me the Republicans are as rotten as the Democrats" in terms of spending. "Almost."

"I hope we have big changes in 2010," the friend said. Only significant loss will force the president to focus on spending. "To heal our country we need to get the arrogance out of the White House and the elitists out of the Congress. We need tough love. We need a real adult in the White House because we don't have adults in the Congress."

Exactly. The public is ready for principled leadership that will give direction and reduce the spending that has nothing to do with those priorities. This is why the Tea Party movement won't go away. Republicans could show great leadership by eschewing earmarks immediately, and oppose all Democrat earmarks. But that would require adult leadership.

Weekend Music Chill

I always liked The Police and Sting, even if he is a little strange at times. I think this is one of his best efforts. There are other reasons to like this video as well.

Desert Rose - Sting and Cheb Miami | Music Videos | SPIKE.com

Quick Hitters

Dean reminds us of this administration's war on democratic institutions in Honduras. After peaceful elections, and a smooth transfer of power, our State Department wishes to continue to cover it's face with eggs as it acts petulantly towards Hondurans.

The blowback from Obama's Supreme Court remarks was all over the blogosphere and even the MSM. (BTW, Legal Insurrection is the other fabulous legal blog you're probably not reading.)

The stupidity of trying KSM in New York appears to have finally reached Obama, as Congress seems set to deny security funding for the trial, he is looking at other venues. Seems not too bright to invite another terror attack in New York symbolically so close to the former site of the WTC.

Despite the "fighting" words in the SOTU, I think the odds of any kind of health care porkulus are sinking. Last trade for a public option by the end of June 2010 was down to 10% as of this writing. Good to see Republican Paul Ryan introduce an alternative, details here, summary here. I have quibbles with some of the proposals, but it is so much more market oriented than anything conjured up by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate as to be a breathe of fresh air. Ed Morrisey is spot on at the end of his article:

Republicans cannot afford to cede this ground to Democrats again, now or in the future. By ignoring it for so long, they almost allowed a Trojan horse for a single-payer system to succeed. Political parties have to offer real solutions in order to remain relevant, a lesson Ryan has learned — and hopefully can teach the rest of the GOP.

Constitutional What? - Update

I admit to not having listened to much of Obama's SOTU speech this evening. I can't stand his tone, his air of moral superiority, when he is at the core of the "Washington" culture he uses as an epithet.

But as a committed Federalist I was most appalled by this little gem.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

That was zero deference whatsoever to separation of powers; the Court just ruled that prior legislation trampled on freedom of speech and your response is to pass more legislation likely to also get smacked down. It was ever more egregious because he taught courses in constitutional law and his supporters moaned and complained incessantly about Bush's lack of respect for the constitution during the prior administration.

UPDATE

Obama also appears to have been inaccurate with his assertion about foreign influences. From the NYT Caucus blog:

But in his majority opinion in the case, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically wrote that the opinion did not address the question of foreign companies. “We need not reach the question of whether the government has a compelling interesting in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process,” he wrote.

H/T to The Volokh Conspiracy, probably the best legal blog you're not reading.

Google Faster on Strategic Response to China than U.S.

On my other blog, I posted an article about Operation Aurora, the Chinese hacking effort aimed at Google and other IT service providers. Interestingly, my take on the situation was confirmed in a thoughtful article in the New York Times. If you care about the future of U.S. war fighting in cyberspace, then this is a must read article. A few quotes:

These recent events demonstrate how quickly the nation’s escalating cyberbattles have outpaced the rush to find a deterrent, something equivalent to the cold-war-era strategy of threatening nuclear retaliation.

So far, despite millions of dollars spent on studies, that quest has failed.

....

Participants in the war game emerged with a worrisome realization. Because the Internet has blurred the line between military and civilian targets, an adversary can cripple a country — say, freeze its credit markets — without ever taking aim at a government installation or a military network, meaning that the Defense Department’s advanced capabilities may not be brought to bear short of a presidential order.

.....

That is what makes the Google-China standoff so fascinating. Google broke the silence that usually surrounds cyberattacks; most American banks or companies do not want to admit their computer systems were pierced. Google has said it will stop censoring searches conducted by Chinese, even if that means being thrown out of China. The threat alone is an attempt at deterrence: Google’s executives are essentially betting that Beijing will back down, lift censorship of searches and crack down on the torrent of cyberattacks that pour out of China every day. If not, millions of young Chinese will be deprived of the Google search engine, and be left to the ones controlled by the Chinese government.

An Obama administration official who has been dealing with the Chinese mused recently, “You could argue that Google came up with a potential deterrent for the Chinese before we did.”

This requires deep thought about the asymmetry of the situation in cyber-warfare, where the identity of the enemy may not be initially known. It shows that excellent defense, while necessary is insufficient, I don't think anyone has a greater vested interest in good defense than Google, but they were still hacked. This is a very tough problem, and I wish I had more insight.

Oregon Builds a Bridge to (become) California

Oregonians may think that they have solved their budget woes by passing new taxes on the "wealthy" and "corporations," but it is unlikely to help as much as they thought. Voters approved the measures by a fairly wide 54%-46% margin, which frankly surprised me. I thought they would be more thoughtful. Apparently no reads the news from other states. Here is an excerpt from a story in the Baltimore Sun about the Maryland "Millionaire's Tax":

A year ago, Maryland became one of the first states in the nation to create a higher tax bracket for millionaires as part of a broader package of maneuvers intended to help balance the state's finances and make the tax code more progressive.

But as the state comptroller's office sifts through this year's returns, it is finding that the number of Marylanders with more than $1 million in taxable income who filed by the end of April has fallen by one-third, to about 2,000. Taxes collected from those returns as of last month have declined by roughly $100 million.

Ultimately, Maryland gained almost nothing from the tax. Oregon's taxes hit at lower income thresholds, individuals that have less ability to move than in Maryland's case. From the NYT:

The state's top income tax of 9 percent rises to 10.8 percent on taxable income above $125,000 for single filers, $250,000 for joint filers, and to 11 percent for those with twice those amounts in taxable income.

Those marginal rates are comparable to California's even though in the reader comments one lefty tried to claim that Oregon's tax burden is among the lowest in the country. Tax burden isn't the whole story, even if true; the highest marginal tax rate is very important, as I have discussed previously. I also re-link to the relevant Cato study showing the connection between high state marginal tax rates and poor economic performance.

Maybe Washington (no income tax) and Idaho (7.8% top rate) can start luring away Oregon residents.

Obama Blames Bush - And I Agree

In his election post-mortem following the Democrat debacle in Massachusetts, President Obama had this to say:

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News's George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years but what's happened over the last eight years."

At first I wanted to laugh at Obama as being fully delusional, which Pops believes. But the always thought-provoking W.C. Varones had this to say in a different context that got me thinking, maybe Obama is right, but not in the sense he believes. (W.C. is commenting on Senator Boxer's reversal of support for Bernanke.)

See Babs, the thing is that the population voted in change over a year ago. What the Democrats did was not change but continue the policies of the previous administration times 3. In the process the economy has gotten worse, the middle class is still earning less, unemployment keeps rising and yet, yet the folks who cheated the worst on Wall Street also happen to be paying out massive bonuses financed by the taxpayer.

Exactly. Obama is in fact delusional in that he thinks he is a break from the "failed Bush policies," but in fact he has continued almost everything that the public has come to loathe about the Bush presidency. Not the least of which is the incessant growth of both the size of government spending and the size of the national debt. Dean has commented extensively on the continuity from Bush to Obama (and that is an indictment of Bush, not an exoneration of Obama.) So yes, Mr. President, why don't you try reversing course, ending cozy relationships with various industries, pharma and banking, for example and start reducing the size of government. You might even have a chance for a second term if you did that. Of course you might not win the Democrat nomination either, but that's your problem.

Weekend Music Chill

This week has provided the tonic to restore my faith in the democratic process. We had a great Republican candidate in Massachusetts who didn't have wedge issues, he had issues period, chief among them providing the vote needed to kill Obamacare. So to honor Scott Brown, here is this weekend's music. Live from Boston, The Cars, performing Just What I Needed:

Historic Day in the Fight for Freedom

Chapter 1.
For eight years I have been complaining about the unconstitutional nature of McCain-Feingold, to the extent that I was almost unable to support McCain for President. Today, the Supreme Court agrees with me, if only 5-4, but still a majority. The fatuousness of the minority opinion's argument that the federal election law banning corporations from advocating for or against a candidate within 30 days of the election is self evident. From Justice Stevens dissent:

It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 daysbefore the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1.

So we have freedom of speech at the times allowed by government regulation? I'll let you decide. Meanwhile, The One's response?

We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

So much for respect for the constitution, a cornerstone tirade of the left during the Bush presidency. True colors showing now.

Chapter 2.

Nancy Pelosi said today that she lacked the votes in the House to pass the execrable, pork-laden, discriminatory, deficit-expanding, freedom-killing, innovation-suffocating Senate health care financing "reform" bill. Drudge headlined it with the misleading title, The Day Health Care Died. Health Care did not die, but merely the execrable, ...you get the idea. I hope that the momentum is shattered.

Chapter 3.

Icing on the cake. Air America has declared bankruptcy.



Post Script.

To quote Legal Insurrection, "Could this week possibly get any better?"

Banking and Capitalism, as in Crony and Capitalism

Obama is again attacking bankers as a politically expedient scape goat as anger over bank bonuses spreads by proposing a bank tax. Interestingly, in 2009, Obama was worried about bank losses, now he complains about bank profits. However, I have noticed a trend among some libertarian leaning bloggers to be a bit non-chalant about this issue because they just see it as the free market at work. I beg to differ and emphatically. Although Obama's bank tax is a horrid idea, because it plays investors for suckers, (or Chicagoans), Republicans better come up with a plan to deal with the moral hazard, see Dean' video post.

Why is there outrage over bank bonuses in the first place? Because the taxpayers are being played for suckers. The banks made risky loans and fobbed off the risk to taxpayers, were bailed out with taxpayer dollars and now those same executives are rewarded with big bucks. Left, right or libertarian, who can't be outraged. But Obama tipped his hand in the waning days of the Massachusett Senate election that he is going to use Republican opposition as evidence of Republicans continuing to favor Wall Street over Main Street, and to be fair, he has a point. John Stossel has an excellent review of crony capitalism in general, but I want to focus on what to do about the banks.

It is too simple to just say that government shouldn't bail out the banks. It is widely understood that a series of bank failures has serious implications for the economy as a whole and no one is really going to risk finding out what would happen if a half dozen of the country's largest banks went bust. The bankers themselves are aware of this. Further, the bigger a bank gets, the more likely it will be seen as "too big to fail." This drives down its cost of obtaining funds, as investors realize there is little downside to investing in the biggest banks. This allows the big banks to get bigger, exacerbating the problem.

What to do? All banks are required to keep capital reserves to preserve system stability. These reserves, are of necessity, much less than the total amount of loans outstanding; if the reserve requirement were 100%, how could they make loans? Reserve requirements are more typically below 20%, (this is not my area of specialty, so see the wiki article for more.) In my view, a simple way to reduce the moral hazard and simultaneously remove the funding advantage of the big banks is to increase the reserve requirements as a banks size increases. While this sounds simple it would certainly be tricky in practice. How would one measure size for example, on an absolute or relative scale? However, I believe that such a system is achievable and would have the salutary effect of making the larger banks more safe, not less, as they increased in size. It would also increase the cost of capital as banks exceeded threshold size, thereby limiting the positive feedback effect that allows the largest banks to have the lowest cost of funds and continue to grow unchecked. Republicans need to get in front of this issue, because I think that Obama will be able to get traction against them if they don't.

Quote of the Week - UPDATED

Scott Brown, during his victory speech tonight after his historic win in Massachusetts had this to say. (I am quoting from memory, will update when I get the transcript.)

We believe in a set of principles, that, when properly articulated, can result in a political majority in this country.

UPDATE: Here is the actual quote from his speech, I am not taking down the original, because I like it and it is a bit interesting to see how memory works for words.

Across this country, we are united by basic convictions that need only to be clearly stated to win a majority.

End Update

Indeed. His positions on the issues here, but here is a short summary in case the link gets overloaded:
Oppose Obamacare, lower taxes, oppose cap & trade while supporting energy R&D, support charter schools, oppose amnesty, support the second amendment, oppose partial birth abortion, support Israel's security, and sanctions against Iran.

His position on gay marriage? Let the states decide in elections or through their legislatures, not the courts. Notice there was nothing about flag burning, prayer in school, or other distractions.

I don't see him as being very far from the Freedom Coalition Agenda. Let's see if the Republicans start listening.

Congratulations to Scott Brown...

...for a great campaign and a solid win that won't be challenged in court (by about 100,000 votes). Also, want to congratulate Legal Insurrection had a great Live Blogging application going that kept me up to date. I also indulged a little schadenfreude and watched Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews on MSNBC for a while. Olbie and Maddow maintained straight faces but Tingles and some of the reporters looked like they were about to cry. Matthews did say something that I think was correct. He said that people support big government when it works, when it builds highways that work and universities that are good. He implied but did not state that people would support big government run health care if it worked. But we know that will never happen. Further, the things he discusses happened in an era of much smaller government. Today, government is so large, it can't even do it's traditional job well, which seems to be lost on Matthews as he pines for the glory days of the Tipster.

Yesterday, was it that long ago?, Dean pointed out that Brown campaigned against Obamacare, Cap and Trade and for fiscal responsibility and that should cover any minor sins of lack of enthusiasm for a social agenda he might have. I think we can all get behind that agenda, right now, most other issues are secondary.

Mrs. Daddy, like a lot of ordinary people, has been very discouraged about politics for the last year. I had been saying that eventually the people would awaken to the crap that the Democrats have been peddling. Thank you Massachusetts voters for giving me a little vindication.

The Dailykossacks are in disbelief. I found it telling that multiple times they commented that they couldn't believe that a "teabagger" could be elected in Massachusetts, no matter how bad the Democrat candidate. This shows a little bit of the bubble world they are living in, because the tea party types are really their every day neighbors that are fed up with big government.

Also, I would like to point out something little noted or commented upon. In the pre-election polling showed Brown winning over 22% of Democrats and holding on to 90%+ Republicans and winning over "undeclareds" at 60%+. This shows the importance of always trying to frame your issues in terms that will appeal to the other side as well as your own, even if you don't think they are listening, because you never know. Even though I am not even the best blogger in the family, I try to keep my tone and language under control so that I am always trying to persuade the other side. If you find me doing otherwise, please call me on it.

Oh well, I guess the Harvard Profs didn't have enough clout to carry Coakley over the top. Wonder what lessons Professor Obama will draw from his failure to help his candidate? Probably double down on his current stupidity if he stays true to his Chicago form.

UPDATE

Maybe this is another reason why Brown won. I liberated this video from the comments on BwD. This Obama's impassioned plea to help Martha Coakley.



Is he the most underwhelming, uninspiring partisan ever?

Obama Locks up the Vote

of Harvard professors that is, by dissing a pickup truck. In a campaign in which the Democrat has run as the pseudo-incumbent, has had a series of gaffes that have shown her to be out of touch with the electorate, and in which Obamacare is polling below 50%, you would think the President could do better than this.



He reportedly obsesses over the GMC pickup truck all over the place in this speech. It just gave Scott Brown an opening that even LT could have run through (sorry, I'm still upset about the Chargers):

Brown took that opportunity to slam the president on government spending..

“Mr. President, unfortunately in this economy, not everybody can buy a truck,” Brown said in a statement. “My goal is to change that by cutting spending, lowering taxes and letting people keep more of their own money.”

H/T BigGovernment, The Corner

Scott Brown Surges in Massachusetts - UPDATED

More interesting tidbits in a race that has become more interesting than last November's trifecta of NJ, VA governor and NY 23rd congressional. Scott Brown is now ahead of Martha, "I was bequeathed this seat by the Kennedy dynasty" Coakley. First, the last three polls at RealClearPolitics show Brown ahead. As important as the raw numbers is the clear trend line. And speaking of trend lines, look at the InTrade odds for this seat and the rapid movement over the last couple days, where Brown is, as of 2:18 a.m. GMT, Jan 19, a $60 favorite. That means, to win $100 on a Brown victory you have to plunk down $60.

DailyKos ridicules the Brown campaign for countering Obama's appearance with "the triumvirate of Curt Schilling, Doug Flutie, and John Ratzenberger (of cheers fame)." Given Obama's sinking popularity and the popularity of Flutie and Schilling as sports figures, I think Brown got the better deal.

And Obama's take on all this:

"Believe me, I know how big a lift this has been," Obama said. "I see the polls. . . . I catch the occasional blog poster, cable clip that breathlessly declares what something means for a political party, without really talking about what it means for a country.

"But I also know what happens once we get this done, once we sign this . . . bill into law: The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like and doesn't do things people have been trying to say it does. The worst fears will prove groundless."

That from an appropriately titled WSJ column
"Pyrrhus, Call Your Office." Obama could turn into a bigger gift to conservatism than Clinton as his last remark reminds me that in Massachusetts, Romneycare was initially supported by 70% of the people, but now only polls at 32%, with a full 36% calling it a failure.



UPDATE

Can't believe I'm scooping the famous sports/politics blog BeersWithDemo with this little gem from Martha Coakley:

Weekend Round Up

I feel a little more vindicated about my theory of 2007/2008 that Bill would sabotage Hillary's chances of becoming President. Ron Rosenbaum puts a spin on Bill's comments about Obama from the "Game Change" book by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin that finally gives me a smoking gun. While purportedly trying to get Ted Kennedy's endorsement for Hillary or at least prevent said endorsement from going to Obama, Clinton is quoted as saying "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." From the Pajamas Media article:

What more could he have done than to alienate the ailing senator whose family identification with the civil rights cause was one of the chief glories of its decidedly mixed record. You know what: I have a heretical theory about this remark. It’s just too obvious to be a “slip.” Wouldn’t the whole episode make more sense if Bill was deliberately out to sabotage his wife’s run in ways she’d never know? And maybe for reasons he doesn’t really know.

That the Massachusetts Senate race is even close is already damaging the Democrat party. The unions and special interests are pouring in cash and help, but a wide variety of anecdotal evidence puts the momentum on Scott Brown's side. I was a little reluctant to get on this bandwagon because Brown had voted for Romneycare in Mass. But he has pledged to block Obamacare at the national level, so what's not to like. A few fun facts from the race:
1. Coakley has run one of the most abysmal campaigns, even appearing to insult Fenway Park.
2. Coakley was involved in one of the most infamous unjust and unfair prosecutions of the 20th century, that of the Amirault family, falsely convicted of child molestation.
3. Look at the trend in the polls, and compare the time line to the revelations of backroom deals on Obamacare.
4. Coakley managed to spell Massachussetes in an attack ad on Brown.


Oregon is going to the polls to tax the rich while their unemployment rate stands at 11.1%. Apparently liberals think with all this suffering will get voters motivated to support new taxes on the wealthy. This tax is being pushed by the public employees unions in another example of their attempt to become our masters rather than our servants. (If the linked Reason article doesn't make your blood boil, you are can't call yourself conservative or libertarian.) But I think the public is smart enough to know what a job killer the new taxes are; raising the top rates from 9% to 11% and business income tax from 6.6% to 7.9%.

Weekend Music Chill

Last week Road and Mrs. Dawg celebrated a significant wedding anniversary by renewing their vows. Pops officiated and Mrs. Daddy and all the other ladies were on the verge of tears. It was beautiful, moving and a reminder of the tremendous fruit that long and deep love yield. Thanks to 'Dawg for the invite and to Pops for some words to remember. At the start of festivities, one of his pups put this classic on the boom box and I haven't gotten it out of my mind since.




Dang if that isn't so 80's.

Another Reminder of the Thuggish Nature of Iran's Rulers

In a bold move that I'm sure the too-clever-by-half mad caps that rule Iran thought would win sympathy on the home front, an Iranian nuclear physicist, Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, who also happened to be a critic of the regime. The regime of course, has claimed it is all part of the Anglo-American-Israeli triangle of evil to bring there weapons program to a halt. Here is a quote from the article quoting Ahmadenijad:

"Kidnapping and assassination are scenarios of a joint conspiracy against the nation of Iran," said Ahmadinejad, according to the hard-line Fars news agency. "On the one hand, the espionage and intelligence agents of the American government kidnap a number of Iranian nationals in third-party countries and transfer them to America, and on the other hand, their treasonous agents inside Iran assassinate an intellectual citizen."

Eloquent to the end. File photo of Massoud Ali-Mohammadi below.

Defeating Health Care

First the good news, whatever sausage of a health care bill, passes, Socialistworker.org will clearly be appalled at the outcome. After that it's all downhill, unless the bill can be defeated. Chris Dodd is claiming that the bill is "hanging by a thread." I don't know if I believe that or not, especially coming from Dodd, but here are some scenarios for your consideration:

1. House Republicans get enough pro-life Democrats to vote their way. This would require massive numbers of Dems to stand up for principle, so I'm not holding my breathe. Plus, getting 37 votes when Pelosi will be pulling out all the stops would be pretty tough. But Republicans should go for it anyway, it might work, and might open up other tactical maneuvers.

2. Take the late Teddy Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. Up until yesterday, I would have said no way, but the latest polls show this trending the right way. But it's more likely that that last poll (PPP, Brown +1) is an outlier.

3. Shame Ben Nelson into changing his vote. Or some other Democrat, Joe Lieberman perhaps? I personally don't have faith in this. Politicians are human, so they hate to admit to a mistake and most will spend millions of dollars and weeks of effort doubling down on a bad bet rather than admitting they were wrong.

4. Union pressure over the "Cadillac Tax" collides with Senate distaste for tax on wealthy. This would require the unions to actively oppose the health care bill after the final negotiations are complete. I don't see them allying with Obama's opponents, after all he's their guy, even if it is against their members best interests.

5. Something else weird that no one can predict. Like what? I don't know, but history is full of tiny events that turned out be turning points. But again this is unlikely.

So there you have it, not a single scenario is favorable to defeat health care. But I am very optimistic nonetheless.

I can't help but finish with this great quote from Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic:

In a town that runs on fiction, there is no taller tale in Washington than the claim that this bill will reduce the federal deficit.

The Truth About Global Warming

Andrew Coyne has one of the best articles explaining the difficulties of untangling the arguments about AGW that I have read. It is titled Coyne on Climategate. The Truth is out there. Somewhere. I recommend a full read. But I also offer a few comments. To my friends on the right who doubt AGW, I offer the following two incontrovertible facts. Carbon dioxide is one of the green house gases that keeps the earth livable by raising the temperature above the black body equilibrium. Levels of CO2 have been rising steadily in a measurable and statistically significant manner for at least fifty years, for a total increase on the order of 35%. It is therefore unscientific and unreasonable to presume that this results in zero impact on earth's climate. How much impact, and how catastrophic, are of course subject to debate.

To those on the left who might be reading I offer this. The science is not settled. Eminent scientists such as Freeman Dyson, who offer nuanced critiques of AGW, are not ignorant "denialists" in the pay of energy companies. The magnitude of past and present warming is very difficult to measure, the use of modeling and proxies only makes the issues more complex. To say that the added CO2 in the atmosphere will result in catastrophe is certain to stretch credulity, when much is still unknown about other sources of climate change. I offer as trump card the following. Prior to the current age, the Holocene, the earth has gone through a series of ice ages only briefly interrupted by warm period such as ours, and the general trend of each ice age has been to be colder than the prior one. And no one has a widely accepted theory as to why. If this widely known phenomenon can not be explained by the models in use by global warming advocates today, we categorically can not put full faith in predictions of disaster.

Which brings us to the political part of the equation. The debate would not be so important if the left had not seized the science to argue, ex cathedra, that we must trust the science and that the only possible solution is a new world socialist order. Even if the science was settled, and it is not, the question of how to proceed is primarily a political and not a scientific question. Better for all parties to have a debate about the best shape of policy that admits to the possibility of some error in the scientific consensus. That way the scientists could cease to be advocates and perform real science and we would debating the issue in the realm of politics and economics, where policy should be debated.