The First Amendment Coalition has filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Justice demanding that the DOJ and the Obama Administration release a memo detailing the legal justification for the use of "Lethal Targeting" against Al Qaeda cleric and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who was targeted and killed in a unilaterally authorized drone strike, along with United States citizen Samir Khan, editor of al-Qaeda's English-language magazine Inspire. The lawsuit was filed after repeated attempts to obtain a redacted copy of the memo via the Freedom of Information Act were denied.
With fear and public outcry growing over the passage of the 2012 NDAA (and the Obama Administration pinky-promising that they won't abuse the powers it grants), one has to wonder how far of a stretch it would be to see U.S. citizens indefinitely detained by the president, when it has already become an acceptable practice to have them assassinated without a trial (as long as it would be SUPER hard to go get them alive).
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Cognitive Dissonance and Conservative Politics in America
Modern liberals in America are not what they used to be in the 19th century--namely, defenders of free markets and individualism, i.e., freedom from government. Instead, this new(ish) breed believes in an "enlightened" government that is charged with providing for its citizens and with improving on society by the careful application of social engineering. While pre-Roosevelt liberals generally believed in the rule of law and saw the importance of decentralization--and of the Constitution as a means to attain such goals--modern liberals would struggle to understand how a two-centuries-old booklet of a document could try to interpose itself between citizens and such lofty goals as those made possible by government-sponsored charity. Any reasonable person will recognize the central planning efforts proposed by liberals as socialism, but to dare suggest it these days is to be viewed as bitter, name-calling ignoramuses. But I digress; the title of this post is not "Cognitive Dissonance and Liberal Politics…"
What is Conservatism?
Conservatism as a label denotes a desire to prevent change. Quite meaningless a descriptor, really. In practice it generally means a few things:
- A strong desire to impose their views of tradition on others (see drug war and opposition to same-sex marriage, to name two issues).
- A strong belief in individual rights, as long as said rights are not used to consume drugs, have gay sex or to allow an unsanctioned religion to build a YMCA equivalent anywhere near Ground Zero.
- Government should be allowed great leeway in searching for terrorists at home, since good people have nothing to hide--except when it comes to TSA pat downs, which are plainly evil.
- A strong desire to curb government spending, as long as said spending does not affect free medical care for seniors, or the military and security budgets.
And so on. The list above could very well be seen as a symptom of psychosis--at a social scale. Modern liberals are bad, but at least not as clearly psychotic in their form of pathological stupidity.
Pathologically Unconstitutional
Modern conservatism's breakdown with reality has been clear for everyone to see in the many GOP Primary debates. All candidates have a platform mostly consisting of a minimum set of planks:
- Reducing the size of the federal governement.
- Reducing taxes.
- Promoting economic growth.
- A constitutional approach to government (the fact that this is a campaign platform as opposed to getting you jail time for governing in any other way is disheartening in and of itself).
Things get incoherent when you look at the other planks of some of the GOP candidates. Take Romney on the Constitution, for example. From his website:
"Mitt Romney’s view of the Constitution is straightforward: its words have meaning. The founding generation adopted a written constitution for a reason. They intended to limit the powers of government according to enduring principles. The job of the judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government and, where the Constitution does not speak, to leave the governance of the nation to elected representatives." [Emphasis mine; correct understanding of the constitution would cause that to read "the issues to the states."]
But on immigration Romney's main proposal is the use of a so called E-Verify system, by which employers will check prospective employees' identities and immigration status. This means that legal immigrants will be given some form of centrally maintained ID card, containing, among other info, biometric data. Illegal immigrants will not have such cards and therefore be unable to find legal jobs. The quite obvious problem with this approach is that citizens will also need to have such cards, otherwise there would be nothing to distinguish illegal immigrants from citizens--this is not really brought up by Romney during debates, but, perhaps more surprisingly, by any of his opponents either. Meanwhile, the federal government's power to issue federal IDs is nowhere to be found in the powers enumerated by the Constitution. Incidentally, Gingrich is another supporter of these biometric-based federal ID cards.
The subject of constitutionalism is a rich one. Romney's, Santorum's and Gingrich's positions on Iran are to use military force if they build or are perceived to attempt to build nuclear weapons. Again, the problem is obvious: The President cannot declare wars, only Congress can do so. That simple fact seems to escape most of the candidates.
Most reproductive law rhetoric spewed by the candidates--which includes even the prohibition of certain types of contraceptives--also fall well outside of the scope of the constitution, except for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which can reasonably be argued on constitutional grounds.
And then there is the War on Drugs.
These are people that, should any of them win the election, will have to swear an oath of office that states, as per Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I believe three of the GOP nominees would be at serious risk of perjury if they were to take that oath.
Coherence Wars
Reducing the size of the federal budget is another mine field of ideological inconsistencies for most of the GOP candidates. For instance, the yearly expenditures of the U.S. Government break down as such (for 2011):
- Medicare & Medicaid: 24% or $835 B
- Social Security: 20% or $725 B
- Defense and Security Spending: 26% or $929 B*
- Debt interest: 6% or $227 B
- All other spending: 23% or $922 B
* Note that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded by separately handled appropriations bills, and do not figure in the numbers above.
 |
| World's top military spenders in 2010. Source: Wikipedia. |
Defense and security spending are the thickest slice of the budget, and by extension a natural candidate for spending cuts consideration. The United States military expenditures represent 43% of the world's combined military budget. China is at a distant second place with 7.3% of the world's budget. We overspend the next 23 countries (21 of which enjoy very friendly relations with us) in the world's hierarchy of military budgets. It should be easy to reduce our military expenditures by half and still enjoy the peace of mind of "only" overspending the next 5 countries in that list (three of which are strong allies).
And yet all but one of the GOP candidates vocally and proudly state that not a single, solitary dime will be cut from defense spending. (Incidentally, the role of world police is also nowhere to be found in the list of enumerated powers.)
The GOP answer to budget reduction**? Platitudes such as Made in America, bring the jobs back home, get the illegals out, impose tariffs on China, and other proposals that seem to be tailored to have little effect at best to catastrophic effects at worst. They seem to be content in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
**I should say, 3/4 of the GOP's answer.
The Culture Wars and Reason's No Man's Land
I make no secret about favoring Ron Paul for this election cycle (I'll presume to go as far as saying that the same applies to my editorial colleague in this blog). The Congressman has consistently upheld his principled belief in the rule of law and his defense of the Constitution. He is the only candidate to put forward a clear, concise, measurable proposal for reducing the federal debt and the presence of government in our lives.Sadly, in the political environment we find ourselves, populism has taken the lead in ideas, and we the people are engaged in a cultural loud mouth competition where the impact of politics and central government is continuously amplified. Conservatism is reduced to seeking moral affirmation at the detriment of the rule of law. "Liberals" are so ideologically lost and self-conflicted that they cannot even comprehend the principles behind their own social-economic policies, and have instead opted out of critical thinking altogether. The end result of this stupidity arms race is that nothing will likely change after this election cycle, and politics will continue to be an intelligent life's no man's land.
References
http://www.ricksantorum.com/issueshttp://mittromney.com/issues
http://www.newt.org/answers
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/arizona-shows-pitfalls-romney-proposed-national-e-verify-142419836.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Individualist's Dilemma
If I fall, they will look to me and say with pity, "Look, there he fell, without the comfort of our guidance, nor the strength of our hands;"
If I stand, they will look to me and say with reproach, "Look, there he stands, without the comfort of our guidance, nor the strength of our hands;"
And likewise, if I rise, they will look to me and say with admiration, "Look, there he goes, without the comfort of our guidance, nor the strength of our hands."
If I stand, they will look to me and say with reproach, "Look, there he stands, without the comfort of our guidance, nor the strength of our hands;"
And likewise, if I rise, they will look to me and say with admiration, "Look, there he goes, without the comfort of our guidance, nor the strength of our hands."
Monday, February 20, 2012
Virginia Nullifies NDAA
In an enormously uplifting turn of events, the Virginia House of Representatives has passed legislation (by a whopping 96% majority) which nullifies Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. The bill, dubbed the Liberty Preservation Act, reads as follows:
“the Legislature finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law Number 112-81, is inimical to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of Virginia, and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in United States Constitution”
Doesn't that just put a smile on your face?
Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maryland and Washington states have also introduced the bill in either the House or the Senate. In addition, seven local legislative bodies nationwide have already nullified the notoriously venomous Sections, which would give the U.S. Military jurisdiction over policing American soil and allow for indefinite detention of United States Citizens without charge, trial, or due process - all at the behest of the President of the United States of America.
Want to know the best part? This bill is much more than just a heartwarmingly symbolic, but ultimately limp-wristed stand against the abhorrent usurpation of power by POTUS.
This bill has some balls.
In Washington's iteration of the LPA, ". . . state and local officials (including members of the Washington National Guard) would be prohibited from participating in or assisting the federal government in the unlawful activities purportedly authorized by the NDAA. The bill would also outlaw any of those actions by the U.S. armed forces within the state."
Want to know if your state is making efforts at making tyranny illegal? Check here.
If your state isn't on the list, you can locate and contact your State's legislators here.
And of course, if you would like to see legislation passed at the federal level which declares the NDAA illegal and nullified, I humbly ask that you give serious consideration to Ron Paul as your presidential candidate in 2012, because he's doing just that as we speak.
“the Legislature finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law Number 112-81, is inimical to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of Virginia, and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in United States Constitution”
Doesn't that just put a smile on your face?
Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maryland and Washington states have also introduced the bill in either the House or the Senate. In addition, seven local legislative bodies nationwide have already nullified the notoriously venomous Sections, which would give the U.S. Military jurisdiction over policing American soil and allow for indefinite detention of United States Citizens without charge, trial, or due process - all at the behest of the President of the United States of America.
Want to know the best part? This bill is much more than just a heartwarmingly symbolic, but ultimately limp-wristed stand against the abhorrent usurpation of power by POTUS.
This bill has some balls.
In Washington's iteration of the LPA, ". . . state and local officials (including members of the Washington National Guard) would be prohibited from participating in or assisting the federal government in the unlawful activities purportedly authorized by the NDAA. The bill would also outlaw any of those actions by the U.S. armed forces within the state."
Want to know if your state is making efforts at making tyranny illegal? Check here.
If your state isn't on the list, you can locate and contact your State's legislators here.
And of course, if you would like to see legislation passed at the federal level which declares the NDAA illegal and nullified, I humbly ask that you give serious consideration to Ron Paul as your presidential candidate in 2012, because he's doing just that as we speak.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Who Watches the Watchmen?
Well, I unfortunately can't say that I'm very surprised at the latest news of police state surveillance.
It turns out that the NYPD has been covertly keeping tabs on Muslim students all across the Northeastern United States, far exceeding the city-limits of their jurisdiction. Students from as far away as the University at Buffalo, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania were targeted for a broad-reaching violation of privacy rights that extend even beyond the post-Patriot Act powers of the FBI.
From the MSNBC report:
"Police talked with local authorities about professors 300 miles (480 kilometers) away in Buffalo and even sent an undercover agent on a whitewater rafting trip, where he recorded students' names and noted in police intelligence files how many times they prayed."
Not one of the students investigated and included in the NYPD reports has been accused of any crime, either prior to or as a result of the investigation.
The reason given for the surveillance?
"Asked about the monitoring, police spokesman Paul Browne provided a list of 12 people arrested or convicted on terrorism charges in the United States and abroad who had once been members of Muslim student associations"
Yep. Of the millions of Muslims in America, and of the thousands upon thousands of young men and women who have once been actively involved in Muslim Students' Associations over the past decade or two, 12 of them have been arrested as terrorists.
There's nothing fuzzy about the math here.
For Mr. Browne's benefit, I've taken the time to compile a brief list of NYPD officers who have been arrested for felonies. By 'brief', I mean that they appeared within the first 4-5 pages of Google results, and encompass only the past 2-3 years. Admittedly nowhere near as exhaustive as his List of Twelve, of course.
- Former NYPD Officer Edwin Coello Arrested for Murdering his Wife
- Ex-NYPD Officer Clarence Cash Arrested for Killing his Wife, a Criminal Investigator
- Three NYPD Officer's Arrested and Charged with Sexual Assault After Sodomizing a Suspect with a Police Baton
- NYPD Officer Arrested for Raping a Woman at Gunpoint
- NYPD Narcotics Officer Arrested for Giving Crack to Drug Addicts in Exchange for Sex
- 8 Members of NYPD Arrested on Federal Weapons Charges for Smuggling Stolen and Illegal Guns into New York City
- NYPD Officer Rafael Casiano Arrested for DWI Following a Crash which Left his Partner in a Coma
- NYPD Officer Arrested for Racially-Motivated Assault with Baseball Bat
- NYPD Auxiliary Officer Daniel Sayers Arrested for Child Pornography
- NYPD Officer Arrested on Federal Civil Rights Charges after False Arrest of African-American, Tells Wife Later: "I Fried Another N*gger"
- NYPD Veteran Officer Arrested for Indiscriminantly Pepper-Spraying Bar Patrons
- NYPD Officer Arrested in Connection With Money Laundering Scam
- Retired NYPD Officer Michael Oliver Arrested for First-Degree Reckless Endangerment After Discharging Two Rounds from a Firearm in Anger
- NYPD Officer Arrested for Theft and Misconduct after Stealing iPads from an iPad Thief
- Two NYPD Officers Arrested in Separate Drunk Driving Incidents
- Officer Raymond Gumti of the NYPD Arrested in ID Fraud Scam
That's 26 right there. That should be more than enough to justify a KGB-scale surveillance task, by the NYPD's own logic. It's a pity that there would be nobody left to conduct it . . .
It turns out that the NYPD has been covertly keeping tabs on Muslim students all across the Northeastern United States, far exceeding the city-limits of their jurisdiction. Students from as far away as the University at Buffalo, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania were targeted for a broad-reaching violation of privacy rights that extend even beyond the post-Patriot Act powers of the FBI.
From the MSNBC report:
"Police talked with local authorities about professors 300 miles (480 kilometers) away in Buffalo and even sent an undercover agent on a whitewater rafting trip, where he recorded students' names and noted in police intelligence files how many times they prayed."
Not one of the students investigated and included in the NYPD reports has been accused of any crime, either prior to or as a result of the investigation.
The reason given for the surveillance?
"Asked about the monitoring, police spokesman Paul Browne provided a list of 12 people arrested or convicted on terrorism charges in the United States and abroad who had once been members of Muslim student associations"
Yep. Of the millions of Muslims in America, and of the thousands upon thousands of young men and women who have once been actively involved in Muslim Students' Associations over the past decade or two, 12 of them have been arrested as terrorists.
There's nothing fuzzy about the math here.
For Mr. Browne's benefit, I've taken the time to compile a brief list of NYPD officers who have been arrested for felonies. By 'brief', I mean that they appeared within the first 4-5 pages of Google results, and encompass only the past 2-3 years. Admittedly nowhere near as exhaustive as his List of Twelve, of course.
- Former NYPD Officer Edwin Coello Arrested for Murdering his Wife
- Ex-NYPD Officer Clarence Cash Arrested for Killing his Wife, a Criminal Investigator
- Three NYPD Officer's Arrested and Charged with Sexual Assault After Sodomizing a Suspect with a Police Baton
- NYPD Officer Arrested for Raping a Woman at Gunpoint
- NYPD Narcotics Officer Arrested for Giving Crack to Drug Addicts in Exchange for Sex
- 8 Members of NYPD Arrested on Federal Weapons Charges for Smuggling Stolen and Illegal Guns into New York City
- NYPD Officer Rafael Casiano Arrested for DWI Following a Crash which Left his Partner in a Coma
- NYPD Officer Arrested for Racially-Motivated Assault with Baseball Bat
- NYPD Auxiliary Officer Daniel Sayers Arrested for Child Pornography
- NYPD Officer Arrested on Federal Civil Rights Charges after False Arrest of African-American, Tells Wife Later: "I Fried Another N*gger"
- NYPD Veteran Officer Arrested for Indiscriminantly Pepper-Spraying Bar Patrons
- NYPD Officer Arrested in Connection With Money Laundering Scam
- Retired NYPD Officer Michael Oliver Arrested for First-Degree Reckless Endangerment After Discharging Two Rounds from a Firearm in Anger
- NYPD Officer Arrested for Theft and Misconduct after Stealing iPads from an iPad Thief
- Two NYPD Officers Arrested in Separate Drunk Driving Incidents
- Officer Raymond Gumti of the NYPD Arrested in ID Fraud Scam
That's 26 right there. That should be more than enough to justify a KGB-scale surveillance task, by the NYPD's own logic. It's a pity that there would be nobody left to conduct it . . .
Saturday, February 11, 2012
An Ice Cream Truck, a Squad Automatic Weapon, 100,000 rounds, and an Internet Connection
shootmytruck.com is setting up an ice cream truck fashioned after Sweet Tooth's ride in the Twisted Metal series of games, somewhere in the desert, with a SAW pointing at it. The trigger on the SAW being controlled via the internet by the winners of a drawing. On the 14th the lucky winners will be expected to fire around 100,000 rounds downrange at said truck (or a couple-days worth of action).
More games (more anythings) should market themselves like this. Hell, I might just have to buy the damn thing now.
More games (more anythings) should market themselves like this. Hell, I might just have to buy the damn thing now.
Cutty Sark Scotch Whiskey
This was in a college-town type bar, so I don't think the bartender was really used to whiskey drinkers. She gave me a blank stare when I walked up to her and told her "My friend and I would like a shot of the Cutty Sark!" Now, if you walk up to a bar like that, with single-minded purpose, this somehow disturbs the harmony of the place a bit. People come to her counter, sit by and wait to be served. We just walked straight up to the counter, stood there in front of her until she acknowledged us, and just told her what we wanted, much like a sailboat captain would to a ship's first---"Have the jib brought in, Mr. Dillon, would you kindly." Her confusion and lack of context were amusing there, but were much unlike the knowing efficiency of a professional who loves their trade. She wouldn't do in any ship of mine. The poor thing actually said, "we don't have that." I retorted directly, "sure you do, the bottle right over there." Her confusion only got worse when I asked her to bring me the bottle, which apparently is against the rules! There's something thoroughly pasteurized and unromantic about a bartender being uncomfortable about such a request. But I digress. We got our shots, downed them on the spot, payed up, and left. As I turned I actually told her something like "I wanted to try it because of the Dire Straits' song." She just looked at us, very uncertain about any of this. Sad. We left knowing that those people had no business running a bar.
So, how's the Cutty Sark? Romanticism aside, this is no high-end whiskey. I'm not a whiskey snob by any means, but I tend to find that bourbon has a more honest feel to it at the lower-price tiers (though I've yet to try the truly cheap stuff). The old Cutty Sark blended Scotch I had that night was a bit rough for Scotch whiskey, but without the more complex finish of a good American bourbon. I should also say that we didn't really give it a fair shake. Take this tasting experience for what it was: sharing grog with a mate.
Cutty Sark is a blended Scotch whiskey made in Glasgow.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Haters Gonna Hate
I've got a bit of a bone to pick with Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post's "Fact" "Checker".
See, as a blogger who's wearing an agenda on my sleeve, it pains me to see other bloggers (yes, Kessler is a blogger, NOT a journalist) who are hiding obvious bias behind a subterfuge of honest journalism. Here, we at least have the decency to express biased opinions for what they are: biased opinions.
Let's take a comparative look at Kessler's treatment of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, respectively:
In this article, Kessler fact-checks one of Obama's claims made on January 30, 2012 during a Google+ Hangout:
"There's a huge demand around this country for engineers. . . . Where you’re seeing a lot of specialized demand is in engineering that’s related to the high-tech industries.”
To his credit, Kessler gives a reasonably pseudo-accurate report detailing some of the falsehoods and half-truths surrounding this claim:
While the unemployment rate for "architecture and engineering occupations" in 2011 was 5.1%, as compared to the 8.9% national average, Obama failed to mention that "Architecture and engineering unemployment stood at a lowly 1.7 percent in 2006". That's exactly triple the unemployment in six years, a very drastic change for the worse.
The H1-B Work Visa allows U.S. employers to hire a limited number of temporary foreign workers each year. In 2005, the cap on such visas was raised to 85,000, with many of these jobs filling the (alleged) talent-gaps in the high-tech industry. There is also a great amount of effort in the industry to see this cap raised. Economist Jared Bernstein, who has first-hand experience and has seen such lobbying efforts within the Obama Administration, noted: “They want all the engineers they can get at the lowest price . . . They say they can’t find enough talent, but what they really mean is
that they can’t find enough people at the rate they want to pay.” So if the demand is as high as alleged, with young engineers able to sell their talents with ease across the country, why does this seem to describe a buyers' market?
As a (luckily employed) member of the high-tech industry, I myself can attest to the fact that prospects have been bleak for recently graduated engineers since the 2008 recession. Many of my engineer friends from college are bartending or working construction today. Obama was wrong when he said this, plain and simple, and Kessler seemed to understand this in the article.
Until the closing paragraphs:
"Demand for engineers remains relatively high compared with most other professions, but it’s not what it was before the recession. We don’t expect Obama to have enough detailed information to know that electrical engineers . . . fared worse than computer-hardware engineers in recent years, but he probably should have known that unemployment has risen for such high-tech fields on the whole.
Job prospects within the semiconductor industry look bleak heading into 2020, and the president should have known that as well."
Kessler's verdict? One Pinocchio (on a four Pinocchio scale). One Pinocchio represents "Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods."
Okay.
Now, let's take a look at Mr. Kessler's treatment of Ron Paul, specifically his "strange claim about bases and troops overseas". For those of you keeping score at home, here is the claim, as Paul has said, in so many words, countless times this election cycle:
“We don't need to pay all this money to keep troops all over the country, 130 countries, 900 bases. But also, just think, bringing all the troops home rather rapidly, they would be spending their money here at home and not in Germany and Japan and South Korea, tremendous boost to the economy.”
Here's what Kessler had to say on the matter:
"First of all, Paul needs to update his rhetoric. He is still using the same numbers now that he used in September, but since then, the United States pulled out of Iraq, closing scores, if not hundreds, of facilities. So one would have to scratch Iraq off the “occupy” list. (A Paul spokesman did not respond to a query.)"
Hostile overtones aside, if a "fact checker" is going to dispute a specific number, shouldn't he bother to look into the actual number, rather than calling them "scores, if not hundreds, of facilities"? He goes on to correct Dr. Paul with the official numbers:
"As of Sept. 30, 2010, the DOD list shows a list of 611 military facilities around the world (not counting war zones), though only 20 are listed as “large sites,” which means a replacement value of more than $1.74 billion."
Not counting war zones? You know, those places where military bases tend to be fairly plentiful? And let's not exaggerate, my dear fact checker. The conflict in Iraq has indeed been officially called off, but there is still a U.S. military presence there. Not to mention the fact that, as a Congressman, Dr. Paul may or may not have knowledge of military bases of a more confidential nature. Knowledge not immediately available to a blogger from the Washington Post, I mean.
As for the "large sites", if you're going to nit-pick semantics, you might bother to notice that Paul makes no claim as to the size of these 900 military facilities.
"Not only that, but we count 153 countries with U.S. military personnel, actually higher than the 130 cited by Paul. What’s going on here? The answer is that the list essentially tracks places where the United States has a substantial diplomatic presence. (The United States has diplomatic relations with about 190 countries.) In other words, Paul is counting Marine guards and military attaches as part of a vast expanse of U.S. military power around the globe."
Yes, that is exactly what Paul is counting. He is counting the size and cost of the "vast expanse of U.S. military power around the globe" as you put it, to include troops stationed in countries as part of diplomatic attachments.
So what is Glenn Kessler's verdict? Three Pinocchios:
"As evidence of the United States occupying “so many countries” or the “all this money” spent on the military, Paul’s statistics barely pass the laugh test. He has managed to turn small contingents of Marine guards into occupying armies and waste dumps into military bases. A more accurate way to treat this data would be to say that the United States has 20 major bases around the world, not counting the war in Afghanistan, with major concentrations of troops in 11 countries."
Barely pass the laugh test? You would think that Dr. Paul had just insulted his mother.
So why does Obama get a gentle, apologist treatment while Paul is thrown to the wolves? I couldn't tell you. But here's another article on Obama's choice to consolidate the Small Business Administration with the Commerce Department, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office and three other agencies. Two Pinocchios, complete with apologism:
"To some extent, these are issues of symbolism and process. Perhaps the president also has so much on his plate that he should not be expected to keep straight the details of his own reorganization."
And here's another article fact-checking Ron Paul's claims about Medicaid and Medicare. Again, three Pinocchios. Why? Among other reasons,
"We can’t disprove Paul’s assertion that people weren’t “laying in the street with no medical care” before 1965, but the argument seems like a red herring, anyway."
Once more, I would like to insert the following disclaimer: I am biased. This is opinion. I will be voting for Ron Paul in the coming primaries, and (hopefully) will vote for him in the Presidential elections as well.
But it still seems fishy to me, despite my most earnest efforts at objectivity. Check out the articles for yourself. Let me know what you think.
See, as a blogger who's wearing an agenda on my sleeve, it pains me to see other bloggers (yes, Kessler is a blogger, NOT a journalist) who are hiding obvious bias behind a subterfuge of honest journalism. Here, we at least have the decency to express biased opinions for what they are: biased opinions.
Let's take a comparative look at Kessler's treatment of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, respectively:
In this article, Kessler fact-checks one of Obama's claims made on January 30, 2012 during a Google+ Hangout:
"There's a huge demand around this country for engineers. . . . Where you’re seeing a lot of specialized demand is in engineering that’s related to the high-tech industries.”
To his credit, Kessler gives a reasonably pseudo-accurate report detailing some of the falsehoods and half-truths surrounding this claim:
As a (luckily employed) member of the high-tech industry, I myself can attest to the fact that prospects have been bleak for recently graduated engineers since the 2008 recession. Many of my engineer friends from college are bartending or working construction today. Obama was wrong when he said this, plain and simple, and Kessler seemed to understand this in the article.
Until the closing paragraphs:
"Demand for engineers remains relatively high compared with most other professions, but it’s not what it was before the recession. We don’t expect Obama to have enough detailed information to know that electrical engineers . . . fared worse than computer-hardware engineers in recent years, but he probably should have known that unemployment has risen for such high-tech fields on the whole.
Job prospects within the semiconductor industry look bleak heading into 2020, and the president should have known that as well."
Kessler's verdict? One Pinocchio (on a four Pinocchio scale). One Pinocchio represents "Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods."
Okay.
Now, let's take a look at Mr. Kessler's treatment of Ron Paul, specifically his "strange claim about bases and troops overseas". For those of you keeping score at home, here is the claim, as Paul has said, in so many words, countless times this election cycle:
“We don't need to pay all this money to keep troops all over the country, 130 countries, 900 bases. But also, just think, bringing all the troops home rather rapidly, they would be spending their money here at home and not in Germany and Japan and South Korea, tremendous boost to the economy.”
Here's what Kessler had to say on the matter:
"First of all, Paul needs to update his rhetoric. He is still using the same numbers now that he used in September, but since then, the United States pulled out of Iraq, closing scores, if not hundreds, of facilities. So one would have to scratch Iraq off the “occupy” list. (A Paul spokesman did not respond to a query.)"
Hostile overtones aside, if a "fact checker" is going to dispute a specific number, shouldn't he bother to look into the actual number, rather than calling them "scores, if not hundreds, of facilities"? He goes on to correct Dr. Paul with the official numbers:
"As of Sept. 30, 2010, the DOD list shows a list of 611 military facilities around the world (not counting war zones), though only 20 are listed as “large sites,” which means a replacement value of more than $1.74 billion."
Not counting war zones? You know, those places where military bases tend to be fairly plentiful? And let's not exaggerate, my dear fact checker. The conflict in Iraq has indeed been officially called off, but there is still a U.S. military presence there. Not to mention the fact that, as a Congressman, Dr. Paul may or may not have knowledge of military bases of a more confidential nature. Knowledge not immediately available to a blogger from the Washington Post, I mean.
As for the "large sites", if you're going to nit-pick semantics, you might bother to notice that Paul makes no claim as to the size of these 900 military facilities.
"Not only that, but we count 153 countries with U.S. military personnel, actually higher than the 130 cited by Paul. What’s going on here? The answer is that the list essentially tracks places where the United States has a substantial diplomatic presence. (The United States has diplomatic relations with about 190 countries.) In other words, Paul is counting Marine guards and military attaches as part of a vast expanse of U.S. military power around the globe."
Yes, that is exactly what Paul is counting. He is counting the size and cost of the "vast expanse of U.S. military power around the globe" as you put it, to include troops stationed in countries as part of diplomatic attachments.
So what is Glenn Kessler's verdict? Three Pinocchios:
"As evidence of the United States occupying “so many countries” or the “all this money” spent on the military, Paul’s statistics barely pass the laugh test. He has managed to turn small contingents of Marine guards into occupying armies and waste dumps into military bases. A more accurate way to treat this data would be to say that the United States has 20 major bases around the world, not counting the war in Afghanistan, with major concentrations of troops in 11 countries."
Barely pass the laugh test? You would think that Dr. Paul had just insulted his mother.
So why does Obama get a gentle, apologist treatment while Paul is thrown to the wolves? I couldn't tell you. But here's another article on Obama's choice to consolidate the Small Business Administration with the Commerce Department, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office and three other agencies. Two Pinocchios, complete with apologism:
"To some extent, these are issues of symbolism and process. Perhaps the president also has so much on his plate that he should not be expected to keep straight the details of his own reorganization."
And here's another article fact-checking Ron Paul's claims about Medicaid and Medicare. Again, three Pinocchios. Why? Among other reasons,
"We can’t disprove Paul’s assertion that people weren’t “laying in the street with no medical care” before 1965, but the argument seems like a red herring, anyway."
Once more, I would like to insert the following disclaimer: I am biased. This is opinion. I will be voting for Ron Paul in the coming primaries, and (hopefully) will vote for him in the Presidential elections as well.
But it still seems fishy to me, despite my most earnest efforts at objectivity. Check out the articles for yourself. Let me know what you think.
Monday, February 6, 2012
State of the Primary, February 2012
Fresh off of Saturday's Nevada caucus (which my esteemed compatriot has already discussed), it's high time to evaluate the remaining candidates, their relative statuses within the Republican Primary to date, and, most poignantly, what lies ahead for their candidacies.
Here's my take, in order of delegates earned to date:
It is interesting to note that Romney's core supporters have mostly come from the "Whoever can beat Obama" demographic, which speaks volumes about what is most important to a vast majority of conservative voters in 2012.
The good doctor, however, may not define this as a defeat. Let's briefly go over a few statistics so far:
If this is indeed the case, an intelligent Republican presidential candidate would do well to accommodate Paul and his supporters, thus changing the dialog of the election and pushing the Republican Party back toward its libertarian roots. Especially if this candidate is Mitt Romney, who has virtually no die-hard loyalty within his fan base, Republicans will need the kind of support given to Ron Paul, specifically from the demographics that Paul has dominated.
It would be difficult for Ron Paul to call this a defeat.
Here's my take, in order of delegates earned to date:
- Mitt Romney (81 Delegates)
It is interesting to note that Romney's core supporters have mostly come from the "Whoever can beat Obama" demographic, which speaks volumes about what is most important to a vast majority of conservative voters in 2012.
- Newt Gingrich (27 Delegates)
- Rick Santorum (16 Delegates)
- Ron Paul (6 Delegates)
The good doctor, however, may not define this as a defeat. Let's briefly go over a few statistics so far:
- Ron Paul has received almost double the amount of campaign contributions from active military personnel than all the candidates combined, including Barack Obama.
- Ron Paul has absolutely dominated the youth vote in every state so far.
- In Nevada, Ron Paul garnered 42% of voters who said that "true conservatism" was the most important factor behind their choice. Compare this to Gingrich at 30% AND Santorum at 24%, both of whom have billed themselves as the "true conservative" Romney alternative.
If this is indeed the case, an intelligent Republican presidential candidate would do well to accommodate Paul and his supporters, thus changing the dialog of the election and pushing the Republican Party back toward its libertarian roots. Especially if this candidate is Mitt Romney, who has virtually no die-hard loyalty within his fan base, Republicans will need the kind of support given to Ron Paul, specifically from the demographics that Paul has dominated.
It would be difficult for Ron Paul to call this a defeat.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Nevada Primary and the State of Small L Libertarianism
By now everyone is aware of the results of the Nevada caucus. According to Google, with 88.9% of precincts reporting, the results are:
What does that say of the success of libertarian ideas this election cycle? Is libertarianism failing to make inroads into mainstream America because Congressman Paul could not amass more votes than Gingrich (and Romney, for that matter) even in freaking Nevada? Or does it imply that libertarianism has become so mainstream that a fairly close third place in Nevada (after a fairly close third in Iowa and a second place in New Hampshire) is just a sign of abject failure?
I think Dr. Paul is achieving something important with his campaign. I'm not saying anything original here, it's been a talking point everywhere for months now that Dr. Paul's main goal may be simply to obtain enough delegates in the primaries to affect the Republican platform this election, perhaps add a libertarian plank or two. But it does amaze me how successfully he has been bringing some well-established libertarian ideas (end of the "war" on drugs, sound money, etc.) more to the forefront of political discussion. At every debate so far Paul has consistently received less time than most other candidates, and I expect this to be still true as we proceed down the primaries calendar, but being part of a smaller field he's still received a great amount of exposure. The next debate he might be one of three (assuming Santorum drops sometime soon). It's going to be progressively harder to ignore the good Congressman and his ideas.
- Romney (49.6%)
- Gingrich (21.3%)
- Paul (18.5%)
- Santorum (10.3%)
What does that say of the success of libertarian ideas this election cycle? Is libertarianism failing to make inroads into mainstream America because Congressman Paul could not amass more votes than Gingrich (and Romney, for that matter) even in freaking Nevada? Or does it imply that libertarianism has become so mainstream that a fairly close third place in Nevada (after a fairly close third in Iowa and a second place in New Hampshire) is just a sign of abject failure?
I think Dr. Paul is achieving something important with his campaign. I'm not saying anything original here, it's been a talking point everywhere for months now that Dr. Paul's main goal may be simply to obtain enough delegates in the primaries to affect the Republican platform this election, perhaps add a libertarian plank or two. But it does amaze me how successfully he has been bringing some well-established libertarian ideas (end of the "war" on drugs, sound money, etc.) more to the forefront of political discussion. At every debate so far Paul has consistently received less time than most other candidates, and I expect this to be still true as we proceed down the primaries calendar, but being part of a smaller field he's still received a great amount of exposure. The next debate he might be one of three (assuming Santorum drops sometime soon). It's going to be progressively harder to ignore the good Congressman and his ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)