Failure To Launch

I was thinking today about how fitting it was for President Obama to be present at today's final launch of another Shuttle. After all, I thought, who better to preside over the end of an Endeavor? But I suppose this works, too.

Anyway, that scrubbed liftoff was very much on my mind as I read this piece from Investors about the Reagan Administration's recession recovery and that of 44 (H/T to Instapundit).

I remember in the 80s how righteous I felt as I poo-poohed "Trickle-Down Economics" (and isn't that just an infelicitous pairing of images!). The difference from then to now is akin to that from rocket fuel to corn-based ethanol.

We'll be lucky if we clear the gantry at this rate.

UPDATE: Bad link fixed.

Transparency

To borrow a formulation from Glen Reynolds:

They told me that if I voted for John McCain, freedom of the press would be stifled. And they were right!

UPDATE:  Well, if I'm gonna be scooped, it might as well be in as fitting a manner as this!

UPDATE: Grf! Fixed another bad link. Thanks to Mr H for alerting me to another installment of the Blogger Follies.

A Royal Flush

(Adapted from a Facebook reply to a friend who wondered: "Not to offend anyone, but why should anyone on this side of the Atlantic give a rat's ass about the royal wedding?")


In a few hours, millions of people --an uncomfortable number of whom reside in the US-- will be rising early from their slumbers to witness the pomp and pageantry of the wedding of Prince what's-his-face with what's-her-name.

The best answer I can give to my friend's query is this: Because Americans have, right from the start, exhibited a deep (and, I submit, deeply unhealthy) obsession with the very sort of aristocracy which, I seem to recall, we kinda fought a war to shake off.

We're always trying to turn our celebrities and politicians and "Robber Barons" into a kind of royalty, while we look on, agog with admiration (and envy) from our serf-tilled fields. The tabloids and tell-all documentaries are our modern guillotines.

It's almost as though we've not ever quite recovered from the collective trauma of eliminating an hereditary gentry from our culture and society, and substituting a truly egalitarian, meritocratic system.

But there's really nothing quite as UN-AMERICAN as the very notion of an aristocracy. Personally, I find the whole thing nauseating in the extreme.

Needless to say, I won't be setting my alarm.

Progressive Standards of Civility - both of them

[by Mr.Hengist]

Last night I was mulling over something VPOTUS Biden said regarding the current budget dispute: "The Republicans this time are totally, and I don't mean this in a pejorative sense, are out of the closet." It's an interesting use of that phrase. Biden did of course mean this in the pejorative; they are "out of the closet" in terms of their public plans for the Federal budget, and pejorative in the sense that Biden thinks they intend to do wrong and wishes to debate against their nefarious plans. Nevertheless, what struck me was that he would use that turn of phrase at all - and that Liberals have let it slide. Progressives see themselves as gay rights advocates and the defenders of gay dignity, so how is it that one of their own can use this turn of phrase in this way - referring to Republicans revealing their true and (supposedly) harmful intent? If he had said, "the monster's out from under the bed" it would have been a different matter, but "out of the closet" is strictly associated with homosexuals revealing their orientation, and it's considered a good thing. Using it to describe what Liberals consider to be evil Republican goals is oddly inappropriate.

What, I wondered, would be the Progressive response if Republicans had used this "out of the closet" phrase in a similar way but aimed at Democrats? If, say, VPOTUS Cheney had remarked that we now see the Democrats "totally out of the closet" in regards to their intent to dramatically cut DOD funding? I imagined the response would be swift and strongly condemning. As luck would have it, today we are treated to a real-life example - and even better, it's not just used by Republicans but it's also aimed at Republicans.

A college Republican group called upon conservatives in the student body to "come out of the closet." University of Iowa professor Ellen Lewin's response, in an email back to the students: "F--- you, Republicans."

Vulgar and uncivil, certainly, and weren't Liberals decrying the "incivility" of the Right only a few of months ago after the Giffords shooting (by a non-right-wing madman, no less)? In a NYTimes blogpost just last week the Nobel laureate NYTimes columnist Dr. Paul Krugman's mask drops, falls to the floor, and explodes (to lift a phrase from Steven Hayward at Power Line) when he informed us that "Civility is the Last Refuge of Scoundrels." This would be the same Paul Krugman who joined the Right-bashing party by blaming the Right for the Giffords shooting (see here, and here). Note well the double-standards to which Liberals hold themselves vs. their political opposition; they demand civility from the Right as they continue to fling poo at them.

Call it another example of The Pretext of Principles. If it weren't for situational principles, what principles would they have left? This one: What we do is good, what they do is bad - always, even when it's the same thing.

The Bare Cupboard of the EU Paper Tigers

[by Mr.Hengist]

It's been pointed out by many (and so asserted by me during my ’04 conversation with Noocyte) that the European militaries have been pared back past the point of their being useful allies in any significant conflict. This harvest of shame is the fruit of their folly in the war of the Euroweenies versus the Arsenal of Kleptocracy. In an article in the April 16, 2011 WaPo, we learn this:

“Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time, according to senior NATO and U.S. officials.”

Good grief, but there’s more:

“[…] the current bombing rate by the participating nations is not sustainable. “The reason we need more capability isn’t because we aren’t hitting what we see — it’s so that we can sustain the ability to do so. One problem is flight time, the other is munitions,” said another official, one of several who were not authorized to discuss the issue on the record.”

The problem of flight time is a function of their having to traverse relatively long distances from Allied airbases to Libyan targets. This has multiple effects on the campaign, all of them bad:

- Large quantities of expensive fuel are consumed,
- Wear & tear are put on aircraft, leading to increased maintenance costs and overall downtime, as well as hastening the point at which the aircraft will have to undergo overhaul.
- Fewer sorties can be flown overall because the strike craft spend so much time in transit.
- Enemy weapons can inflict damage on their targets in the meantime.
- Intelligence can become stale, and enemy targets can move out of area or into a protected space, like a residential neighborhood.

Would that they had carrier groups to park offshore, but of course, they don’t.

“European arsenals of laser-guided bombs, the NATO weapon of choice in the Libyan campaign, have been quickly depleted, officials said. Although the United States has significant stockpiles, its munitions do not fit on the British- and French-made planes that have flown the bulk of the missions.”

European airframes not compatible with American weaponry. How very stupid. What’s next? “We can’t put boots on the ground – our dainty stiletto heels will sink into the sand! Help us, Uncle Sam!”

“Libya “has not been a very big war. If [the Europeans] would run out of these munitions this early in such a small operation, you have to wonder what kind of war they were planning on fighting,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense think tank. “Maybe they were just planning on using their air force for air shows.”

Perhaps a fresh salvo of strongly worded memos from the U.N. will do the trick, or it’s on to the big guns of U.N. binding resolutions!

Remember this the next time you hear a leftist indignantly whine about how U.S. military expenditures exceed those of our allies. Butterflies and rainbow unicorn farts do not win wars. It is our allies who have been underspending and are woefully unprepared.

On to Libya and Liberation

[by Mr.Hengist]

Our Nobel Peace Prize winner of a POTUS has gotten us into another war in the Middle East, and I suppose I should weigh in. I'm agin' it, but by no means vociferously, and it was by no means an easy decision.

I'll grant that I've got a neocon streak a mile wide, depending on how we define "neocon", and freeing the oppressed people of Libya from QaDaffy by military force would be a good thing. Briefly, here are my reasons for opposing this military intervention, in no particular order despite their numeration:

1. We don't know who these rebels are or what they want. We've been asked by some of them, not clearly representative of the rebellion in whole or in part, to intervene on their behalf in the name of democracy. This does not speak to their makeup or goals per se; our enemies would gladly have us use our superior forces to smite their enemies for them. I had hoped that our government would have a better handle on who these rebels are and what they want, but from what I've read that doesn't seem to be the case.

2. The rebels are neither well-organized nor well-prepared. This seems to have been an opportunistic rebellion, and that does not bode well for success. If they can pull this off it will likely mean an ensuing power vacuum - in a nation and region known for strongmen. A ground presence and nation building would mitigate this problem, and the Afghanistan & Iraq experiences have demonstrated that it is unreasonable to expect a quick exit.

3. We're late. The time to intervene would have been weeks ago; now the rebellion is substantially degraded. The probability that they will not be able to regain momentum, and that this will result in outright failure, slowly or quickly, is now much higher, as is the probability that there will be a prolonged stalemate.

4. The Democrats are in charge, and Democrats are weak and indecisive in matters of war. I've been concerned that, should we engage the Libyan regime:

4a) The Rules of Engagement would be so restrictive and vague as to hamper our war effort. That fear has been borne out: our mission is to "protect civilians". How our pilots are supposed to discern this from the air will is left an open question. Erring on the side of caution at the cost of civilian lives is the only rational option allied pilots can make, lest they expose themselves to charges, justified or not, of exceeding their authorization and the boundaries of their Rules of Engagement. It's no way to run a war.

4b) Democrats are notorious for their weak-kneed capitulation when we run into setbacks, and setbacks are a part of war. Cutting and running will make us look weak to our enemies, and Democrats don't have the cojones they'd need to see it through. The clanging of POTUS W's brass balls once had KaDaffy on his back peeing himself (i.e., preemptively surrendering his WMD programs); POTUS Obama's finger-in-the-wind has been demonstratively less intimidating.

4c) POTUS Obama does not seem to be personally invested or interested in this military engagement. Since the passage of U.N. Resolution 1973 POTUS Obama has done a video with his NCAA bracket, gone to a Democrat fundraising gala, done a conference on childhood bullying, and gone off with family to vacation in Rio. Indeed, as the bombs began to fall in Libya our President was playing with children. At the very least these are bad optics; at worst they are indicative of his lack of interest.

4d) Democrats and their Liberal base seem somewhat divided over whether to support this course of action, and where they stand is important because they control the Senate and the White House. This division is not surprising given the lack of effort on the part of the White House to sell it to fellow Democrats, Liberals, or the nation. Will the kneejerk antiwar Libs mobilize in numbers and cause the Congress to follow suit, leading to the caving of the White House, or will the base coalesce into support for the POTUS with the Congress following suit? Domestic political winds could very well change the course of the war, unfortunately; again, the Dems, being a party heavily influenced on major policy decisions by polling data, are neither steady nor reliable when it comes to making war.

5. War is expensive and we're deeply in debt, and going into deeper debt at a rate that can only be described as "freefall." Our existing commitments are costing us dearly, and, as much as I'd like to free the peoples of the world, it's not in the budget and the money isn't there.

6. Libya has mostly kept to itself in recent years, and it no longer has WMD capability. Unlike some other hostile nations which have been actively causing trouble and/or waging war on us and our allies (Iran and North Korea spring to mind), regime change in Libya does not serve our national interests as well. Were our economy stronger or Libya more belligerent this consideration would be much less important.

That having been said, we're in it now, and so we must see it through. I sincerely wish success in the mission to our armed forces and to the Obama Administration. Let's acknowledge that there are two possible outcomes: the KwaDaffy regime is overthrown or the rebels lose and are crushed, with a prolonged stalemate only postponing one of these two outcomes. Let's let the natives duke it out and not commit ground troops; whether the rebels win or lose this one our ground forces are not sufficient for a third land war.

The way to help them win this is to clobber Libyan armed forces until they are crushed, clobber the regime structure from the top down as best we can, and let the rebels take care of the rest. It's been done before, in Afghanistan, although it's worth noting that the resulting power vacuum necessitated nation building in order to prevent the Taliban from retaking power. The circumstances here are different and we need not commit to the replacement of the GaDaffy regime with a democratic republic. If the rebels win, then good luck with that, we gave them the chance and they'll have to make the most of it. I am not supportive of committing ground troops, even if the alternative is that the rebels lose. If they lose, and QwaDaffy stays in power, then I'm prepared to take that loss and walk away.

This issue has prompted me to think over what I stand for, and what I want to see happen. I've been, for some years, in favor of using military power projection to overthrow oppressive regimes. The recent worldwide economic crises and our ballooning government budgets have also led me to reconsider my thinking on deficit spending; getting our economic situation rectified is now a priority for me. If it is in fact a priority then Libya has forced me to choose between goals. One conclusion to which I've come is that the bottom line, literally, is that we must get our financial house in order.

As an aside, this does not extend to our current commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq, we have been largely successful, we have met our commitments, and we are on a timetable to withdraw - an agreement hammered out between the Bush Administration and the government of Iraq, and continued without modification by the Obama Administration. Good enough.

I'm also not ready to quit on Afghanistan. I believe it's a winnable war but I don't believe POTUS Obama is committed to win it. The key to victory in Afghanistan is in establishing a reasonably strong government and armed forces, and the Karzai government is not making it happen. A priority for me here is not handing victory to the Taliban, which would be unacceptable. So, for Afghanistan, we must continue to expend blood and treasure-we-don't-have to keep that from happening.

At any rate, I've also had to doublecheck whether my opposition to POTUS Obama, Democrats, and Liberalism have skewed my thinking. I've had to ask myself how sure I am that I am not opposed to this Libyan action simply because it's Obama's war. I'm also aware that the optics on this blogpost aren't favorable to me either, what with my coming out against this just after my political opposition has gone and done it; it could be taken as a purely partisan positioning. I'm reasonably satisfied that I'm not fooling myself in this regard, and that my position is not partisan in nature. Your mileage may vary, but whatever you make of my motivations, I've tried to lay out my reasoning above.

Pawlenty Good Enough For Me

CNN reports that Governor Tim Pawlenty will be announcing the formation of a Presidential Exploratory Committee today. Not surprised, but pleased to see it happening. Unfortunately, Romney's stock has taken what appears to be a terminal hit from "Romneycare." I say "unfortunately" because, on balance, my understanding is that, in its original form (that is, before it accrued the myriad barnacles which the deep-blue MA legislature affixed to it before passage), it was not altogether objectionable. And besides, the State level is where experiments like that should be run in a Federalist system: NOT a top-down, heavy-handed Transformation air-dropped on the entire Nation from the banks of the Potomac. But I'm not sanguine about the Mittens' ability to close that sale. I wouldn't write him off entirely...but the cap's off the pen.

But I digress.

There is much chatter about T-Paw's "boring" personality, which really itches me. On the issues, he's pretty much five-by-five. And we already know the true market value of political rock stars...

I think T-Paw’s Midwest civility will be a net positive, despite all the “boring” blather. Despite being a train-wreck of a POTUS, Obama is still widely liked, personally (I know. Go figure.). Someone who savages him in debates may find it a Pyrrhic victory. By contrast, Pawlenty’s smart and right-headed enough to be relentlessly correct on the issues, systematically deconstructing the Won’s fables without getting all wild-eyed about it.

T-Paw’s squeaky-clean, non-demagogic, slow-’n-steady demeanor may be just what we need to snare the napping hare. His presence as an even-tempered, humble, affable, but principled administrator strikes just the right tone for what the Tea Parties are *really* about, which is a government that knows its place and does not presume to overstep its bounds.

And wouldn’t it be TEH AWESOME if he could find a VPOTUS named Good(e)?

Modern Electronics Designed to Fail. Yay.

[by Mr.Hengist]

Interesting: "It is by no means uncommon" for modern IC integration design engineers to assume the fast obsolescence of the end product, and therefore IC environmental protections are not incorporated. Such devices will therefore have short lifetimes by design, and while that's not a problem in market due to fast obsolescence, it means that you're SOL if you want to keep such a device for an extended period of time.

It reminds me of the story of Henry Ford, who perused junk yards for his cars. He asked the proprietors which parts lasted longest, and then instructed his engineers to make those parts more cheaply because, by his reasoning, they were overbuilt.

Anyways, here's the relevant quote:

The traditional functions of a semiconductor device package are to protect the die from degradation by the atmosphere and fan-out the electrical interconnects to the next level. Because of the benign environment in which most modern semiconductors are used coupled with short expected life through product obsolescence, the need for the package to provide environmental protection has virtually disappeared. It is by no means uncommon to see essentially package-less chips attached to circuit boards, with just a polymer covering over the exposed bond pads.

Milestone

Apropos of nothing, I felt I would be remiss in failing to point out that today marks the point at which it will be exactly two years till the inauguration day of the next POTUS (as per the "Gone" counter in the sidebar, which shows 730 days, and counting...). As Dante began his journey through and out of the Underworld at the midpoint of his life ("Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita..."), so do we as a Nation find ourselves at the solstice of this Boschian Winter of an administration.

Here's hoping our own version of Vergil shows up ere long!

Glenn Greenwald Bites Into a Bitter Reality Sandwich

[by Mr.Hengist]

Glenn Greenwald put out a piece on January 18th, 2011 which must have been as difficult for him to write as it was amusing for me to read. With a title that, well, coming from Greenwald, makes one suspect we're in for a massive treat of sarcastic jibes, "The vindication of Dick Cheney" is instead a diatribe lambasting the Obama Administration for continuing and even strengthening Bush Administration GWOT policies.

I have... comments.

"In the early months of Obama's presidency, the American Right did to him what they do to every Democratic politician: they accused him of being soft on defense (specifically "soft on Terror") and leaving the nation weak and vulnerable to attack."

Well, yes, but historically, post-Kennedy Democrat Presidents have an abysmal track record on Defense. Democrats in general have a shameful history of cutting our Defense budget, undercutting our allies, making nice with our enemies, and belatedly authorizing only weak and ineffectual military actions when they do resort to force.

Besides which, Obama promised so many things that would hurt National Defense like cutting the Defense budget, pulling out of Iraq as fast as possible, killing the missile defense program, and so on, that it would be reasonable to conclude that, should he follow through, he would, well, hurt National Defense.

Only his promise to expand the war in Afghanistan seemed contrary to that, but we got fooled, didn't we? If Bob Woodward's "Obama's Wars" is to be believed, POTUS Obama had no intention of fulfilling that promise, but the Pentagon would not accommodate his wishes. The surge he authorized was about a third of what the Pentagon wanted, and the results speak for themselves.

"But that tactic quickly became untenable as everyone (other than his hardest-core followers) was forced to acknowledge that Obama was embracing and even expanding -- rather than reversing -- the core Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism."

With the high degree of hyperbole so common to the Left, Greenwald ignores the many criticisms the Right has made of Obama's GWOT policies. From the dismal slog in Afghanistan to the attempts to close Gitmo and try the detainees in U.S. courts, the record has been less than stellar. His overblown point is, nevertheless, well-taken: the Obama Administration has continued and/or strengthened many Bush-era GWOT policies.

"As a result, leading right-wing figures began lavishing Obama with praise -- and claiming vindication -- based on Obama's switch from harsh critic of those policies (as a candidate) to their leading advocate (once in power)."

Again, note the over-the-top hyperbole, "lavishing Obama with praise." I'd like to pause here for a moment to note that, if you think about it, across-the-aisle praise basically comes from one direction. When have you read of Democrats or Liberals giving straightforward praise to their political opposition for doing something good? I'm reminded of an article I read a few years ago - didn't save the link, sorry - in which the author was talking about AIDS in Africa, and he actually did praise W for dramatically increasing U.S. expenditures in fighting it over there. It was tepid praise, but fairly straightforward, and so unusual that I found it a little surprising - you know, that it was there at all. Then, immediately after that praising of W, the author went on to list a half-dozen things that W had done which the Left just hated - you know: the Enron, the Iraq war, the tax cuts, the this, the that - completely non sequitur in an article on AIDS in Africa. It was there so that the author could both remind the readers of how much they should hate W, and to insulate the author from criticism for committing the Liberal faux pas of praising the Right. Remember the response when Bono praised W for this? So do I.

VPOTUS Cheney and other leading figures of the Right are now praising POTUS Obama. They will not be denounced, hounded, or even roundly criticized for it, either. The Right doesn't have a problem when one their own praises the Left, when they finally get it right. It's worth noting.

Well, anyway, Greenwald further states that POTUS Obama has been the "leading advocate" of Bush/Cheney GWOT policies. This is just absurd; most of the announcements of his continuation of Bush/Cheney GWOT policies have been made quietly and with little comment from the White House.

Greenwald fills much of the middle of the piece with a litany of woes, rife with the canon of Liberal attacks on those policies (illegal-this, power-grab-that), after which he gets to the red meat of the article.

"First, it creates the impression that Republicans were right all along in the Bush-era War on Terror debates and Democratic critics were wrong. The same theme is constantly sounded by conservatives who point out Obama's continuation of these policies: that he criticized those policies as a candidate out of ignorance and partisan advantage, but once he became President, he realized they were right as a result of accessing the relevant classified information and needing to keep the country safe from the Terrorist threat."

Why, yes, it certainly does leave that impression, doesn't it? I didn't need to quote all that, but it paring it down would diminish the gladdening of my heart. I'd also add that it adds merit to the warning of Right that Obama is a lightweight. So, was he pandering to Liberal fantasies or is he a lightweight who learned real-world realities only after having been sworn in? Probably both.

"Second, Obama has single-handedly eliminated virtually all mainstream debate over these War on Terror policies."

Well, no, POTUS Obama has done no such thing, and I find it amusing that Greenwald would choose to credit him with this ability. No, Liberals shut down the debate, quenched the rage, and dialed down their hysteria to a quiet, occasional grumble. They did that because they've been fundamentally dishonest in these debates. Their double-standards are on full display as they grudgingly accept their Democrat POTUS doing what made them made them scream, shout, and stamp their little feet when the Republican POTUS did the same thing. They marched by the tens, hundreds of thousands back then. Now, not so much. Was it naked partisanship that made the difference, or are they just so easily manipulated that, absent their opinion-leaders telling them what to think, they don't much care about these things anymore? The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.

"Third, Obama's embrace of these policies has completely rehabilitated the reputations and standing of the Bush officials responsible for them.
[...] But Obama's impact in this area extends far beyond that. Dick Cheney is not only free of ignominy, but can run around claiming vindication from Obama's actions because he's right. The American Right constantly said during the Bush years that any President who knew what Bush knew and was faced with the duty of keeping the country safe would do the same thing. Obama has provided the best possible evidence imaginable to prove those claims true."

That's really shiny! So, Glenn, you're going to reconsider your positions from the last ten years, then? You've been given "the best possible evidence imaginable to prove those claims true" - that pretty much demands from you, if you consider yourself to be a fair and objective person of reason, that you revisit both your facts and arguments and those of your political opposition. I'd suggest you start with the opposition since I'm doubtful you've given much time to them firsthand. The archives of National Review, Power Line, and Instapundit will be most illuminating, I'm sure.

On the other hand, maybe it's still hard for me to tell where Greenwald's genuine beliefs end and his proclivity to rant hyperbole begin. Hyperbole is a safe bet, so I'll go with that.

"If Obama has indeed changed his mind over the last two years as a result of all the Secret Scary Things he's seen as President, then I genuinely believe that he and the Democratic Party owe a heartfelt, public apology to Bush, Cheney and the GOP for all the harsh insults they spewed about them for years based on policies that they are now themselves aggressively continuing."

If we ever get this - and I'm assuming only a witnessed and notarized statement signed by Obama in his own blood will suffice - then we'll get to see whether Greenwald can own up to his own divisive dishonesty during the W years. At any rate, it's good to see someone from the Left even float the idea that an apology might - just might - be in order.

In truth, my sincere hope has been that Liberals will revisit those policies and the debates of the last decade with fresh eyes and an open mind. There are policy issues of relevance to our present and future which should not be sacrificed on the altar of partisan political gain. I'm afraid this will fall to the next generation as they look back at history, decades late.

Failing that, I'd settle for a collective change in the collectivist mind. Perhaps Liberals will, having been given motive and permission to change their beliefs, will do so for partisan gain or to toe the new party line. In any case, I am glad they haven't taken to the streets in protest - again - or made much of an issue at all about this. It would be ideologically and logically consistent of them to do so but, more importantly, it would be harmful to the country. Again.