Monday, October 11, 2004
Happy 93rd birthday
... to the Republic of China which celebrated its 93rd birthday yesterday. Events on October 10, 1911 precipitated the fall of the Manchu Dynasty leading to the formation the Republic. The Republic of China, after its defeat by the Communists in the Chinese civil war, rules now in Taiwan. Despite corruption and chaos the Republic withstood (with Allied, mostly American, help) the Japanese onslaught in World War II. Unfortunately, it was unable after the war to muster the support to defeat Mao's insurgents which consigned a billion Chinese to horrific oppression for half a century.
Neutering our defenses
This cartoon by Cox & Forkum is worth the proverbial 1000 words. Kerry excoriates Bush for developing and ordering bunker-busting nukes when the US nuclear arsenal is 20-40 years old (depending upon the missile) and then Kerry proceeds to say we need no more nuclear weapons than the ones we already have (as if they will be usable in perpetuity).
Here is the cartoon:
Here is the cartoon:
Kerry - Panderer?
Watching a re-broadcast of Friday's debate (I was unable to see it live) Senator Kerry's reply to an excellent outsourcing question by Charles Gibson struck me:
1) Give Americans some credit, we know what pander means.
2) The senator is clearly AWFULLY concerned about the appearance of pandering. Way too much to be President when there are a lot of unpopular decisions that have to be made.
3) Why bring it up at all--unless it cuts really close to home?
Allahpundit has a near-comprehensive review of what the blogging community thought of the debate. Note comments- one commenter counted the number of times Kerry used the word "plan" as in "I have a plan" -- 33 times.
I'd give the President the edge in this debate - in style and substance.
Mr. Gibson. Senator, I want to extend for a minute. You talk about tax credits to stop outsourcing. But when you have I.B.M. documents that I saw recently where you can hire a programmer for $12 in China, $56 an hour here, tax credits won't cut it --
Senator Kerry: [Y]ou can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've never promised that. I'm not going to because that would be pandering. You can't. But what you can do is create a fair playing field, and that's what I'm talking about.
1) Give Americans some credit, we know what pander means.
2) The senator is clearly AWFULLY concerned about the appearance of pandering. Way too much to be President when there are a lot of unpopular decisions that have to be made.
3) Why bring it up at all--unless it cuts really close to home?
Allahpundit has a near-comprehensive review of what the blogging community thought of the debate. Note comments- one commenter counted the number of times Kerry used the word "plan" as in "I have a plan" -- 33 times.
I'd give the President the edge in this debate - in style and substance.
Morning news and comment roundup
The Monk will make this short and sweet because he's working on a couple of baseball essays and a political essay for the blog. ETA unknown. But here are some things to read at breakfast (if you're in the western US) or your morning coffee break.
First, Andrew Apostolou discusses how the UN was Saddam's ally, lobbyist, co-conspirator and financier here.
Next, John Fund discusses the roles unions are playing in corrupting the US election process, especially in "swing" states.
Speaking of elections, the WSJ notes that unlike the Spaniards, Australians and Afghanistanis have spines. Spines lead to electing leaders who don't cave in to terrorist.
Back to the US election: Mark Steyn cuts Kerry again, this time on Kerry's vacillation during the debate Friday by noting the key difference between the candidates: "Bush believes America needs to shape events in the world; Kerry doesn't and, even if he did, because he doesn't know how he'd want to shape them[,] the events would end up shaping him."
Meanwhile, in Iraq, there's good news. That's what Arthur Chrenkoff says.
And Stephen Hayes says the Duelfer Report is actually BAD news for Kerry, but first you have to read it outside the mainstream media cocoon.
Finally, the Captain deconstructs Kerry's vacuous statement that "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." In other words, worry about health care, social security, welfare, fair trade and other handouts from government to the citizens and leave the terrorists to background noise. Sounds like what Clinton did.
First, Andrew Apostolou discusses how the UN was Saddam's ally, lobbyist, co-conspirator and financier here.
Next, John Fund discusses the roles unions are playing in corrupting the US election process, especially in "swing" states.
Speaking of elections, the WSJ notes that unlike the Spaniards, Australians and Afghanistanis have spines. Spines lead to electing leaders who don't cave in to terrorist.
Back to the US election: Mark Steyn cuts Kerry again, this time on Kerry's vacillation during the debate Friday by noting the key difference between the candidates: "Bush believes America needs to shape events in the world; Kerry doesn't and, even if he did, because he doesn't know how he'd want to shape them[,] the events would end up shaping him."
Meanwhile, in Iraq, there's good news. That's what Arthur Chrenkoff says.
And Stephen Hayes says the Duelfer Report is actually BAD news for Kerry, but first you have to read it outside the mainstream media cocoon.
Finally, the Captain deconstructs Kerry's vacuous statement that "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." In other words, worry about health care, social security, welfare, fair trade and other handouts from government to the citizens and leave the terrorists to background noise. Sounds like what Clinton did.
Christopher Reeve, RIP
More sad news. The man indelibly linked to the role of Superman, Christopher Reeve, died yesterday at 52 from a heart attack caused by "a serious systemic infection from a pressure wound, a common complication for people living with paralysis." Thus, eight years after he was thrown from his horse in an equestrian competition, breaking his neck and becoming paralyzed, he ultimately died from a complication related to that injury.
Reeve was all class in dealing with his paralysis and it is safe to assume he gave hope to numerous people with paralysis through his outspoken determination to overcome his own condition.
Rest peacefully.
Reeve was all class in dealing with his paralysis and it is safe to assume he gave hope to numerous people with paralysis through his outspoken determination to overcome his own condition.
Rest peacefully.
Ken Caminiti, RIP
Ken Caminiti was a solid and occasionally spectacular baseball player. In 1996, he won the NL MVP (one of the few years Barry Bonds didn't either win or get robbed); in '98 he helped lead the underdog Padres past two 100-win teams to the NL pennant. But his career was cut short by injuries and drugs, and he lost his life to a bad heart ravaged by steroid use and (in the early '90s) cocaine. Cammy was only 41. I heard the news, and my jaw dropped.
The link above is the SI article from 2002 based on Cammy's experience that reported on the use and abuse of steroids by baseball players. This link is to the AP story reporting his death. Caminiti was the poster boy for the ravages of steroid abuse. Only 41, and the heart of an old man. Sad.
The link above is the SI article from 2002 based on Cammy's experience that reported on the use and abuse of steroids by baseball players. This link is to the AP story reporting his death. Caminiti was the poster boy for the ravages of steroid abuse. Only 41, and the heart of an old man. Sad.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Kerry = Carter IV
John Kerry wants to be the next Jimmy Carter. My hope is that he can be Jimmy Carter without getting elected president and subsequently fouling up the country for four years. In the post by the Big Trunk of Powerline linked above, Kerry's Carterish tendencies are dissected.
I've previously noted Kerry's status as the new Carter here, here, and here.
I've previously noted Kerry's status as the new Carter here, here, and here.
Kerry's awful economic policies
George Gilder dissected Kerry's economic plans, policies and influences (like Robert Rubin and Paul Krugman) in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. Read the whole thing. But here is an excerpt:
The U.S. today stands at a crossroads. The key economic issue confronting the next president is whether to embrace the policies of decline and sclerosis that afflict old Europe and have left generations of young people unemployed; or whether to enlist with Asia in the supply-side policies of dynamism and growth that have brought more human beings out of poverty than any other regimes in world history.
It should be an easy choice. The American left once displayed a real concern for poor people, but today they exhibit merely a morbid envy of the rich. Once they supported American engagement in the world. Today, they retreat to a timorous parochialism. Now it is President Bush who shows compassion for the world's poor and confidence rather than timidity before the forces of global capitalism. It is Mr. Bush who is embracing Asian dynamism rather than Eurosclerosis. For America, that is the winning side.
The U.S. today stands at a crossroads. The key economic issue confronting the next president is whether to embrace the policies of decline and sclerosis that afflict old Europe and have left generations of young people unemployed; or whether to enlist with Asia in the supply-side policies of dynamism and growth that have brought more human beings out of poverty than any other regimes in world history.
It should be an easy choice. The American left once displayed a real concern for poor people, but today they exhibit merely a morbid envy of the rich. Once they supported American engagement in the world. Today, they retreat to a timorous parochialism. Now it is President Bush who shows compassion for the world's poor and confidence rather than timidity before the forces of global capitalism. It is Mr. Bush who is embracing Asian dynamism rather than Eurosclerosis. For America, that is the winning side.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Shame on the Left
in one of his best columns in years, Jonah Goldberg eviscerates the Left. And the Left deserves it. There has been no moment in US history when a political party, its presidential candidate and its supporters have acted with more dishonor than the Democrats, John Kerry and Kerryites in their criticisms of the Administration's actions regarding Iraq.
Here's the key parts:
The problem isn't that Bush has offered more than one reason [to invade Iraq], it's that he's changed his reasons. That is the complaint of those who would otherwise support the war. Alas, that's not true, he's merely changed the emphasis. After all, what is he to do when he discovers there are no WMDs? Violate the "Pottery Barn rule" and simply leave a broken Iraq to fester? But let's imagine for a moment that he has "changed the rationale." Isn't that what Lincoln did when he changed the war to preserve the Union into the war to free the slaves? Isn't that what the Cold War liberals did when they changed a value-neutral stand-off into a twilight struggle between the human bondage and the last best hope of mankind?
* * *
. . . many of you don't care about the war. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore had conducted this war, you would be weeping joyously about Iraqi children going to school and women registering to vote. If this war had been successful rather than hard, John Kerry would be boasting today about how he supported it — much as he did every time it looked like the polls were moving in that direction. You may have forgotten Kerry's anti-Dean gloating when Saddam was captured, but many of us haven't. He would be saying the lack of WMDs are irrelevant and that Bush's lies were mistakes. And that's the point. I don't care if you hate George W. Bush; it's not like I love the guy. And I don't care if you opposed the war from day one. What disgusts me are those people who say toppling Saddam and fighting the terror war on their turf rather than ours is a mistake, not because these are bad ideas, but merely because your vanity cannot tolerate the notion that George W. Bush is right or that George W. Bush's rightness might cost John Kerry the election.
It is disgusting to wish your country ill merely because you dislike its leader. Disgraceful.
Here's the key parts:
The problem isn't that Bush has offered more than one reason [to invade Iraq], it's that he's changed his reasons. That is the complaint of those who would otherwise support the war. Alas, that's not true, he's merely changed the emphasis. After all, what is he to do when he discovers there are no WMDs? Violate the "Pottery Barn rule" and simply leave a broken Iraq to fester? But let's imagine for a moment that he has "changed the rationale." Isn't that what Lincoln did when he changed the war to preserve the Union into the war to free the slaves? Isn't that what the Cold War liberals did when they changed a value-neutral stand-off into a twilight struggle between the human bondage and the last best hope of mankind?
* * *
. . . many of you don't care about the war. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore had conducted this war, you would be weeping joyously about Iraqi children going to school and women registering to vote. If this war had been successful rather than hard, John Kerry would be boasting today about how he supported it — much as he did every time it looked like the polls were moving in that direction. You may have forgotten Kerry's anti-Dean gloating when Saddam was captured, but many of us haven't. He would be saying the lack of WMDs are irrelevant and that Bush's lies were mistakes. And that's the point. I don't care if you hate George W. Bush; it's not like I love the guy. And I don't care if you opposed the war from day one. What disgusts me are those people who say toppling Saddam and fighting the terror war on their turf rather than ours is a mistake, not because these are bad ideas, but merely because your vanity cannot tolerate the notion that George W. Bush is right or that George W. Bush's rightness might cost John Kerry the election.
It is disgusting to wish your country ill merely because you dislike its leader. Disgraceful.
Saddam Nailed
David Brooks analyzes the Duelfer Report and shows that the most important findings have been distorted by partisans and buried in the news. That's because unlike the rest of the world, Saddam had a long-term view and great patience. If you notice a similarity in that between Saddam and Arafat, you're nearly as perspicacious as The Monk.
Here is the heart of Brooks' essay:
The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic.
Saddam worked patiently to undermine the sanctions. He stored the corpses of babies in great piles, and then unveiled them all at once in great processions to illustrate the great humanitarian horrors of the sanctions.
Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal.
It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq. France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions.
With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem."
* * *
. . . we know where things were headed. Sanctions would have been lifted. Saddam, rich, triumphant and unbalanced, would have reconstituted his W.M.D. . . . We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam, but this report makes it crystal clear that this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed. He was the menace, and, as the world dithered, he was winning his struggle. He was on the verge of greatness. We would all now be living in his nightmare.
Note also that Michael Barone gets it too.
Here is the heart of Brooks' essay:
The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic.
Saddam worked patiently to undermine the sanctions. He stored the corpses of babies in great piles, and then unveiled them all at once in great processions to illustrate the great humanitarian horrors of the sanctions.
Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal.
It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq. France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions.
With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem."
* * *
. . . we know where things were headed. Sanctions would have been lifted. Saddam, rich, triumphant and unbalanced, would have reconstituted his W.M.D. . . . We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam, but this report makes it crystal clear that this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed. He was the menace, and, as the world dithered, he was winning his struggle. He was on the verge of greatness. We would all now be living in his nightmare.
Note also that Michael Barone gets it too.
Victory for Howard
The most stalwart ally of the US has re-elected its Churchill -- John Howard wins in Australia and his Coalition increased its ruling majority, a rarity in Aussie elections.
Congratulations to the Aussies and Mr. Howard. It's good to know one country's voters have retained their sanity and priorities.
Congratulations to the Aussies and Mr. Howard. It's good to know one country's voters have retained their sanity and priorities.
Be Proud of our troops
Today, Afghanistanis are going to the polls. The first voter was a 19-year old young WOMAN. The article linked above is from the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, with reason to be proud.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Waltzing Matilda with me
The entry linked in the title to this post has been getting some notoriety of late from the 'Pundits at least: Insta and Vodka. And with good reason.
On October 8, Australians had their election for Parliament. Like most British political progeny (other than the US, which rejected a monarchy), the Aussie head of state is HRM Queen Elizabeth II and she is served by her ministers in the Australian Parliament (a happy fiction -- the Aussie Parliament has the real power over Aussie affairs). The Australian Parliament has two main parties: the Labo(u)r Party, led by John Kerry and Jose Luis Zapatero friend Mark Latham; and the Liberal Party Coalition (the right-center parties of the Australian National Party and the Liberal Party), led by John Howard. And just as in the UK, Canada, New Zealand, etc., the party that obtains the most seats in the House of Commons will select its Prime Minister and subordinate ministers.
Australia is about as laid-back politically as a country can be. This year is different. Howard has been even more stalwart and supportive of the US in the past 3+ years than even Tony Blair. Simply put, Howard UNDERSTANDS the dangers of Islamofascist terrorism and the need for the free and the strong democracies to prevent global terror attacks. Latham is an appeaser and a wimp.
As Mike Jericho notes in his essay I linked above:
The real importance of [this] election lies in the foreign policy changes that would be instituted under the Labor Government of Mark Latham. The man who once broke a taxi-driver's arm, and ran Liverpool's (a suburb of southern Sydney) municipal council into historic levels of debt and political chaos now has an opportunity to shape Australia's place in the world.
The shape it would take can be speculated upon by the remarks Mr Latham has, in the past, made about the President of the United States. "The most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory" he declared about the American President who overthrew two tyrannical regimes in a single term. Latham then went on to label his Australian conservative opponents as a "conga-line of suckholes" for having originally supported the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Like Senator John Kerry, Mr Latham has prevaricated and occasionally made complete reversals of policy on what Labor would do in Government. "All the troops home by Christmas" was the original clarion call. Then it became some of the troops. Their position hasn't been clarified for some weeks, and thanks to Labor's compliant fifth columnists -- the media -- it isn't likely to be placed under any scrutiny, any time soon. But the fetid stench of appeasement wafts through the air, and it is unmistakable.
Charles Krauthammer noted that in the last 100 years only the Aussies have been in every foxhole with the US from World War I to Vietnam and the two Gulf Wars. The nation of less than 20,000,000 people punches far above its weightclass on the world scale and is the great ally that Canada used to be. A Latham win would kill that alliance. Here's hoping Howard gains his fourth term and the Aussies retain their sanity.
On October 8, Australians had their election for Parliament. Like most British political progeny (other than the US, which rejected a monarchy), the Aussie head of state is HRM Queen Elizabeth II and she is served by her ministers in the Australian Parliament (a happy fiction -- the Aussie Parliament has the real power over Aussie affairs). The Australian Parliament has two main parties: the Labo(u)r Party, led by John Kerry and Jose Luis Zapatero friend Mark Latham; and the Liberal Party Coalition (the right-center parties of the Australian National Party and the Liberal Party), led by John Howard. And just as in the UK, Canada, New Zealand, etc., the party that obtains the most seats in the House of Commons will select its Prime Minister and subordinate ministers.
Australia is about as laid-back politically as a country can be. This year is different. Howard has been even more stalwart and supportive of the US in the past 3+ years than even Tony Blair. Simply put, Howard UNDERSTANDS the dangers of Islamofascist terrorism and the need for the free and the strong democracies to prevent global terror attacks. Latham is an appeaser and a wimp.
As Mike Jericho notes in his essay I linked above:
The real importance of [this] election lies in the foreign policy changes that would be instituted under the Labor Government of Mark Latham. The man who once broke a taxi-driver's arm, and ran Liverpool's (a suburb of southern Sydney) municipal council into historic levels of debt and political chaos now has an opportunity to shape Australia's place in the world.
The shape it would take can be speculated upon by the remarks Mr Latham has, in the past, made about the President of the United States. "The most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory" he declared about the American President who overthrew two tyrannical regimes in a single term. Latham then went on to label his Australian conservative opponents as a "conga-line of suckholes" for having originally supported the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Like Senator John Kerry, Mr Latham has prevaricated and occasionally made complete reversals of policy on what Labor would do in Government. "All the troops home by Christmas" was the original clarion call. Then it became some of the troops. Their position hasn't been clarified for some weeks, and thanks to Labor's compliant fifth columnists -- the media -- it isn't likely to be placed under any scrutiny, any time soon. But the fetid stench of appeasement wafts through the air, and it is unmistakable.
Charles Krauthammer noted that in the last 100 years only the Aussies have been in every foxhole with the US from World War I to Vietnam and the two Gulf Wars. The nation of less than 20,000,000 people punches far above its weightclass on the world scale and is the great ally that Canada used to be. A Latham win would kill that alliance. Here's hoping Howard gains his fourth term and the Aussies retain their sanity.
September Employment Report
September non-farm payrolls grew by 96,000, below the consensus forecast of 145,000. Kerry partisans are cheering as it gives them extra fodder to accuse President Bush of mismanaging the economy. Expect the "outsourcing jobs" and "first president to have employment fall since Hoover" accusations to fly at tonight's debate. This will certainly cheer the Democrats as it's the last payrolls report before the election.
Notes:
1. At the national level, the severe weather appears to have held down employment growth, but not enough to change materially the Bureau's assessment of the employment situation in September - BLS. This is striking many analysts as odd. The economists at my institution write: "[T]hat assessment seems at odds with a rise in jobless insurance claims in Florida after the storms and a 171k increase in the number of people saying they were not at work because of bad weather in the household survey. The BLS's definition of "material" may be substantially bigger than the Street's definition. We suspect the report exaggerates the weakening in the job market significantly...[we] suggest an ex-hurricanes rise in payrolls of about 180k".
Additionally they note that in September 1999 Hurricane Floyd caused 122k people to say they were not at work (vs. 171k amongst the four 'canes this year) Yet at that time the BLS estimated that Hurricane Floyd depressed payrolls by more than 50k. (Sep 99 payrolls were reported initially -8k and eventually revised +187k)
2. The BLS also announced that "The tabulations indicate that the estimate of total nonfarm payroll employment will require an upward revision of approximately 236,000, or two-tenths of one percent, for the March 2004 reference month." That means payrolls from April 2003 to March 2004 were undercounted by 236,000.
3. With regard to relatively sluggish job growth in this recovery, the primary reason as I've said before is productivity. From BLS stats:
year productivity growth (%)
1994 1.2
1995 0.5
1996 2.7
1997 1.6
1998 2.7
1999 2.8
2000 2.8
2001 2.5
2002 4.4
2003 4.4
Once the recovery got underway in 02-03, productivity gains have been 4.4% vs. 2.0% from 94-00. On an annualized basis an extra percent in productivity is associated with 1 million jobs that do NOT have to be created as a result. So if average productivity stayed at 2.0% in 02-03 that would mean approximately 5 million additional jobs.
4. "Only President to lose jobs on his watch since Hoover." True. But note, in addition to 3) above there is an important demographics issue. Using BLS data, the civilian labor force grew 1.4% annually 94-00. For 2001-04 (last 3 months projected) the labor force only grew 0.7%. Checking the population growth for the last 50 years, population growth 1960-1990 is significantly higher than what it is today. (use table 2) In light of much higher productivity, a recession exacerbated by 9/11 and demographics changes this 'fact' is not nearly as relevant as the Democrats want you to believe to be.
Notes:
1. At the national level, the severe weather appears to have held down employment growth, but not enough to change materially the Bureau's assessment of the employment situation in September - BLS. This is striking many analysts as odd. The economists at my institution write: "[T]hat assessment seems at odds with a rise in jobless insurance claims in Florida after the storms and a 171k increase in the number of people saying they were not at work because of bad weather in the household survey. The BLS's definition of "material" may be substantially bigger than the Street's definition. We suspect the report exaggerates the weakening in the job market significantly...[we] suggest an ex-hurricanes rise in payrolls of about 180k".
Additionally they note that in September 1999 Hurricane Floyd caused 122k people to say they were not at work (vs. 171k amongst the four 'canes this year) Yet at that time the BLS estimated that Hurricane Floyd depressed payrolls by more than 50k. (Sep 99 payrolls were reported initially -8k and eventually revised +187k)
2. The BLS also announced that "The tabulations indicate that the estimate of total nonfarm payroll employment will require an upward revision of approximately 236,000, or two-tenths of one percent, for the March 2004 reference month." That means payrolls from April 2003 to March 2004 were undercounted by 236,000.
3. With regard to relatively sluggish job growth in this recovery, the primary reason as I've said before is productivity. From BLS stats:
year productivity growth (%)
1994 1.2
1995 0.5
1996 2.7
1997 1.6
1998 2.7
1999 2.8
2000 2.8
2001 2.5
2002 4.4
2003 4.4
Once the recovery got underway in 02-03, productivity gains have been 4.4% vs. 2.0% from 94-00. On an annualized basis an extra percent in productivity is associated with 1 million jobs that do NOT have to be created as a result. So if average productivity stayed at 2.0% in 02-03 that would mean approximately 5 million additional jobs.
4. "Only President to lose jobs on his watch since Hoover." True. But note, in addition to 3) above there is an important demographics issue. Using BLS data, the civilian labor force grew 1.4% annually 94-00. For 2001-04 (last 3 months projected) the labor force only grew 0.7%. Checking the population growth for the last 50 years, population growth 1960-1990 is significantly higher than what it is today. (use table 2) In light of much higher productivity, a recession exacerbated by 9/11 and demographics changes this 'fact' is not nearly as relevant as the Democrats want you to believe to be.
Osama for Kerry
While Osama hasn't come out saying that, Charles Krauthammer argues persuasively that the bad guys are all rooting against Bush and will try to influence the election through an Iraqi "Tet Offensive".
Two other key elections this weekend. Hamid Karzai is expected to win in Afghanistan and by the time the East Coast wakes up tomorrow, we will know whether staunch US ally Australian Prime Minister John Howard has won another term. That election is too close to call with Howard thought to be narrowly ahead. His Labour opponent has been campaigning on the Zapatero standard of bring the troops home.
Hoping for a 3 for 3 tonight: Bush, Howard and the Yanks
Two other key elections this weekend. Hamid Karzai is expected to win in Afghanistan and by the time the East Coast wakes up tomorrow, we will know whether staunch US ally Australian Prime Minister John Howard has won another term. That election is too close to call with Howard thought to be narrowly ahead. His Labour opponent has been campaigning on the Zapatero standard of bring the troops home.
Hoping for a 3 for 3 tonight: Bush, Howard and the Yanks
Do Shut Up
George Vecsey is now waxing philosophical about how it's time for the Red Sox to beat the Yankees and win the WS.
ONE of these years, the Red Sox really ought to win it all.
Like right now.
They need to shake off the Yankees and win a World Series. Everybody needs closure, before we collectively get sick and tired of these historic stumbles.
George, 20 million Yankee fans say Pfah! to you too. As far as we are concerned they can stumble until/unless they play Red China or Cuber in the WS. The Red Sox always failing may well be a truth of the Universe like the Generals always falling to the Globetrotters. Besides, I think winning one for the Sox or the Cubs would rob their fans of the exquisite pain and camaraderie that they have really come to enjoy. They just don't know it yet.
So stow it or go write for the Globe.
ONE of these years, the Red Sox really ought to win it all.
Like right now.
They need to shake off the Yankees and win a World Series. Everybody needs closure, before we collectively get sick and tired of these historic stumbles.
George, 20 million Yankee fans say Pfah! to you too. As far as we are concerned they can stumble until/unless they play Red China or Cuber in the WS. The Red Sox always failing may well be a truth of the Universe like the Generals always falling to the Globetrotters. Besides, I think winning one for the Sox or the Cubs would rob their fans of the exquisite pain and camaraderie that they have really come to enjoy. They just don't know it yet.
So stow it or go write for the Globe.
More Muslim barbarity
An al-Qaeda attack (likely culprit) on an Egyptian resort frequented by Israelis. Forget the regional animus, the US must use Israel to help it track down and kill al-Qaedans and other Middle East terrorists.
More solid analysis re: Duelfer report
And it comes from Scotland yet again.
Be sure to see this WSJ editorial at Opinion Journal.
Senator Kerry, do you care to revise your membership list of the coalition of the bribed and coerced?
Be sure to see this WSJ editorial at Opinion Journal.
Senator Kerry, do you care to revise your membership list of the coalition of the bribed and coerced?
Thursday, October 07, 2004
The Duelfer Report -- proof that Kerry cannot be President
The Duelfer Report may end up as one of the most important documents SUPPORTING the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, despite what you may be reading in the mainstream media. Amazingly, the British press seems to get this, the American press does not. Here is a roundup of some links and commentary.
First, Mark Steyn's pithy comment (see link) is worth reprinting in full:
Don't take the word of your lazy rolling-news update anchor or the AP rewrite guy on the Duelfer findings on Iraq. Instead, read the report for yourself. It is an amazing document. It renders John Kerry, on foreign policy and national security, either a complacent food or an utter fraud. It's not about WMD, it's about the top-to-toe corruption of the entire international system by Saddam Hussein. The "global test" is a racket, and anybody who puts faith in it is jeopardizing America's national security. If the lazy US media won't pick up this story now, shame on them.
Naturally, the NY Times touts the no WMD findings. Here is its story on the Duelfer report, and here is a fisking of that story.
But a better summary of the Report is by the ISG itself. That summary is here. Compare it to the NY Times summary and see just how much the Times is skewing its reporting.
Meanwhile, The Scotsman (not a right-wing rag at all) sounds the right note twice: (1) in its article on how Saddam wanted to restart his weapons systems ASAP once he had the ability to avoid the effects of the US sanctions -- that means once the oil-for-food money allowed him to do so; and (2) in its report on how Saddam bribed the French to influence their votes at the UN.
One key point in the Scotsman articles that you won't see in the US media (except maybe in Fox News or the Washington Times):
Mr Duelfer said the world was better off with Saddam ousted from power[:] "In my opinion there was a risk of Saddam Hussein in charge of a country with that amount of resources and that amount of potential for both good and evil."
Also honestly appraising the Duelfer report is Glenn Reynolds, the ubiquitous Instapundit. Here is his take from GlennReynolds.com on MSNBC:
It's hard to pass the "Global Test" when the people grading it are being bribed to administer a failing grade. Perhaps Kerry should change his stance, and promise that a Kerry Administration would "outbid the bad guys." That approach is more likely to succeed than the one he's been touting, which even he has admitted is doomed.
Courtesy El Capitan, here is the list of many of the beneficiaries of Saddam's bribes.
And here's the key point from the Telegraph's story on the report:
. . . Mr Duelfer said at the start of the new millennium Saddam was "making progress in eroding sanctions - a lot of progress", and that had it not been for the September 11 attacks "things would have taken a very different course for the regime".
Pres. Bush has continually stated that it is irresponsible to wait until there is an imminent threat before confronting rogue regimes. He is right and Duelfer's report supports him.
See also continuing coverage here and here.
First, Mark Steyn's pithy comment (see link) is worth reprinting in full:
Don't take the word of your lazy rolling-news update anchor or the AP rewrite guy on the Duelfer findings on Iraq. Instead, read the report for yourself. It is an amazing document. It renders John Kerry, on foreign policy and national security, either a complacent food or an utter fraud. It's not about WMD, it's about the top-to-toe corruption of the entire international system by Saddam Hussein. The "global test" is a racket, and anybody who puts faith in it is jeopardizing America's national security. If the lazy US media won't pick up this story now, shame on them.
Naturally, the NY Times touts the no WMD findings. Here is its story on the Duelfer report, and here is a fisking of that story.
But a better summary of the Report is by the ISG itself. That summary is here. Compare it to the NY Times summary and see just how much the Times is skewing its reporting.
Meanwhile, The Scotsman (not a right-wing rag at all) sounds the right note twice: (1) in its article on how Saddam wanted to restart his weapons systems ASAP once he had the ability to avoid the effects of the US sanctions -- that means once the oil-for-food money allowed him to do so; and (2) in its report on how Saddam bribed the French to influence their votes at the UN.
One key point in the Scotsman articles that you won't see in the US media (except maybe in Fox News or the Washington Times):
Mr Duelfer said the world was better off with Saddam ousted from power[:] "In my opinion there was a risk of Saddam Hussein in charge of a country with that amount of resources and that amount of potential for both good and evil."
Also honestly appraising the Duelfer report is Glenn Reynolds, the ubiquitous Instapundit. Here is his take from GlennReynolds.com on MSNBC:
It's hard to pass the "Global Test" when the people grading it are being bribed to administer a failing grade. Perhaps Kerry should change his stance, and promise that a Kerry Administration would "outbid the bad guys." That approach is more likely to succeed than the one he's been touting, which even he has admitted is doomed.
Courtesy El Capitan, here is the list of many of the beneficiaries of Saddam's bribes.
And here's the key point from the Telegraph's story on the report:
. . . Mr Duelfer said at the start of the new millennium Saddam was "making progress in eroding sanctions - a lot of progress", and that had it not been for the September 11 attacks "things would have taken a very different course for the regime".
Pres. Bush has continually stated that it is irresponsible to wait until there is an imminent threat before confronting rogue regimes. He is right and Duelfer's report supports him.
See also continuing coverage here and here.
What Bremer Really Said
Belmont Club has an excellent piece on what the Kerry partisans are screaming is an admission that we didn't have enough troops to do the job properly. Context, as usual, is key.
hat-tip: LGF
hat-tip: LGF
Baseball fever = set up a quarantine
RedSawx nation my arse.
Yesterday, the Wongdoer is standing on the platform waiting for his homeward bound train to open up when, just before 11:30 EDT, a symphony of cell phones starts up. The reason? Arod had just tied the Yankees' playoff game with the Twinkies with a ground rule double. Just minutes later, more cell phone barage when Jeter raced home on Matsui's short fly to get the Yanks the win.
And now for the short baseball observations:
(1) The Yanks have two quality starts this postseason. In 2002 with ClemensPettitteMoooooooooseWells, they had zero.
(2) Credit to Jon Leiber -- he pitched 6.2 solid innings and didn't really get smacked around when the Twins got a deuce in the 2nd, they did it with speed and soft hits. After that, he settled in nicely. BTW, he has a solid ERA at the Stadium, so I hope (if the Yanks are playing into next week) that Torre will keep him in the No. 2 pitching spot.
(3) Debit to Torre -- Tom Gordon has done a good job this season, but in game 2 with an 0-2 hole staring the team in the face, and a day off the next day, Torre needed to have Rivera ready to start the 8th and probably should have started him then. Rivera was not fully warmed-up when he came into the game in the middle of the inning because he only started tossing in the 'pen when Jones reached on the wild pitch/third strike. Why leave your best weapon at home when going to a firefight? The Twins have not handled a fully warmed-up Rivera (contrast his 9th inning with the 8th, and check out what Mo did against them in the regular season). The fact is that Rivera was 53/57 in save opportunities in part because Gordon helped turn him into a one-inning closer this year. Rivera's previous stats from 1997 are: 43/52, 36/40 (he was actually relieved once in '98 b/c injury but the stats always say he was 36/41 in save opps.), 45/49, 36/41, 50/57, 28/32, 40/46 and many of his blown saves through the years were multi-inning opportunities, or of the enteringwithrunnerson variety (especially in '03). But Gordon has four losses (and six blown saves) and contributed to others: he blew some VERY winnable games (May 22 at Texas, Aug. 25 at Cleveland) and contributed to complete bullpen incinerations in two games where the Yanks had big leads: July 24 at Boston (bad loss), Aug. 19 at Minnesota (Sheffield saved them). Torre's either coddling Rivera too much (think game 4 2003 WS) or having too much faith in Gordon. That must change.
(4) Credit to Torre and Gardenhire: Torre gets credit for going with Sturtze in the 10th and his faith basically paid off. Sturtze was solid and made a bad pitch to the Twinkies' hottest hitter, Toriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Hunter, but the Yanks saved him. There are few options for the home team manager when the closer honks, but Torre played this right. Gardenhire decided to stick with his closer Joe Nathan until Hades froze over, and that was the right call too. Stay with your most potent pitcher, go for the jugular in a short series, play to win today. That last concept is how Torre coaxed 101 wins out of a team with shoddy pitching.
(5) Ugh to the Angels. How bad would they look if Pedro and Schilling had been great, instead of just solid? All that effort at the end of the season and the Halos are 27 outs away from going out like suckers. Bad pitching, poor clutch hitting, bad fielding means two bad losses and at home too! Since the advent of the LDS format in '95, there have been four sweeps ('95 Indians, '98 and '99 Yanks, '00 Mariners) and four comebacks from 0-2 deficits ('95 Mariners, '99 and '03 RedSawx, '01 Yankees). Only one of the four 0-2 comebacks started on the road -- the '01 Yankees -- and that comeback needed one of the great defensive plays in baseball history to help it get started.
As for the NLDS -- who cares? Fifty percent of previous NLDS have ended in sweeps and only three have gone five games. Expect the Dodgers to flop and Astros/Braves to go four relatively uninteresting games. Call me for the NLCS.
Yesterday, the Wongdoer is standing on the platform waiting for his homeward bound train to open up when, just before 11:30 EDT, a symphony of cell phones starts up. The reason? Arod had just tied the Yankees' playoff game with the Twinkies with a ground rule double. Just minutes later, more cell phone barage when Jeter raced home on Matsui's short fly to get the Yanks the win.
And now for the short baseball observations:
(1) The Yanks have two quality starts this postseason. In 2002 with ClemensPettitteMoooooooooseWells, they had zero.
(2) Credit to Jon Leiber -- he pitched 6.2 solid innings and didn't really get smacked around when the Twins got a deuce in the 2nd, they did it with speed and soft hits. After that, he settled in nicely. BTW, he has a solid ERA at the Stadium, so I hope (if the Yanks are playing into next week) that Torre will keep him in the No. 2 pitching spot.
(3) Debit to Torre -- Tom Gordon has done a good job this season, but in game 2 with an 0-2 hole staring the team in the face, and a day off the next day, Torre needed to have Rivera ready to start the 8th and probably should have started him then. Rivera was not fully warmed-up when he came into the game in the middle of the inning because he only started tossing in the 'pen when Jones reached on the wild pitch/third strike. Why leave your best weapon at home when going to a firefight? The Twins have not handled a fully warmed-up Rivera (contrast his 9th inning with the 8th, and check out what Mo did against them in the regular season). The fact is that Rivera was 53/57 in save opportunities in part because Gordon helped turn him into a one-inning closer this year. Rivera's previous stats from 1997 are: 43/52, 36/40 (he was actually relieved once in '98 b/c injury but the stats always say he was 36/41 in save opps.), 45/49, 36/41, 50/57, 28/32, 40/46 and many of his blown saves through the years were multi-inning opportunities, or of the enteringwithrunnerson variety (especially in '03). But Gordon has four losses (and six blown saves) and contributed to others: he blew some VERY winnable games (May 22 at Texas, Aug. 25 at Cleveland) and contributed to complete bullpen incinerations in two games where the Yanks had big leads: July 24 at Boston (bad loss), Aug. 19 at Minnesota (Sheffield saved them). Torre's either coddling Rivera too much (think game 4 2003 WS) or having too much faith in Gordon. That must change.
(4) Credit to Torre and Gardenhire: Torre gets credit for going with Sturtze in the 10th and his faith basically paid off. Sturtze was solid and made a bad pitch to the Twinkies' hottest hitter, Toriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Hunter, but the Yanks saved him. There are few options for the home team manager when the closer honks, but Torre played this right. Gardenhire decided to stick with his closer Joe Nathan until Hades froze over, and that was the right call too. Stay with your most potent pitcher, go for the jugular in a short series, play to win today. That last concept is how Torre coaxed 101 wins out of a team with shoddy pitching.
(5) Ugh to the Angels. How bad would they look if Pedro and Schilling had been great, instead of just solid? All that effort at the end of the season and the Halos are 27 outs away from going out like suckers. Bad pitching, poor clutch hitting, bad fielding means two bad losses and at home too! Since the advent of the LDS format in '95, there have been four sweeps ('95 Indians, '98 and '99 Yanks, '00 Mariners) and four comebacks from 0-2 deficits ('95 Mariners, '99 and '03 RedSawx, '01 Yankees). Only one of the four 0-2 comebacks started on the road -- the '01 Yankees -- and that comeback needed one of the great defensive plays in baseball history to help it get started.
As for the NLDS -- who cares? Fifty percent of previous NLDS have ended in sweeps and only three have gone five games. Expect the Dodgers to flop and Astros/Braves to go four relatively uninteresting games. Call me for the NLCS.
The Duelfer Report, pt. 1
David Frum notes the key conclusions from the recent report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group that investigated Saddam's WMD programs.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
America's effect on Afghanistan
You want an educational achievement for the Bush Administration? Here it is: a girls' school opening in Afghanistan. Click the link and read the report, replete with photo of happy young girls about to get something they were denied for more than 10 years under the misogynist mullahcrats of the Taliban -- education.
Oh yeah, you can tell the girls are happy because you can SEE THEIR FACES.
G-d Bless America.
Oh yeah, you can tell the girls are happy because you can SEE THEIR FACES.
G-d Bless America.
Enough with the Draft rumors
All that crap about reinstating the draft? Rubbish, offal, bulls't. Now the Democrats can shut up about the fallacious concept of a "Secret Plan to Restart the Draft". The bill to reinstate the draft that Charlie Rangel and a coterie of left-wing loons in the House supported was brought to a vote by the House today. It lost, 402-2.
HT: Out of Water, a site new to me that gave me a shout-out today. Thanks Dignan. Mebbe your taste in baseball teams will improve . . . but no one's perfect.
HT: Out of Water, a site new to me that gave me a shout-out today. Thanks Dignan. Mebbe your taste in baseball teams will improve . . . but no one's perfect.
What really matters
John Edwards unwittingly told his audience last night exactly why the Kerry candidacy is so deeply suspect.
What makes a man, and a president, isn't what he says on any given Thursday. We need to judge Bush and Kerry not on how they sound but on the history of their actions. The history of Kerry's record 1970-2004 is ghastly.
P.S. I thought Cheney was articulate, sharp and on point - no surprise that he's been one of the most influential VPs in history. Frankly, a shame that Cheney won't run in 2008.
"The American people saw John Kerry on Thursday night. (emphasis mine) They don't need the vice president or the president to tell them what they saw. They saw a man who was strong, who had conviction, who is resolute, who made it very clear that he will do everything that has to be done to find terrorists."
What makes a man, and a president, isn't what he says on any given Thursday. We need to judge Bush and Kerry not on how they sound but on the history of their actions. The history of Kerry's record 1970-2004 is ghastly.
P.S. I thought Cheney was articulate, sharp and on point - no surprise that he's been one of the most influential VPs in history. Frankly, a shame that Cheney won't run in 2008.
This is about right too
Click the link for a thorough listing of Kerry's accomplishments as Senator and his further accomplishments as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I don't think there's anything missing from either list.
A rosy map
Slate is not, and never has been, in the tank for Republicans. And especially not for President Bush. Even its most honest moderate liberal correspondent, Mickey Kaus, jumped on the JohnKerryisadouchebagbutImvotingforhimanyway.com bandwagon and did so without the faux agonizing he did in finally declaring for Gore in 2000. So when Slate pops up with this electoral map only a week after John Kerry supposedly shredded the President in last week's debate like he was Hillary Clinton's legal records, it's a bit of a surprise.
I'm notsosure about the alleged leads for Bush in New Mexico, Michigan or Pennsylvania and I'm certain that Virginia and North Carolina will go Republican. Nonetheless, the result Slate currently predicts would work fine by me.
I'm notsosure about the alleged leads for Bush in New Mexico, Michigan or Pennsylvania and I'm certain that Virginia and North Carolina will go Republican. Nonetheless, the result Slate currently predicts would work fine by me.
Reality 1, Kerry 0 = no French troops
In a complete reversal of one of his main talking points, Kerry admitted that the French and Germans will not send troops to Iraq. So what's Kerry's criticism of Bush other than BS opportunism?
Here's the money part from the article linked above:
The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.
"Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that," he said.
Good call, Senator. Only took you 2 years to realize that after Pres. Bush did, and he's supposedly a dummy! Now that you have admitted reality, when do you apologize for demagoguing the issue based on a premise you now admit is false?
Hat-tip: Right on Red via El Capitan.
UPDATE: See Kerry's foreign report card here.
Here's the money part from the article linked above:
The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.
"Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that," he said.
Good call, Senator. Only took you 2 years to realize that after Pres. Bush did, and he's supposedly a dummy! Now that you have admitted reality, when do you apologize for demagoguing the issue based on a premise you now admit is false?
Hat-tip: Right on Red via El Capitan.
UPDATE: See Kerry's foreign report card here.
Quacks like a duck alert -- the global test
Jonah Goldberg says Kerry's "global test" nonsense is really a veto for the UN to curtail the exercise of US forces. He's right.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Today's sign of the apocalypse - Porn for Kerry
Several adult film actors have made a DVD, for sale on the Internet, entitled "Porn for Kerry." In the film, which features porn stars, "Jorge Bush" canoodles in a hot tub with the king of an imaginary Middle Eastern oil state. The filmmakers say they will donate the proceeds to Senator John Kerry's campaign.
Inspired by Michael Moore I'm sure.
Baseball fever -- is it contagious?
The baseball playoffs start today, and as of the time I'm writing this, Odalis Perez has already been shelled into oblivion and the Dodgers are only now scrapping back to within 7-2 . . . so give game 1 to the Cards in that series.
Nonetheless, The Monk is fearless in predicting that each of the best of five series will go at least three games!
Actually, here are some more thoughtful observations. First, if Fox Sports President David Hill's claim that the Red Stiffs are a bigger TV draw than the Yankees is correct (a statement backed up with NO FACTS), why did Fox CHOOSE the Yankees-Twins game for tonight? As the primetime broadcaster, under the agreements Fox and ESPN have with MLB, Fox had the choice of whichever game it wanted to show in the Tuesday night primetime slot. Fox chose the Yankees-Twins game. As the primetime telecaster for Wednesday and Friday, ESPN could choose whichever game it wanted for those nights, and it also picked Yankees-Twins. From the money-talks standpoint, David Hill is full of crap.
Second, the conventional wisdom (a phrase renowned for its 50% accuracy) says that you need excellent starting pitching to win the World Series. Here are the exceptions to that rule since the advent of the three-tier playoff system in 1995: 1996 Yankees, 1997 Marlins, 2000 Yankees, 2002 Angels (and their 2 quality starts in 16 playoff games). The way The Monk counts, that's four teams with so-so starting that have won the Series in the past nine years (and the 1993 Blue Jays and 1990 Reds weren't exactly teeming with Hall of Famers, so you could stretch this theory out a bit).
Third, the don't believe the hype claim of the postseason. The press has been touting Johan Santana as the most likely playoff-changing pitching hero since Orel Hershiser in 1988. One problem: the Dodgers won the 1988 NLCS more due to their own grit than to Orel's heroics. Yes, he pitched 24+ innings and allowed only 3 ER, but the Dodgers lost (aka, their bullpen and defense honked) two of his three starts. Despite those failures, the Dodgers beat the Mets in three of the four games Hershiser did NOT start. And in the World Series, the real heroics were Kirk Gibson's immortal HR in game 1 (the worst pitch Eckersley ever threw -- a slider to an injured player who had NO CHANCE against a fastball) that turned the tide of the series immediately. Yankee fans are self-deluding if they believe that a win tonight = a win in the series against the Twins just because Santana starts this evening. And the Yankee-haters (and both of you Twins fans outside the Pohlad family) are deluding themselves if they think this series will turn on Santana going 2-0 with two stellar starts. In 9 years, and 36 divisional series, that phenomenon has occurred once: the 2001 Cards-Snakes series when Schilling was superb and made up for Johnson's honk in game 2.
Fourth, here's the one positive prediction I'll make: success or failure for the Yankees in this postseason will not depend on who they play against, but will instead hinge on their performance alone. Seems simple or incoherent or both, but the point is that the Yankees' opponent is largely irrelevant because they can hit anyone, the question is whether they will. That is how good they can be and how (often) bad they have been. This is a contrast to the '97 team and '01 team that couldn't hit top-end hard-throwers and the '03 team that had trouble against fireballers. Why? SHEFFIELD + (second-year) Matsui.
The Yanks have been outscored by all three of their potential AL playoff opponents head-to-head, but those stats are skewed by the two bad stretches the Yanks had this season: early April and mid/late August. The Yanks handled the Angels in May (4 of 6) when the Yanks were starting to put things together and the Angels were the best team in baseball. The Yanks dominated the Red Sox at the Stadium after May 1 (5 of 6, aggregate 44-17) and would actually have won the season series after being 6-1 down in April if Rivera hadn't completely honked two games. And aside from the fact that Sheffield has taken both Santana and Nathan (the best Twins pitchers) deep, the Yanks and Twins have no good read on each other -- the Twins caught the Yanks in a tailspin in Minnesota, the Yanks caught the Twins halfway playing out the string in NY after the Twins had already clinched.
Fifth, place no trust in the Astros until they actually do something. Remember that despite all the hype, Clemens is just 2-3, 4.50 in LDS play and his teams are 3-5 in his starts (his WS stats are commensurate with Hall of Fame caliber pitching). Biggio and Bagwell are noted playoff stiffs and Lidge is in his first October as a closer -- which makes him unreliable just as Trevor Hoffman (1998), Mike Henneman (1996), Rivera (1997) and John Wetteland (1995) learned the hard way. Then again, the Braves are 1-4 in LDS play since 2000 . . .
As for the RedSawx-Angels -- somehow the notion of a five-game nailbiting classic like last season's Sux-A's series would be fitting and is highly likely.
Nonetheless, The Monk is fearless in predicting that each of the best of five series will go at least three games!
Actually, here are some more thoughtful observations. First, if Fox Sports President David Hill's claim that the Red Stiffs are a bigger TV draw than the Yankees is correct (a statement backed up with NO FACTS), why did Fox CHOOSE the Yankees-Twins game for tonight? As the primetime broadcaster, under the agreements Fox and ESPN have with MLB, Fox had the choice of whichever game it wanted to show in the Tuesday night primetime slot. Fox chose the Yankees-Twins game. As the primetime telecaster for Wednesday and Friday, ESPN could choose whichever game it wanted for those nights, and it also picked Yankees-Twins. From the money-talks standpoint, David Hill is full of crap.
Second, the conventional wisdom (a phrase renowned for its 50% accuracy) says that you need excellent starting pitching to win the World Series. Here are the exceptions to that rule since the advent of the three-tier playoff system in 1995: 1996 Yankees, 1997 Marlins, 2000 Yankees, 2002 Angels (and their 2 quality starts in 16 playoff games). The way The Monk counts, that's four teams with so-so starting that have won the Series in the past nine years (and the 1993 Blue Jays and 1990 Reds weren't exactly teeming with Hall of Famers, so you could stretch this theory out a bit).
Third, the don't believe the hype claim of the postseason. The press has been touting Johan Santana as the most likely playoff-changing pitching hero since Orel Hershiser in 1988. One problem: the Dodgers won the 1988 NLCS more due to their own grit than to Orel's heroics. Yes, he pitched 24+ innings and allowed only 3 ER, but the Dodgers lost (aka, their bullpen and defense honked) two of his three starts. Despite those failures, the Dodgers beat the Mets in three of the four games Hershiser did NOT start. And in the World Series, the real heroics were Kirk Gibson's immortal HR in game 1 (the worst pitch Eckersley ever threw -- a slider to an injured player who had NO CHANCE against a fastball) that turned the tide of the series immediately. Yankee fans are self-deluding if they believe that a win tonight = a win in the series against the Twins just because Santana starts this evening. And the Yankee-haters (and both of you Twins fans outside the Pohlad family) are deluding themselves if they think this series will turn on Santana going 2-0 with two stellar starts. In 9 years, and 36 divisional series, that phenomenon has occurred once: the 2001 Cards-Snakes series when Schilling was superb and made up for Johnson's honk in game 2.
Fourth, here's the one positive prediction I'll make: success or failure for the Yankees in this postseason will not depend on who they play against, but will instead hinge on their performance alone. Seems simple or incoherent or both, but the point is that the Yankees' opponent is largely irrelevant because they can hit anyone, the question is whether they will. That is how good they can be and how (often) bad they have been. This is a contrast to the '97 team and '01 team that couldn't hit top-end hard-throwers and the '03 team that had trouble against fireballers. Why? SHEFFIELD + (second-year) Matsui.
The Yanks have been outscored by all three of their potential AL playoff opponents head-to-head, but those stats are skewed by the two bad stretches the Yanks had this season: early April and mid/late August. The Yanks handled the Angels in May (4 of 6) when the Yanks were starting to put things together and the Angels were the best team in baseball. The Yanks dominated the Red Sox at the Stadium after May 1 (5 of 6, aggregate 44-17) and would actually have won the season series after being 6-1 down in April if Rivera hadn't completely honked two games. And aside from the fact that Sheffield has taken both Santana and Nathan (the best Twins pitchers) deep, the Yanks and Twins have no good read on each other -- the Twins caught the Yanks in a tailspin in Minnesota, the Yanks caught the Twins halfway playing out the string in NY after the Twins had already clinched.
Fifth, place no trust in the Astros until they actually do something. Remember that despite all the hype, Clemens is just 2-3, 4.50 in LDS play and his teams are 3-5 in his starts (his WS stats are commensurate with Hall of Fame caliber pitching). Biggio and Bagwell are noted playoff stiffs and Lidge is in his first October as a closer -- which makes him unreliable just as Trevor Hoffman (1998), Mike Henneman (1996), Rivera (1997) and John Wetteland (1995) learned the hard way. Then again, the Braves are 1-4 in LDS play since 2000 . . .
As for the RedSawx-Angels -- somehow the notion of a five-game nailbiting classic like last season's Sux-A's series would be fitting and is highly likely.
More Oil-for-Fraud revelations
This time from Bill Gertz, one of the top international reporters writing for a US newspaper.
Democrats are disgusting
According to John Edwards, about 1/2 of the voting public is nuts. This is disgusting and immoral rhetoric, exactly what you should expect from the Democrats who have no honor or integrity.
The Andy McCarthy vitamin
Your mental diet is incomplete if not fortified by its weekly (or thereabouts) dose of the Andy McCarthy vitamin. Feed your mind at the link above.
Who's grading that global test?
That's the question Anne Bayefsky asks in the article linked above. The answer is unsettling, to say the least.
Monday, October 04, 2004
BREAKING NEWS: IRAQ'S WMD AND TERROR TIES?!?
This is from CNSNews.com: the online news site has received 42 pages of Iraqi documents, in Arabic, that show Saddam's direct support for terrorists and some details about his WMD program and stockpile. CNSNews.com had the documents translated independently by two separate translators. According to the article, terrorism and Iraq policy expert Laurie Mylroie said "the papers represent 'the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism' against the U.S." Mylroie is among the foremost experts on Saddam's policies toward the US and his support for terrorism (as Michael Ledeen once stated: "Laurie Mylroie is always right").
All that said, The Monk still warns that this whole report should be taken with a grain of salt. CNSN tends to be pretty good (better than Debka), somewhere in the realm of World Net Daily.
All that said, The Monk still warns that this whole report should be taken with a grain of salt. CNSN tends to be pretty good (better than Debka), somewhere in the realm of World Net Daily.
Cox and Forkum: dead-on again
From Cox and Forkum, the should-be political cartoonists of the Right:
Anti-Yankee bias
ESPN's anti-Yankee bias is getting even worse than Sports Illustrated's former anti-Yankee bias (much toned down since Tom Verducci became SI's #1 baseball reporter). Here is the entry on the immortal Yankees-Redstiffs game from July 1 from ESPN's top 10 games of the 2004 season. Note the problems: first, it's listed only as #3 on the top 10 -- sorry, it was the best game of the season bar none; second, three of the six WhatMadeItGreat (WMIG) entries are pro-RedSawx and only two are pro-Yankee (mildly); the description kills the drama of the game: first-place showdown, Yanks exorcising the arse-beating they suffered in April, Pedro against a rookie, Yanks' Rivera working out of a bases-loaded no-out jam in the 11th, Yanks rallying when down to their last strike to Cairo with two outs in the 13th and winning.
I cannot stand ESPN.
Here is the entry:
3. Nomar pouts, Jeter dives, Yanks win (July 1 -- Yankees 5, Red Sox 4 )
WMIG 1: You can't buy a smile: Nomar pouting as he earned $70,987.65 for the game.
WMIG 2: Pedro striking out A-Rod, Matsui, and Bernie, in order, all on swinging third strikes, in the fourth.
WMIG 3: Keith Foulke getting himself into trouble -- and then out of trouble in the ninth inning to keep things all tied up.
WMIG 4: Jeter's dive into row 5 in the top of the 12th to snuff a Red sox rally.
WMIG 5: Manny Ramirez. He hit a two-run shot in the sixth to pull the Red Sox within 1, then led off the 13th with a solo shot for a 4-3 Boston lead.
WMIG 6: Yankees come back to tie and then win the game in the bottom of the 13th, 5-4.
I cannot stand ESPN.
Here is the entry:
3. Nomar pouts, Jeter dives, Yanks win (July 1 -- Yankees 5, Red Sox 4 )
WMIG 1: You can't buy a smile: Nomar pouting as he earned $70,987.65 for the game.
WMIG 2: Pedro striking out A-Rod, Matsui, and Bernie, in order, all on swinging third strikes, in the fourth.
WMIG 3: Keith Foulke getting himself into trouble -- and then out of trouble in the ninth inning to keep things all tied up.
WMIG 4: Jeter's dive into row 5 in the top of the 12th to snuff a Red sox rally.
WMIG 5: Manny Ramirez. He hit a two-run shot in the sixth to pull the Red Sox within 1, then led off the 13th with a solo shot for a 4-3 Boston lead.
WMIG 6: Yankees come back to tie and then win the game in the bottom of the 13th, 5-4.
Axis for Kerry
Diana West documents here support for Kerry from Syria, Iran and North Korea. It's quite clear that our enemies prefer the feckless (and hopefully stillborn) Kerry Doctrine of magnanimous, noble appeasement than the Bush Doctrine. Vice President Cheney was excoriated for stating that if we make the wrong choice in this election we risked exposing ourselves greatly to further attacks. This was so politically incorrect that it could not be said in polite company. Well, it seems the enemy has spoken for us.
hat-tip: neal boortz
hat-tip: neal boortz
Does substance matter?
That's what Mark Levin wants to know (link in title). Does what Kerry actually said in the debate matter or is the debate only about his appearance and manner? Because if what Kerry said actually matters, he will send this country into an economic and foreign policy abyss if he is elected in November.
Meanwhile, Captain Ed fisks Kerry's policy toward Iran and wonders if the fact that three prominent Kerry fundraisers are pro-normalization (i.e., pro-mullahcracy) has anything to do with Kerry's suggestion that we enable Iran's nuclear ambitions and trust the mullahs not to try to blow Israel to smithereens. Here is one article about the three fundraisers, by Kenneth Timmerman, a top journalist on nuclear proliferation and the regimes that seek to develop the bomb. The Captain bases his post, in part, on the Timmerman article but also has more information on these theocratic sympathizers.
Nice to see that Kerry is following in Clinton's footsteps by allowing people who amount to agents of foreign governments to purchase his foreign policy stances. September 11 must have been a collective nightmare, not a reality, for Kerry to sell himself so cheap.
Meanwhile, Captain Ed fisks Kerry's policy toward Iran and wonders if the fact that three prominent Kerry fundraisers are pro-normalization (i.e., pro-mullahcracy) has anything to do with Kerry's suggestion that we enable Iran's nuclear ambitions and trust the mullahs not to try to blow Israel to smithereens. Here is one article about the three fundraisers, by Kenneth Timmerman, a top journalist on nuclear proliferation and the regimes that seek to develop the bomb. The Captain bases his post, in part, on the Timmerman article but also has more information on these theocratic sympathizers.
Nice to see that Kerry is following in Clinton's footsteps by allowing people who amount to agents of foreign governments to purchase his foreign policy stances. September 11 must have been a collective nightmare, not a reality, for Kerry to sell himself so cheap.
Kerry's hometown paper endorses Bush!
The Inquisitor of Crawford, Texas (circulation < 500, that's slightly more than 3% of the circulation of my college newspaper) received more publicity than ever when it endorsed John Kerry for President. Will the Lowell Sun get the same treatment from the Washington Post, Boston Globe, NY Times and LA Times that the Crawford fishwrap did? Somehow, I doubt it.
Here's the money paragraph:
We know if there is one thing the enemy fears above all else, it is that George Bush's iron will is stronger than his iron won't.
The Sun proudly endorses the re-election of President George W. Bush.
Courtesy, National Review Online's The Corner.
Here's the money paragraph:
We know if there is one thing the enemy fears above all else, it is that George Bush's iron will is stronger than his iron won't.
The Sun proudly endorses the re-election of President George W. Bush.
Courtesy, National Review Online's The Corner.
The Force isn't with us
So says Jonathan Last of the Weekly Standard re: the Star Wars DVD. Like most fans, I soured on the whole epic after The Phantom Plotline was released in 1999, and was not impressed with Attack of the Killer Clones either (in Star Wars, Leia says to Luke, aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper; Mark Hamill is 5' 9"; Temuera Morrison, who played Jango Fett, the bounty hunter who was cloned to make the stormtroopers, is 5' 7" -- result, Lucas losing touch with his own concepts). Read the whole thing because Last's frequently contrarian take on the movies is always worth a look.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
France, Russia and China = Oil for Food fraud
The NY Times article linked above discusses how France, Russia and China continually prevented investigations that the UK and US wanted to initiate into the UN's Oil-for-Food program.
The information came from a briefing paper submitted to the Congressional committee that is investigating the systemic fraud in the UN program. Here is an excerpt:
The paper suggests that France, Russia and China blocked inquiries into Iraq's manipulation of the program because their companies "had much to gain from maintaining'' the status quo. "Their businesses made billions of dollars through their involvement with the Hussein regime and O.F.F.P.," the document states, using the initials for the program. No officials of the three governments could be reached for comment.
The paper also accuses the United Nations office charged with overseeing the program of having "pressed" contractors not to rigorously inspect Iraqi oil being sold and the foreign goods being bought. The program office, headed by Benan Sevan, who is also under investigation by a committee appointed by the United Nations, turned a blind eye to corruption charges, the paper says, because it apparently saw oil-for-food "strictly as a humanitarian program."
Captain Ed says if the US public realized how compromised the UN Security Council was when it voted on the US resolutions for force against Iraq (and when France and Russia said they would veto a resolution sanctioning military force against Saddam), the UN would be finished as a political force in the US. Maybe that's why the US press, with the exception of Claudia Rosett and Fox News, has done its damnedest to ignore the Oil-for-Food scandal. Now with the issue brought directly to Congress, the NY Times and the Mainstream Media cannot plead ignorance or "nonstory" anymore.
The information came from a briefing paper submitted to the Congressional committee that is investigating the systemic fraud in the UN program. Here is an excerpt:
The paper suggests that France, Russia and China blocked inquiries into Iraq's manipulation of the program because their companies "had much to gain from maintaining'' the status quo. "Their businesses made billions of dollars through their involvement with the Hussein regime and O.F.F.P.," the document states, using the initials for the program. No officials of the three governments could be reached for comment.
The paper also accuses the United Nations office charged with overseeing the program of having "pressed" contractors not to rigorously inspect Iraqi oil being sold and the foreign goods being bought. The program office, headed by Benan Sevan, who is also under investigation by a committee appointed by the United Nations, turned a blind eye to corruption charges, the paper says, because it apparently saw oil-for-food "strictly as a humanitarian program."
Captain Ed says if the US public realized how compromised the UN Security Council was when it voted on the US resolutions for force against Iraq (and when France and Russia said they would veto a resolution sanctioning military force against Saddam), the UN would be finished as a political force in the US. Maybe that's why the US press, with the exception of Claudia Rosett and Fox News, has done its damnedest to ignore the Oil-for-Food scandal. Now with the issue brought directly to Congress, the NY Times and the Mainstream Media cannot plead ignorance or "nonstory" anymore.
Newsweek Poll - Dodgy?
A Newsweek poll just released purports showing that the Bush lead has 'evaporated' after the first debate. 49-43 vs. 45-47 (Bush/Kerry). Back in the day, as the Monk likes to say, he and I had a great teacher who memorably declaimed that "[T]here are lies, damned lies, and a statistic." Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs posts some quick analysis on why the poll bases might be dodgy:
Last poll (Bush 49-43)
391 Republicans (plus or minus 6) 34.58%
300 Democrats (plus or minus 7) 26.53
270 Independents (plus or minus 7) 23.88
Post debate poll (Kerry 47-45)
345 Republicans (plus or minus 6) 29.71%
364 Democrats (plus or minus 6) 31.35
278 Independents (plus or minus 7) 23.94
As someone not particularly well versed in statistical arcana, I don't know what kind of adjustments have been used to correct for any bias in the sample but if you look at the bold % figures (my addition) you can see how those changes alone could effect a big swing towards Kerry if you assume that the prefs break along party lines. This also means that the first poll was likely skewed towards Bush but the "swing" due to the debate is probably quite limited.
UPDATE (by The Monk): See here for more stats and facts about the Newsweek poll. Note also that the Newsweek poll was of REGISTERED voters, the less accurate of samples viz. a sample of LIKELY voters. This Democrat poll is based on likely voters (95% of the folks polled voted in 2000) and found a two-point bump for Kerry and a two-point lead for Bush, 50-48.
Last poll (Bush 49-43)
391 Republicans (plus or minus 6) 34.58%
300 Democrats (plus or minus 7) 26.53
270 Independents (plus or minus 7) 23.88
Post debate poll (Kerry 47-45)
345 Republicans (plus or minus 6) 29.71%
364 Democrats (plus or minus 6) 31.35
278 Independents (plus or minus 7) 23.94
As someone not particularly well versed in statistical arcana, I don't know what kind of adjustments have been used to correct for any bias in the sample but if you look at the bold % figures (my addition) you can see how those changes alone could effect a big swing towards Kerry if you assume that the prefs break along party lines. This also means that the first poll was likely skewed towards Bush but the "swing" due to the debate is probably quite limited.
UPDATE (by The Monk): See here for more stats and facts about the Newsweek poll. Note also that the Newsweek poll was of REGISTERED voters, the less accurate of samples viz. a sample of LIKELY voters. This Democrat poll is based on likely voters (95% of the folks polled voted in 2000) and found a two-point bump for Kerry and a two-point lead for Bush, 50-48.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Top ten Kerry foul-ups in the debate?
Check out The Kerry Spot on NRO for continuing post-debate coverage. The entry linked above is a rundown of the 10 things Kerry honked in the debate. Jim Geraghty's hope that as to the 'global test' concept -- we'll "hear a lot about this. Probably today. Hopefully today." -- has already come to fruition (see cartoon below on this site).
John Kerry's false premise
Why has no one (on the Right) blasted Kerry on his outright lie in the debate yesterday that there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda? I am talking to YOU Cornerites and right-wing bloggers!
Here is the Kerry lie:
But what [Pres. Bush] has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way.
That premise is a complete falsehood and I've noted the proof here, here, here, here, here and here.
I'm only a small fish (or a Flappy Bird, according to The Truth Laid Bear) in the blogosphere so this word needs to get out, and I need some help to do that.
Submitted to Outside the Beltway.
Here is the Kerry lie:
But what [Pres. Bush] has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way.
That premise is a complete falsehood and I've noted the proof here, here, here, here, here and here.
I'm only a small fish (or a Flappy Bird, according to The Truth Laid Bear) in the blogosphere so this word needs to get out, and I need some help to do that.
Submitted to Outside the Beltway.
John Kerry in his words: flip-flopper
Why have a debate? The best way to defeat John Kerry is to show what he has said in the past nine months -- time and again he has reversed himself on the issues. He is a joke.
Just click the link to see Kerry v. Kerry.
Just click the link to see Kerry v. Kerry.
Post-debate spin
The Monk didn't watch the debate last night for a number of reasons. First, listening to John Kerry makes The Monk shout things at his TV, disturbing the Monkette2B and sending the pets scurrying for cover. Second, The Monk's vote is decided, therefore the debate was not going to change my mind. Third, The Monk gets enough agita watching the Yankees in October, he doesn't need to cringe at any of Bush's misspeakments. Fourth, there was a Yankee game on, therefore The Monk exercised proper prioritization. Fifth, the Wongdoer can stand doing the post-debate reaction part better than I can, that's why I've got a co-blogger. He does 1/4 to 1/3 of the work for the same pay.
All that said and done, the question of who won may be answered not by reference to the debate itself but to reference to post-debate spin. That's why first impressions mean very little. The immediate consensus in 2000 after the first debate was that Gore won, but his mannerisms and attitudes were the story of the post-debate cycle and converted his victory to a loss. Thus, do not discredit the partisans (on either side) -- from Joe Lockhart touting the Bush smirk to Hugh Hewitt saying that Kerry killed himself with the "global test" for using force.
A lot of conservatives are worried because they believe Kerry won. But I think this reality check by John Hood is a good one. Moreover, everyone who analyzes debates as commentators, from bloggers to the mainstream media, tend to overintellectualize their reaction. That is, they make scorecards, analyze the smoothness of each speaker, track the comebacks to see if D or R made a certain rejoinder, etc. Ultimately the debate result will be determined by how the impression that you have of each man is reinforced by what he said in the debate itself. To that end, the impression of Kerry as a flip-flopping internationalist will only be reinforced by the transcript, and the RNC is editing the clips as I write.
All that said and done, the question of who won may be answered not by reference to the debate itself but to reference to post-debate spin. That's why first impressions mean very little. The immediate consensus in 2000 after the first debate was that Gore won, but his mannerisms and attitudes were the story of the post-debate cycle and converted his victory to a loss. Thus, do not discredit the partisans (on either side) -- from Joe Lockhart touting the Bush smirk to Hugh Hewitt saying that Kerry killed himself with the "global test" for using force.
A lot of conservatives are worried because they believe Kerry won. But I think this reality check by John Hood is a good one. Moreover, everyone who analyzes debates as commentators, from bloggers to the mainstream media, tend to overintellectualize their reaction. That is, they make scorecards, analyze the smoothness of each speaker, track the comebacks to see if D or R made a certain rejoinder, etc. Ultimately the debate result will be determined by how the impression that you have of each man is reinforced by what he said in the debate itself. To that end, the impression of Kerry as a flip-flopping internationalist will only be reinforced by the transcript, and the RNC is editing the clips as I write.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)