Ciceronian Review

Money For Nothing

Friday I received an Emergency Telegram from John McCain.  (Was not actually a telegram -- a letter, sent bulk mail, but it says it is an Emergency Telegram.)  John says he must raise $21.5 million in the next month.  Why the half million over 21?  Does it make it sound more exact, or genuine?  Why not $22 million?  John needs the money to stop Obama of course, because Obama will increase the size of the federal government, and offer big government as a solution to health care, etc.  Those are the first two points made in the Telegram.  I infer they are the most important, but I am not sure.  The third point in favor of giving money to McCain is "Senator Obama will surrender to Al Queda in Iraq".  

 It is still a puzzle why I get these letters.  I am not registered Republican, and have donated to Demoncrats this election cycle (and every other I can think of).  I got the requests from Romney too.  I thought those were sent to everyone in Utah -- maybe that is McCain's theory too.

Nothing about the French however, so I suppose the Demoncrats are not yet cheese eating surrender monkeys.

Well Maybe Bill Was Right

Bush has reached some agreement with North Korea -- no longer an axis of evil.  The details of the agreement are still not all clear, but what is clear is that Bush ended up with something very like the Clinton arrangement Bush lambasted and repudiated.  Cheyney and ilk talked long about no talks or negotiations with the evil folk until they abandoned their evil ways.  That policy got little and now they have gone back to the old Demoncrat appeaser path.  I suppose this is another place McCain can distance himself from Bush, and, oddly, where Bush ends somewhere in the visual range of Barack. 

The idea that refusing to talk to other countries will accomplish much puzzles me.  It is does not have much going for it over the last 100 years.  Talk won't cure all, certainly.  But we managed it with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic, and in both cases to some significant good.  Off and, I can't think of cases where isolation brought about any significant change, but that could be a failure of recollection. It ties to economic boycott and dis-investment campaigns.  Aside from South Africa, I wonder if there are candidates for such policies being successful?  Was it a success in South Africa?  Problem of tools, and responsibility.

Free Economy

I used to think that being a sports commentator was the best job, in terms of low demand to high compensation.  I still think it is high in the ranking.  (It obviously takes no particular intelligence or knowledge, nor an ability to speak or write well.  TV commentators are often quite amusing -- the "commentary" rarely managing to go beyond remarking upon what has just transpire on the screen -- 'X hit the shot and now his or her team leads' is almost as complex and insightful as it ever gets.)  But there is an even better job on this scale of overcompensated: political commentary on television.  The close of the primaries got me watching political coverage on the networks (mostly CNN, but others as well).  What a collection of chatterboxes.  Apparently all one needs to do is memorize bits and pieces of the campaign emails -- recite without consideration whatever silly thing is being passed off by whichever camp one wants to promote for the day.  (And, they get clothing allowances.)  One might expect that these folks have some basic background knowledge of the political processes they report on, some grasp of recent history (20 years say), and the ability to formulate a thought on their own.  Not so.  With a couple of exceptions, political history is no more than six months, there is almost no information about the actual campaign processes, and no ability to do anything but repeat what other say.  It sad that one has to go back to the Reagan advisers to find folks who can consistently say things that are perspicacious. 

Which Tree

A repeated theme at Talk Left is that sexism is worse than racism.  Sitting on the porch with a glass of wine, that struck me as wrong.  In my lifetime there have been lynchings, and thought I, nothing of the sort faced women.  But, that evil alcohol got in the way, and quickly realized that either the story was not defensible or the lines had to be very narrowly drawn.  The center of the lynching is murder because of race.  It is true that racial violence has fallen almost to nothing over the decades, which is something very good.  But it was there and lynching is not so far in the past.  That is fine for the argument, but it is in the obverse that there is trouble, which the wine failed to obviate -- the equivalent is violence against or murder of women because of sex.  That there is still plenty of, even if it is not tied to trees.  Women still get killed in some numbers just because women.  The way around this is to be awfully narrow in the line drawing, so narrow one has nothing but lynching to compare to and that seems a willful blindness.  Add that to the catalog of reasoning errors.

Polling

 

 It is obvious that the Pennsylvania primary solved nothing for the Demoncrats. All of the arguments from before the primary are re-circulating. But a fair portion of the analysis and the arguments are tissue thin. There is no weight to arguments about who is better positioned to stand against McCain, because that is all too far off and too unpredictable. The polls now are simply not stark enough to bear any weight. After all, if polls eight months in advance of events were good predicators, there would be no contest in the Demoncratic party – Clinton would be the nominee. Hasn’t worked that way. And has not historically – polls this far in advance of elections are not much help. So we should ignore that line of argument. Similarly, it is very hard to know whether and the extent of defections from Clinton or Obama to McCain (or home with a beer). It is foolish to make much of anything of those sorts of poll results this far from the event. To harp on a favorite of mine, Carter lost because of Khomeini. The polling, up until shortly before the election, did not show Reagan winning.  Tea leaves. The one with the most votes? Well, okay, but do we really mean to say that people who attend caucuses don’t count, or count less?  Why should that oddity of delegate selection make a difference? The point is that these are short term debating points, not matters of principle.

Last week - Thursday I believe - The Daily Show did a very funny and biting piece on Clinton's changing views on what justifies her nomination.  Sometimes it is voting, sometimes it is support of people who are Deoncrats and sometimes those not Demoncrats.  Sometimes it is the party regulars and stalwarts, and sometimes it is anyone but.

Too bad she could not bother to read the Intelligence Estimate before she voted for war.  But that would confuse the issue with facts.

Faith Talk

I watched the Faith event for the Demoncrat candidates last night.  It was as interesting as the usual debates.  Start with the most important thing -- what Hillary wore.  Lovely yellow outfit of some kind.  No, what was interesting was that her skin came out very yellow.  Maybe the TV or the lighting, but she looked horribly jaundiced.  Kind of  distracting for a while, I admit.  Barack has a purple tie -- or was it blue?  He looked a little yellow, come to think of it. 

Of course neither would answer the question about when life begins -- and for the expected reasons.  Hillary also got a question about termination of life (I don't recall if Barack was asked the same question -- he should have been as the hosts stuck closely to the same questions for each).  She dodged all around, as expected.   Another one no one will answer.  But I am not all that disappointed.  I did not expect direct answers, not to those questions.  I was pleased that Barack did affirm belief in modern biology, even if it took a few minutes for him to get to. 

It was a political performance in most respects -- what do you say to those who think there is too much religion in the public forum?  Well, blah on and on, and just don't be mean in advancing religious views.  I did not think either gave persuasive answers to that, although Obama came closer.  I wonder if it is just that his way of side-stepping is more comfortable to me than her way of side-stepping?  Both danced around a number of issues.

At the end of the night, there was no change for me.  Spent a short time listening to the commentary and wondered once again why those people get paid.  After reciting the most painfully obvious points, they seem to have nothing to say.  No insight into what was said or even who was chosen to ask questions. 

It is also interesting to be completely marginalized.  No interest there is talking to atheists or agnostics.  Not in a church, then you can be passed by.  Which is, after all, true.  No one loses elections by ignoring the atheists, and no one wins by attending to them. 

Odd Humor

Last week Clinton appeared on the late night chat show, Tonight Show.  She made joke with Leno about dodging sniper fire to get to the show.  I take it the aim was to make light of a "misstatement" about visiting Tuzla under fire when, in fact, she sauntered across the landing field for a reception with children.  I see the political idea here -- the jokes acknowledge error, show an ability to acknowledge error, present an appearance of self-awareness, etc.  Huckabee on The Daily Show.

For me, it does not work.  I am an outlier I suppose, on this.  I found the joking horrifying.  First, it seem a rather odd way to respond to being caught in a lie.  Clinton did not make a "misstatement" -- she lied about the subject and persisted after others present contradicted her.  (Sounds a bit Bush to me.)  Second, more important, it seems a peculiar line for someone who hopes to lead the military to make jokes about the circumstances of war -- what is it that is funny about sniper fire?  Particularly when there are US troops under fire now.  (It is all the worse to me that Chelsea is plainly not going to be making any sacrifice for her country -- more of the Bush league.) 

I think her campaign ended with the Tuzla issue.  Think about the ads come November -- start with McCain returning from Viet Nam.  Next, put up Clinton talking about Tuzla, running the voice over a picture from the actual Tuzla landing and reception.  Tag lines are pretty easy -- A Commander in Chief Who Tells the Truth - Vote McCain.  Run similar scenario with excerpts from the Leno jokes. 

St. Rodham

This cartoon about Clinton is very funny, and a bit mean.  Bagley is quite good.  I expect not known well-know outside Zion, as many of his subjects are quite local. 

McCain Gets It Right

It has been a while, but it happens from time to time.  McCain has the right general idea on the mortgage/housing mess.  It does look to me like Clinton and Obama are not particularly interested in the moral hazard of their positions.  The lenders certainly were well-positioned to understand the risks of their lending policies.  I do not see much reason to help them or their owners.  (The big babies at Bear Stearns should get next to nothing -- happy enough to take the upside of the risky bets, they should be happy to take the downside.  On which, I recommend Ben Stein (an old line conservative Republican) in the NYT last Sunday.) It seems to me a mistake to be rushing out with billions of dollars in tax money to make sure that gamblers don't have to pay for gambling.  I have some sympathy for borrowers, but the plans I've seen don't do much at all for the folks who have some claim to aid -- those to poorly educated to understand the risks, for example -- but offer plenty for aid for the upper income folk.  Why anyone wants to help out someone who can float a half million dollar loan is beyond me.  People who qualified for that should know what the risks were, and take their lumps. 
Which is to say, on this one, McCain is right and not the demon twins. 

Noonan Again in the Light

Peggy Noonan's column in the WSJ today (here if you have a subscription) is the best analysis of Obama speech earlier this week on race.  By far, the most interesting and intelligent and attentive discussion I have come across.  I think her reservations about the speech are provocative.  She perceives a speech which address its audience on the assumption that they are intelligent and thoughtful, does not preach to them or yield to the short slogan.  That seems right to me.  It is a speech which assumes those listening are awake, and will listen.  It assumes they are not illiterate.  It is a style not heard or seen much these days, or for a long time.

She is not all praise.  She sees error in the later parts of the speech in what she perceived as a dismal portrait of America over the last 25 years.  It was a better place than painted by Obama.  That she ties to a kind of self-delusion:

This connected in my mind to the persistent feeling one has -- the fear one has, actually -- that the Obamas, he and she, may not actually know all that much about America. They are bright, accomplished, decent, they know all about the yuppie experience, the buppie experience, Ivy League ways, networking. But they bring along with all this -- perhaps defensively, to keep their ideological views from being refuted by the evidence of their own lives, or so as not to be embarrassed about how nice fame, success, and power are -- habitual reversions to how tough it is to be in America, and to be black in America, and how everyone since the Reagan days has been dying of nothing to eat, and of exploding untreated diseases. America is always coming to them on crutches.

At least a portion of that is right I think.  There is a curious refusal to appraise matter realistically.  Whatever group is or was most affected by HIV/AIDS, there still would not be a cure.  And so on. 

Here is her conclusion:

Still, it was a good speech, and a serious one. I don't know if it will help him. We're in uncharted territory. We've never had a major-party presidential front-runner who is black, or rather black and white, who has given such an address. We don't know if more voters will be alienated by Mr. Wright than will be impressed by the speech about Mr. Wright. We don't know if voters will welcome a meditation on race. My sense: The speech will be labeled by history as the speech that saved a candidacy or the speech that helped do it in. I hope the former.

Noonan's analysis is fair-minded.  I admit that almost every week I face the discomfort of finding her column interesting, intelligent, thoughtful and thought-provoking, and, worst of all, well-written.  She keeps wrecking the inclination to demonize.  It is the only column I anticipate, in any of the papers I read.