Bin Laden issues a warning to the French

 

http://lite.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE69Q1O8.htm

Whether Muslims in Europe consider themselves a vanguard or not, it's pretty clear that Islamists do. Don't be surprised if Iran uses its pending nuclear arsenal to try dictate how governments in Europe treat this particular minority.

 

I've been wondering if that's what the arsenal is really for. What would Iran get from attacking Israel, other than annihilation? But cowing Europe? That would really be useful.

VPOTUS pool report - NYC 10/26

VPOTUS spoke Tuesday in a wood-paneled second-floor bar at the Helmsley Park Lane Hotel on Central Park South at a fundraiser for Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY-01). He began his remarks at 1:42 p.m. and spoke for 20 minutes.

Wearing a blue suit and a bluer tie, VPOTUS reminded the 70 people who paid a minimum of $1,000 to hear VPOTUS remarks and eat a menu of cold-cut sandwiches, salad and coffee that the nation's economic malaise is the fault of the Bush Administration and is improving under Democratic stewardship.

"We've done a lot in the last 20 months," VPOTUS said. "The economy has grown four quarters in a row, not what it needs to, but it's growing, it's not shrinking. Just since January, 860,000 private sector jobs, not nearly enough. But guess what? That's more jobs than were created in the entire eight years of the Bush Administration. That's factual." VPOTUS did not mention Bishop's Republican opponent, businessman Randy Altschuler, by name, but predicted the federal government will grind to a halt if the House or Senate fall under GOP control. He predicted Democrats would "keep the Senate and win the House."

"This is a real important election," he said. "It's more important than the one that got Barack and me elected, it literally is. Because there at least we would have continued to drift another four years, which would be bad. Now at least we've stopped the drift and are starting to head in the right direction. If we lose in the House or the Senate, we're now in a position where we are in a stalemate and this thing is just going to go in reverse and our most powerful weapon will be a veto pen, and that’s bad."

VPOTUS, who stood next to Bishop and grasped the four-term Democrat's shoulder at several points during his remarks, waded into the audience as he discussed the nation's need to compete with education and infrastructure investments made by nations like China and India, and Republican opposition to such spending.

"Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive," he said. "In the middle of the Civil War you had a guy named Lincoln paying people $16,000 for every 40 miles of track they laid across the continental United States. … No private enterprise would have done that for another 35 years."

Bishop, who represents the East End of Long Island, touted VPOTUS as "an adopted son of Southampton" -- Bishop's hometown -- who spent time this summer at a home to which Bishop, as a teenager, delivered groceries. VPOTUS replied: "When I die, I want to be reborn in Southampton. … You're the only Democrat I know in Southampton, well, that's not quite true."

Credit: Drudge Report

 

The airplane? The light bulb? Fox News? (Well, okay, maybe Fox News, as a reaction to the Government)

What can be said about NPR's firing of Juan Williams that isn't immediately obvious? I'm not sure, but I'm going to try.

 

 

First, to be honest, I simply can't listen to NPR. Oddly, I can read an editorial by Paul Krugman, but I can't get past a minute or two of NPR before I turn it off in frustration. Until recently I haven't had an explanation for this, but, perhaps, I have now.

 

Reading an editorial is a personal thing. When reading it I don't think of all the other people reading it who may be swayed by it. Secondly, editorials are written. You can go back, reread them, find the flaws (or virtues) in the arguments, respond to them.

 

Broadcast media are not personal. It's impossible for me to not think of all the other people being influenced by them. And there is for all intents and purposes no record. One can be as subtely (or overtly) biased as he or she wishes. An expressed thought creates an impression which then can not be checked. But the impression remains. I often want to rebut something I hear on NPR, but the medium doesn't really allow for that.

 

That and the idea of the Federal Government supporting a news outlet directed at Americans strikes me as antithetical to a Democratic system. Other than that it's a fine idea.

 

There's nothing noteworthy about the thoughts above.

 

But in reading about this story, I have come across a phrase that describes an idea worthy of exploration: "Preference Cascade."

 

A preference cascade is created when a people who have been conditioned to behave in a way that contradicts their own beliefs realize that others feel the same way. This frees them. This is how people like Chris Christie can gain popular support (so far) for taking positions in places where such ideas would seem inhospitable. Another one to watch for the same reason is Tim Pawlenty.

 

George Will had a take on that today: http://www.freedompolitics.com/articles/pawlenty-2100-minnesota-state.html This paragraph sums up Will's belief that today's politics is shaped by echoes from the past as well as why Pawlenty may be appealing to Republicans and Independents in 2012.

 

"Settled by many Scandinavians and Germans who arrived with European, especially Bismarckian, notions of social democracy, Minnesota has furnished leaders of American liberalism -- Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, Paul Wellstone. In the four decades before Pawlenty was elected governor in 2002, the average two-year increase in state spending was 21 percent. During his tenure, the average annual increase has been 2 percent. He says the current two-year budget cycle will be the first in 150 years in which spending will be cut in real, constant dollars."

 

Back to preference cascade: I quote from the article referenced by the link below:

 

"I think one of the reasons the hardcore liberals who run NPR terminated Williams is their desire to abort a preference cascade.  This is one of the major reasons black conservatives, or those like Williams who express some appreciation for the conservative viewpoint, are treated so harshly by the left.  The Democrat Party, political vehicle of the Left, depends on nearly-absolute support from black voters for its very survival.  Second thoughts from such a captive constituency would be deadly.

The same effect can occur without brutal oppression, when fear of ostracism and ridicule cause people to suppress their own doubts. This kind of preference falsification requires strict discipline from the makers of opinion.  Since a free society makes it very easy for individuals to change their opinions, they must be prevented from even considering such a change.  Manufactured consensus is very fragile in a competitive arena of ideas, when there is no fearsome penalty for a “Fresh Air” listener who decides to switch over to Rush Limbaugh."

 

 

It would be an interesting exercise to identify issues where Americans are saying or doing things that contradict their core beliefs. These are the sorts of thing leaders can tap into by giving people permission to express what they feel they can't. If the country is, indeed, center-right as many polls indicate, then Liberals stand to lose more than Conservatives as preference cascades unravel.

 

. . . to see that this health care reform is going to be a lot more expensive than anyone has publically stated. It's possible another purpose of this legislation is tie up so much money in this mess so as to require us to reduce our military spending to the end of reducing the role the US plays in the world, which is, after all, another Progressive objective.

 

Two for one; brilliant.

 

As the government gets more control it will then be required to determine (as National Health Care systems tend to do) which procedures are worth doing. Its instinct will be to pay less for everything. How can anyone argue differently? That's its approach to Medicare and Medicaid. What's going to change?

 

This will result in a reduction in the supply of health care. The next stage will be for the government to tell us to lead more healthy lives so as to better serve the State by reducing its expenses. This is already in motion and anyone who thinks this isn't going to happen fundamentally does not understand the mentality and the incentives that apply to a human being predisposed to being and having the responsibilities of a regulator.

 

If absolute power corrupts absolutely then a people essentially surrendering themselves to the state in this regard will be prepared to give up everything else. (The premise of that sentence would require more argumentation to justify the conclusion than for which I have time at the moment.)

 

Regardless of economics, people who value freedom must oppose this law on moral and ethical grounds. Time to start throwing tea into the Bay. Someone might want to start a movement based on that premise.

 

On the other hand if one values equality of outcome regardless of the level of service and the mentally-debilitating impact on a nation's citizenry (look at riots in Greece and France from people not receiving benefits that are simply impossible to deliver), then this law is spot on.

 

We fought the Revolutionary War over much less than this.

McCain and Obama are even according to the Star Tribune.

 

 

Forget about what most of the polls are saying. Take a look at the map at www.fivethirtyeight.com. Ohio is turning McCain's way and Colorado is basically neutral at this point. If those two states go with McCain and everything else stays the same, McCain takes the election 274-264.

After Colorado goes McCain's way look for Minnesota to be next. The question: as it becomes apparent that Obama is not going to walk away with the election, do the Clinton's get more aggressive?

How permanent timeless? If Barack Obama is any measure, then it's about two weeks. Within the past six months Obama has given two speeches which uncritical sycophants have termed timeless. Where one person sees the Gettysburg Address, another may see a second-rate high school graduation speech.

Except the platitudes one would expect in the latter case have a fairly good chance of standing the test of time, while something uttered by his Oneness is likely to be violently contradicted before he can throw a close relative or friend under a bus.

Speaking of Reverend Wright (or Obama's grandmother-take your pick), it's been noted by many that Obama's grand defense of the man ("I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community") was separated by the denunciation ("What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for.") by less than six weeks.

What has been less noted was just how quickly Obama's lofty "citizen of the world" nonsense he sputtered in Germany has fallen to earth. His naive messianic belief that all the competing interests of the earth will simply unify behind him as he utters bromide after bromide fell apart in Georgia last week.

No, the world is not united. It is defined by competing interests. Some policies are more enlightened that others in that they not only benefit one's side (yes, there are sides), but the other side as well. Free trade is one such policy. It can benefit two countries even if one of the countries is better at producing everything better than the other. But free trade requires a leap of faith. This is just the sort of thing you'd think a citizen of the world would encourage. Of course, Obama's against it, which says a lot.

On a more serious note (and given the implications of global economic growth, it's hard to get more serious), last week saw the invasion of the sovereign nation of Georgia, and an ally of the United States, by the Soviet Union, I mean Russia. A citizen of the world can't take sides in such a matter, unable to favor one set of brother and sisters over another.

From a certain perspective that's an admirable point-of-view. Unfortunately, it's not the point-of-view a President of the United States can take. When John F Kennedy spoke of his solidarity with the people of Berlin, no one took it to mean he was as German as he was American. And certainly, no one took it to mean he was seeking common ground with the Soviets or the East Germans.

Yet, when Obama declares himself a citizen of the world, one can't help but think he believes that because he can see all sides he thinks he will find common ground with America's enemies. Sooner or later reality will intrude upon such an individual. For the good of the country, it's important such an individual is not in charge.

It looks like an even bet to me as to which state flips red next, Colorado or Ohio, but I'm betting on Colorado. Hillary for Obama's VP? I don't see it as Obama would have to be desperate to go with her, owing to the way in which she ran her campaign. Recent revelelations will do nothing to make her an easier choice, but some are now saying Kerry. I don't see that either, but I think that would be a big net plus for the GOP, as Kerry would do nothing to bring swing voters over to Obama's side.