Libertarian Leanings

Blog analysis

Here's what blog "analyst" Typealyzer says about Libertarian Leanings.

The analysis indicates that the author of http://www.libertarianleanings.com is of the type:

INTP - The Thinkers

The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

Arrogant?!  Impatient?!  Moi?!

The media -- doing their job

That's the answer.  And the question is:  How did Obama get elected?  Zogby conducted a post-election poll. 

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

And here they are:

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

This is not about Obama voters.  It was the media doing what they perceived their job to be, and doing it extraordinarily well.

Unreliable sources

On Sunday morning I happened to be watching TV while Howard Kurtz was performing on CNN's Reliable Sources.  In this particular segment our glorious defenders from the Fourth Estate were explaining to us dolts in our living rooms that Sarah Palin really had no grounds for complaint over the news coverage she got.  Why, the very idea was ludicrous.

KURTZ: But, you know, isn't that typical, that a politician would try to paint herself or himself as a victim?

MASON: As a victim, right. And create a straw man and, of course, run against the media and blame the media. And at one point she was saying, well, Hispanic voters didn't support us and the media was against us. And, you know, all these reasons why it didn't work with her and McCain, when really, you know, a lot of it comes down to her.

KURTZ: Beth Fouhy, there certainly are a lot of people out there though who think that we collectively have been unfair to Sarah Palin and we have been sexist. And look, there has been some bad reporting and there has been some unfair questions raised. But she obviously kind of conflates it into one big mess in terms of skewing the coverage.

FOUHY: Right, and that's the unfair part. There was a lot of really great coverage of Sarah Palin.

Look, she was running to be vice president. She was completely unknown until the very end of August. There was a lot of scrutiny, clearly a lot of vetting that the McCain campaign didn't do, that legitimate reporters went and undertook themselves.

The Associated Press, where I work, sent a bunch of investigative reporters to Alaska to look into her record, which is completely legitimate. So to conflate that with some of the bad reporting and some of the, you know, unfair stuff that she was -- you know, as Julie mentioned, was blaming on the mainstream media that we didn't even do, is completely ridiculous.

No mention was made of the flock of investigative reporters who went off to Chicago to investigate Barack Obama while the rest of the Associated Press was in Alaska.  It was then that I jumped in with my own question for the panel, and demanded, "Hey, I've got a minute to spare.  Tell me everything you know about the Annenberg Challenge."  Of course, the panel couldn't hear me.  Which meant that the answer I got was, at most, a minute shorter than the one I would have gotten had they been able to. 

Rupert Murdoch believes the media have dug themselves a hole and the bunch on Reliable Sources was still digging as of Sunday. 

Murdoch, whose company's holdings also include MySpace and the Wall Street Journal, criticized what he described as a culture of "complacency and condescension" in some newsrooms.

"The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly--and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception."

The 77-year-old Murdoch, recalling a long career in newspapers that began when his father's death forced him to take over the Adelaide News in 1952, said the profession has failed to creatively respond to changes wrought by technology.

"It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news-and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened. Today editors are losing this power. The Internet, for example, provides access to thousands of new sources that cover things an editor might ignore. And if you aren't satisfied with that, you can start up your own blog and cover and comment on the news yourself. Journalists like to think of themselves as watchdogs, but they haven't always responded well when the public calls them to account."

To make his point, Murdoch criticized the media reaction after bloggers debunked a "60 Minutes" report by former CBS anchor, Dan Rather, that President Bush had evaded service during his days in the National Guard.

"Far from celebrating this citizen journalism, the establishment media reacted defensively. During an appearance on Fox News, a CBS executive attacked the bloggers in a statement that will go down in the annals of arrogance. '60 Minutes,' he said, was a professional organization with 'multiple layers of checks and balances.' By contrast, he dismissed the blogger as 'a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.' But eventually it was the guys sitting in their pajamas who forced Mr. Rather and his producer to resign.

"Mr. Rather and his defenders are not alone," he continued. "A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves."

Unfortunately, this election has demonstrated that rather than address the misplaced arrogance, the press has gone in the opposite direction and injected more bias than ever into their reporting.  No matter.  Readers are too stupid to think for themselves anyway.

A rare example

Mohammed Fadhil of Iraq the Model offers this reaction to the U.S. presidential election.  

America presented a rare example that other nations aren’t familiar with — a magnificent case of bringing down the walls of partisanship and race for the sake of the country. In our part of the world, immigrants are refugees, and they and their offspring are destined to remain inferior and despised for as long as they live. Not so in America.

Even more amazing was the scene of losing leaders saluting the winner with utmost sincerity and graciousness. In my opinion, McCain’s speech was more powerful and moving than Obama’s. I wish our leaders in the Middle East enjoyed half the courage of America’s leaders to acknowledge loss when they experience it and respect the winners.

Finally, I would like to take off my hat for the man who’s leaving the White House: President George Bush, the liberator of Iraq. Invading Iraq was a sound decision in spite of the mistakes that were made. He and Senator McCain, whose surge strategy saved Iraq from slipping down the brink of civil war, will be remembered as heroes by millions of freedom-loving Iraqis.

Update:  Quite obviously, it's been a while since I've browsed through the Iraqi blogs on the blogroll.  Bassam Sebti blogging under the banner It's a New World had this reaction to Obama's victory.

Indeed, Obama’s victory was a victory to the entire world that has become fed up and tired of Bush’s policies. Looking at Obama taking the stage and addressing his supporters in Chicago left me with a great feeling that this man changed the history of America. Now change can be good and bad. Bush and his administration did their part (bad of course) but Obama represented the good change. He wrote history like Martin Luther King and the founding fathers. All I could think of at that moment was how great the American democracy is and how the American people moved to the next step which should have been done way earlier. Nevertheless, they did it. They forgot about their race differences and finally voted for an African American. American democracy has entirely become the model of all democracies around the world.

Obama’s speech was very moving. The very first sentence made me respect him even more.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

Last night’s victory was indeed the answer to all those who had ever suspected American democracy. As for McCain, as much as I didn’t like him, as much as I highly respected him after hearing his speech. I commend him for his respectful speech. His words showed he was not a loser but someone who truly loves his country.

Hayder Al-Khoei, who blogs as Eye Raki is not so optimistic about the coming Obama administration.

When I woke up I realised it was Obama. At first I was upset but then for some strange reason, a verse in the Quran started to play (on repeat mode) in my head. It was the last part of verse 30, chapter 8, Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War):

"...They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah." [Quran 8:30]

With a smile I saw the bigger picture. I realised that if Obama was 8 years older and had won the Presidential elections 8 years ago, Saddam would not only have still been in power, but Obama would probably have been in one of Saddam's Presidential Palaces drinking coffee with the butcher as part of his terrorist out-reach programe for the Middle East. George Bush won the 2000 elections for a reason. Similarly to how God sent Moses to deliver the Israelites from Egypt, God had guided Bush to deliver the Iraqi people from Saddam. Saddam planned, Obama is planning, but God is the best of planners. Bush won, Saddams dead and the rest is just details.

The world rejoices at the election of Obama, fervently believing that America has been redeemed.  In reality the Obama victory stands as proof that America has been in no particular need of redemption.  Still, there is at least one noticeable advantage that comes out of the Obama victory:  Reporters, celebrities, and other liberals will say nice things about America for a while.  How nice.

Hugo Chávez and Chris Dodd

Hugo Chávez plans to send tanks into the streets if his candidates don't win in this Sunday's elections.

In recent weeks he has begun threatening to use the military against his own population in states where his municipal and gubernatorial candidates are defeated. On a trip to the state of Carabobo last week, for example, he told voters, "If you let the oligarchy return to government then maybe I'll end up sending the tanks of the armored brigade out to defend the revolutionary government." Just as troubling are the president's declarations that in states where his candidates are not elected, he will withhold federal funding.

Venezuelans saw this coming. From his earliest days as president in 1999, Mr. Chávez began working to destroy any checks on his power. On April 11, 2002, after weeks of street protests against this effort, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans marched again in Caracas. Nineteen people were shot dead in the streets by government supporters. When Mr. Chávez asked the military to use force against the crowd, the generals refused and instead told him he had to step aside.

One might think that all Americans would have supported the demand to stop the bloodshed. But Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd threw a fit over Mr. Chávez's removal. The self-styled Latin America expert insisted that since Mr. Chávez had been initially "democratically elected" in a fair vote, he should have been immune from challenges to his power, no matter the abuses. To this day the senator calls the event a U.S.-backed coup, even though a State Department Inspector General's report found that the charge was false. Even the Organization of American States accepted the change in power.

The Iraqi Cabinet Approves

Earlier today the Iraqi cabinet voted to approve a security agreement with the U.S. that will allow American forces to remain in Iraq beyond the expiration of the UN mandate which is the legal basis for their presence.

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi cabinet voted overwhelmingly Sunday to approve the security agreement that sets the conditions for the Americans' continued presence in Iraq from Jan. 1 until the end of 2011.

All but one of the 28 cabinet ministers who attended the two-and-a-half-hour session voted for the agreement and sent it to Parliament for consideration, a huge relief to the United States, which had been in intense negotiations with the Iraqis for nearly a year.

The United Nations Security Council resolution that allows U.S. troops to operate in Iraq expires Dec. 31, and, without an extension of the resolution or a separate agreement with the Iraqis like that approved by the cabinet on Sunday, forces of the U.S.-led coalition would have no legal mandate to operate.

“This is the best available alternative,” the Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said shortly after the vote. “We have always said this is not a perfect solution for the Iraqi side and it is not a perfect solution for the American side. But it is a procedure which was forced by circumstances and necessity.

“This is the time after the progress in the security situation to transfer the security file to the Iraqi side, step by step.”

The next step is approval of the agreement by the Iraqi parliament.  A vote by Parliament is expected on November 24th.

"We hope to take a vote on the agreement on November 24," parliament's deputy speaker Khalid al-Attiya told AFP.

The Iraqi cabinet decided earlier Sunday to approve a draft of the agreement, which will replace a UN mandate that expires at the end of this year.

The agreement would see US troops withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns by the end of June 2009 and from the country as a whole by the end of 2011.

Parliament's endorsement of the pact is crucial before it can be signed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and US President George W. Bush.

Radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr had hoped to influence the Iraqi cabinet vote by threatening attacks on U.S. troops if the agreement is passed. 

BAGHDAD — Radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr threatened Friday to resume attacks on U.S. forces if they remain in Iraq, as envisioned in a draft security agreement that would allow them to stay until the end of 2011.

Al-Sadr's statement appeared aimed at upping the ante before a cabinet meeting Sunday at which ministers are expected to decide whether to support the accord.

The cleric's Mahdi Army militia battled U.S. forces off and on from 2004 until last spring, when fierce clashes erupted in the southern city of Basra and in the Baghdad district of Sadr City. Since then, his fighters have largely observed a cease-fire, and al-Sadr has said he wants to turn most of his militia into a religious and social movement.

He has kept a low profile in recent months and is believed to be in Iran, according to U.S. military officials.

Although it was not made clear by the the article quoted above, al Sadr's Mahdi Army got its clocks cleaned by the Iraqi Army in Basra and in Baghdad.  This may have played into al Sadr's decision to turn his militia into a social movement.

Consensus has it that the Iraqi agreement with the U.S. is not perfect, but it's good.  Most importantly, it has the approval of Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.  Without his approval there is no deal. 

Sistani is enormously influential among the majority Shiite population; in 2004, when he wanted to put pressure on the Americans to hold direct elections, he called upon his followers to march by the hundreds of thousands in a peaceful but powerful demonstration of force.

Imperfect though it may be, democracy is breaking out in Iraq.

Iraq -- the war is over

Glenn Reynolds got a phone call from Michael Yon.

"THE WAR IS OVER AND WE WON:" Michael Yon just phoned from Baghdad, and reports that things are much better than he had expected, and he had expected things to be good. "There's nothing going on. I'm with the 10th Mountain Division, and about half of the guys I'm with haven't fired their weapons on this tour and they've been here eight months. And the place we're at, South Baghdad, used to be one of the worst places in Iraq. And now there's nothing going on. I've been walking my feet off and haven't seen anything. I've been asking Iraqis, 'do you think the violence will kick up again,' but even the Iraqi journalists are sounding optimistic now and they're usually dour." There's a little bit of violence here and there, but nothing that's a threat to the general situation. Plus, not only the Iraqi Army, but even the National Police are well thought of by the populace. Training from U.S. toops has paid off, he says, in building a rapport.

Good appearances

After years of hyperventilating over it, Democrats are now coming to grips with the pitfalls of closing Guantánamo.

Now, as Mr. Obama moves closer to assuming responsibility for Guantánamo, his pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers. They include where Guantánamo’s detainees could be held in this country, how many might be sent home and a matter that people with ties to the Obama transition team say is worrying them most: What if some detainees are acquitted or cannot be prosecuted at all?

That concern is at the center of a debate among national security, human rights and legal experts that has intensified since the election. Even some liberals are arguing that to deal realistically with terrorism, the new administration should seek Congressional authority for preventive detention of terrorism suspects deemed too dangerous to release even if they cannot be successfully prosecuted.

“You can’t be a purist and say there’s never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone,” said one civil liberties lawyer, David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor who has been a critic of the Bush administration.

Professor David D. Cole certainly was a critic of the Bush administration.  Here is a flavor of the good professor's opinion in May of 2006.   You might say he was a purist back then.

Early on, the administration labeled the Guantanamo detainees "the worst of the worst." Yet we now know that more than 250 have been released, that they included boys as young as 13 and that of those who remain, only 8 percent are even accused of being fighters for al-Qaeda. The majority are not accused of engaging in any hostile acts against the United States.

Of course, back in 2006 there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that preventive detainment legislation would ever make it through congress.  For one thing it would have completely ruined the Democrats' primary political strategy, which was to call George Bush a villain at every opportunity.  Congressional authorization for preventative detention?  Or anything Bush proposed to do?  Perish the thought!

Enter the One.  Guantánamo inmates are suddenly seen in a new and unattractive light.  Victims by comparison to George Bush, it turns out they might be dangerous, and maybe even unsavory. 

Professor Goldsmith, who teaches at Harvard Law School, said in an interview that he believed the administration had correctly asserted a right to detain the men held at Guantánamo. But, he said, Congressional approval would “ensure that we can legitimate holding people for a long term.”

In the absence of such a law, any plan to move even some of the remaining 250 Guantánamo prisoners to the United States would require a careful analysis of the authority to hold the detainees, several of whom have said they would relish an opportunity to kill Americans.

In the end, the Obama administration may conclude that it is simply not feasible to seek a new preventive detention measure. Doing so could portray the new administration as following in the footsteps of President Bush, surely an unlikely goal as Mr. Obama sorts through his options.

Yes, Obama will have to weigh his options.  Will he turn terrorists loose for the sake of his good appearances?  There was never a doubt about the course Bush would choose.  It must be some bizarre alternate universe we live in where Bush is vilified for winning a war and protecting Americans from terrorist attack, while Obama wins acclamation for considering his appearances.

The coming Great Depression or Great Recession?

Thomas F. Cooley, Dean Of New York University's Stern School Of Business, and Lee Ohanian, Professor Of Economics At UCLA fear a backlash against capitalism, and their fears are not at all unrealistic.  Having won a crushing electoral victory by campaigning against "the failed policies of George Bush," Democrats are quick to blame insufficient regulation for the economic downturn.

In one direction lies a backlash against capitalism. Some blame the crisis on excesses borne of laissez-faire policies that created wealth for a few at the expense of many. Given the current crisis, that sentiment may be understandable. But it is dangerous.

Although there will be great temptation to regulate everything in sight, Cooley and Ohanian argue that history urges a different course of action.

India, for example, was faced with a major crisis in 1990-1991. After four decades of pursuing a strategy of import substitution where the state played a central role in the economy, India found itself in the throes of a balance-of-payments crisis. In response they undertook radical reforms that removed controls on industrial investment and on imports, reduced import tariffs, and opened the country to foreign capital. The result has been nearly 20 years of astonishing growth that has lifted several hundred million people out of poverty.

This crop of Democrats have no interest in lifting anybody out of poverty unless it will create a dependent constituency that can be counted on for votes.  With Democrats firmly in power, I'm inclined to bet on Depression.  It will be the official policy.  Via Greg Mankiw.

The courage of their convictions

Everything is political with the Democrats.  With the economic meltdown threatening the U.S. auto industry, Democrats are desperately trying to save the car companies -- think of all those union jobs on the line -- while keeping other special interests happy.  What to do?

The plan? Make it the Bush administration's responsibility to give Detroit cash -- namely by claiming after the event that the $700 billion rescue package for financial institutions was in fact a rescue package for auto makers. This was attempted with several hilarious "colloquys" -- pre-scripted dialogues between members that were quietly inserted into the Congressional Record after the vote, all aimed at rewriting the "intent" of the law. Say, this one, from Oct. 1:

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin: "As Treasury implements this new program, it is clear to me from reading the definition of financial institution that auto financing companies would be among the many financial institutions that would be eligible sellers to the government. Do you agree?"

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd: "Yes, for purposes of this act, I agree that financial institution may encompass auto financing companies."

Fun. Meanwhile, Democrats passed $25 billion in aid for Detroit, though under the careful guise of "green" funds to help it meet new fuel-efficiency standards.

Alas! All for naught! Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has stubbornly insisted that -- whatever the dreamy "intent" of Sen. Levin -- the $700 billion is, indeed, earmarked for financial institutions.

They could just pass legislation to do it, but for whatever reason, they simply haven't the courage of their convictions.

Mrs. Pelosi has since tasked Barney Frank with "drafting" a bailout bill. Yet by yesterday, Democrats were backing away from a vote, complaining they weren't getting help from Republicans.

Lame duck Republicans are under no obligation to help the Democrats out of their predicament.  The White House has hinted that the price of an auto industry bailout is passage of the Columbia free trade agreement.  This is one time Republicans had better stick with their president.