A simple question:

What do you think would happen if the technical capabilities of warfare between the Israelis and the Palestinians were reversed – if Israel had access only to those weapons which the Palestinians now have and vice versa?

What would the consequences be?

For some people, more government is always the answer.  When the government is efficient, it should get a bigger budget because it is doing a good job.  When the government screws up, it is because its budget wasn’t big enough.  From the latter category comes Dylan Matthews in Vox: “The IRS scandal shows the IRS needs a bigger budget.”  Almost at the end we get to the following paragraph:

So it’s no wonder that they took shortcuts. Of course, if those shortcuts were in fact politically biased, there’s only so much that budget cuts could have contributed to that. There’s no budgetary reason to look for groups with “Tea Party” in the name and not ones with “progressive.” But again, accounts differ on whether or not the watch-words they used were in fact biased. What seems likelier than a nefarious conspiracy of mid-level IRS management to destroy the Tea Party is a group of overworked bureaucrats who saw group names as a way to make an utterly unmanageable workload somewhat more manageable.

Matthews is right, accounts differ, but the justification from the liberal side of the aisle looks shakier and shakier with every new detail.

Eleanor Clift is doubling down on her statement made on the McLaughlin Group when she said Ambassador Chris Stevens wasn’t murdered because he died of smoke inhalation. According to Clift, who attempts to “put into context” her remarks in a column today, Stevens “wasn’t murdered in the sense that word is normally used.”

It is one thing to make an inaccurate remark without thinking through on live television. It is quite another, upon reflection and with time, to repeat that remark days later. Clift’s response to the criticisms coming at her should be to acknowledge that her comments, at least with respect to the definition of murder, were inaccurate. Instead, ignoring the first law of holes, she continues to dig.

I would have to imagine Ms. Clift has never watched an episode of Law & Order. If she had, she would know that murder in the second degree in New York (which is similar to many, if not most, jurisdictions in the United States) includes when a person:

[u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life… recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person; or acting either alone or with one or more other persons, he commits or attempts to commit robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree, or escape in the second degree, and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another participant, if there be any, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants

So there you have it. Eleanor Clift was wrong on Sunday when she made an ignorant comment and was then wrong, again, on Thursday when she had the time to look up the information. If Benghazi had occurred in the United States, under our criminal law, the perpetrators would be guilty of murder in the second degree for causing the death of Ambassador Stevens by acting with a depraved indifference to human life. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

David Ignatius has penned a stunningly naïve and self-absorbed (in the sense that it is a liberal American-absorbed) article titled “Putin’s error in Ukraine is the kind that leads to catastrophe.”  As the title makes clear, Ignatius takes the position that Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine was a mistake that will cost the Russians dearly.  It may turn out that Ignatius’ conclusion is correct, however the reasoning he employs to get there reflects a view of the world that fails to comport with reality.

The main problem with Igantius’ argument is that it presupposes that Russia should think, reason and act like the United States when conducting its foreign policy.  More specifically, it assumes that Putin should arrive at decisions about strategic interests based upon the same factors that drive American decision making.  However, as the last fourteen years have shown, Putin does not march to the same beat as US policymakers.  He has different interests (both domestically and internationally), objectives and, most importantly, morals.

Unfortunately, rather than acknowledge that reality and the consequences that follow from it, Ignatius chooses to pretend it doesn’t exist.  His main concern is defending the Obama administration.  He knows that Russia has arrived at the conclusion that Obama won’t act, a conclusion based on experiences in Iran, Libya and Syria, among others, and thus he must find a way to say that this invasion has nothing to do with past US policy and is simply a reckless move by someone who has completely miscalculated the geopolitical situation.  Thus, this paragraph:

Kerry called on Putin to “undo this act of invasion.” The Russian leader would save himself immense grief by following Kerry’s advice, but that seems unlikely. His mistake in Sevastopol may lead to others elsewhere, though hopefully Putin will avoid reckless actions. But the more Putin seeks to assert Russia’s strength, he will actually underline its weakness.

The problem is that there is zero evidence that anything Ignatius says above is true.  Russia has marched into Crimea unopposed.  The Europeans, without American leadership, seem ready to cut a deal.  The United States has talked about de-escalating the situation, rather than taking forceful and decisive action.  Indeed, to date, it would appear Putin has judged 100% correctly the geopolitical situation.

Ignatius isn’t conducting a serious analysis of Russia’s actions.  If he were, he would not write these lines:

Perhaps inevitably, given Washington’s political monomania, the big subject over the weekend wasn’t Putin’s criminal attack on Crimea but whether Obama had encouraged it by being insufficiently muscular. There are many valid criticisms to be made of Obama’s foreign policy, especially in Syria, but the notion that Putin’s attack is somehow the United States’ fault is perverse.

Ignatius employs a grammatical slight- of-hand to counter a legitimate argument by inserting a straw man.  There is an abundance of criticism (including by this author) from many people regarding Obama’s pusillanimity in the face of global strategic threats.  He failed to help Iranian dissidents during the Green Revolution, drew a redline in Syria he wouldn’t defend and “led from behind” in Libya, to name a few examples.  Criticisms of those actions are most definitely valid.  What is not valid, and what few who find fault with Obama on the grounds above would say, is that it is the United States’ fault that Putin attacked.  Fault implies a failure to fulfill an obligation, and moral culpability, which does not apply here.  Russia invaded, and Russia alone is at fault.  However, the Obama administration can be faulted for creating an atmosphere that led Putin to conclude that he could act with impunity.  If a man is murdered when there are no police around but there should have been, we do not say that the police are at fault for the murder – that is solely the responsibility of the killer.  However, we may say that they are at fault for failing to create a safe environment

That is precisely what happened.  Over the last five years, we have shrunk from fights and challenges in the Middle East, Latin American and Asia.  Nowhere has this been more true than with respect to our Russian policy.  We tried to appease the Russians with the “reset” out the door, to no avail.  We caved into their demands to cancel our missile defense alliance with Poland.  We let them outmaneuver us in Syria.  Is it any wonder they don’t respect us now?

Throughout his article, Ignatius alleges that Putin has failed to grasp X or misunderstands Y and, luckily for the Russian president, Ignatius is here to tell him why he just doesn’t understand his own strategic interests.

What Putin misunderstands most is that the center of gravity for the former Soviet Union has shifted west. Former Soviet satellites such as Poland and the Czech Republic are prosperous members of the E.U. The nations that made up what was once Yugoslavia have survived their bloody breakup, and most have emerged as strong democracies. Ukraine was set to join this movement toward the European Union last November when Yanukovych suddenly suspended trade and financial talks with the E.U. and accepted what amounted to a $15 billion bribe from Putin to stay in Russia’s camp. To the tens of thousands of courageous Ukrainians who braved the cold and police brutality to protest, Yanukovych’s submission to Moscow looked like an attempt to reverse history.

From where does Ignatius draw his analysis?  I see declarative statements from the author, but nowhere does he justify these conclusions.  The center of gravity has shifted West.  Really?  I see a new Sino-Soviet alliance emerging.  Putin is trying to reverse history.  Well, we can agree on that.  However, Ignatius seems to think that “history” is, in itself, a winning argument, as in “things have changed, therefore they can’t go back.  Ukraine is a democracy, ergo it is foolish to fight to make it a puppet state.”  It would be nice if it were true, if the world only progressed in one, more enlightened and free direction.  The problem is there is little evidence that such a reality exists.  Germany slid back into despotism after World War I.  Venezuela slipped back into a dictatorship after a brief period of democracy.  And, more to the point, Russia itself went from a highly free society in the late 1990s to a dictatorship today.  Ignatius’ arguments are nothing more than wishful thinking and a projection of his own views onto Russia, rather than a careful analysis of geopolitics and history.

Ignatius spends the bulk of the rest of the article further declaring Russia’s invasion to be a mistake and that if only Putin were smarter he would realize where his interests truly are.  He concludes with this thought: “But Americans and Europeans should agree that this is a story about Putin’s violation of the international order. I’d be happy if we could interrupt Russia’s mistakes, but so far Putin insists on doing the wrong thing.”

Mr. Ignatius really did yeoman’s work here, carrying water for the Obama administration.  His entire article boils down to this sentiment: ‘it’s not Obama’s fault; Putin isn’t acting the way he is supposed to act.’  Unfortunately for the United States, Europe and Ukraine, there is no “supposed to” in international relations, and the idea that we should base our foreign policy around a philosophy that assumes there is a set order to the way events are supposed to unfold is not only absurd, it is dangerous.  Obama already ordered his foreign policy along those lines once, assuming that when he declared a redline on chemical weapons it would never be crossed.  Now, after years of displaying weakness, we find that another strategic adversary doesn’t respect us.  It may not be Mr. Obama’s fault that Putin invaded Ukraine, but he certainly bears responsibility for creating a permissive environment where our enemies feel free to act with complete disregard for United States.

From Virginia: “A local teenager is facing child pornography charges after police say she shared nude photographs of herself on the social networking site Twitter.”  According to the story:

Officials with the James City County Police Department told the station that teenagers sometimes fail to grasp the severity of the situation when publicly sharing private materials.

“It’s not just friends that see what they post but also strangers and everyone else out there,” Stephanie Williams-Ortery, a representative of the department, told WAVY. “You have no idea who’s out there watching. You never know who’s going to see what you post.”

…Authorities then confiscated her phone and charged her with one count of distribution of child pornography.

So, the police in Virginia think that the proper way to discipline a teenager for taking a nude photo of herself is to charge her with a felony.  Perhaps they also think that people who attempt suicide should be charged with attempted murder.  It’s nice to know that the cops have nothing better to do than, at best, prosecute the victims of the crimes they want to prevent.

LZ Granderson has a piece on CNN.com criticizing Jerry Seinfeld for the comments he recently made that “[p]eople think (comedy) is the census or something, it’s gotta represent the actual pie chart of America.  Who cares?”  Mr. Granderson, who writes a weekly column for CNN.com, faults Seinfeld because Granderson believes Seinfeld’s comments “while not malicious in intent, do highlight some of the nuances of privilege those in power enjoy but are unable or unwilling to see. And unless measures are taken to point out some of those privileges, those who have been inadvertently excluded will continue to be so.”

As is so often the case with the minority & gender studies community, when the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.  Granderson is incapable of seeing beyond race, creed and gender.  Even a non-issue where a comedian says that all he cares about is the quality of the work product becomes the basis for complaints about discrimination because every issue is about discrimination.  To Granderson, Seinfeld is a white male, and that is all you need to know about his opinion.  Because he is a white male, his opinion is reduced to being representative of a particular pallor and gender.

It’s too bad that Granderson (I assume, based on his commentary) doesn’t watch Seinfeld’s Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee.  If he did, he might have seen the episode with Don Rickles, entitled “You’ll Never Play the Copa.”  Had he seen the episode, he might have encountered, around the one minute forty second mark, Seinfeld’s introduction to Rickles, where Seinfeld says that Rickles would be one of the four faces on the Mount Rushmore of Comedy.  That is followed by this comment: “the other three are Pryor, Carlin and Cosby, by the way.”

Now, given the comments by Seinfeld of which Granderson is critical, I think we can be pretty confident that when Seinfeld mentions Pryor, Carlin and Cosby it is a genuine reflection of his view that they represent the pinnacle of comedy genius.  He doesn’t toss out a couple of black names in the interests of diversity, which so transfixes Granderson.  He simply states his opinion, which is devoid of calculations about the optimal mix of race, gender, religion, national origin or any other category which is completely irrelevant to whether a comedian is funny.

Granderson and other race and gender writers and activists take every opportunity to turn race-neutral statements into issues of controversy.  If they are truly interested in promoting equality, then they should celebrate people like Jerry Seinfeld – a man for whom quality is all that matters.

In a fit of common sense, the FCC is discussing lifting its ban on in-flight calls because it possesses no evidence showing that those calls pose a safety threat.  It is a rare instance of the government actually removing unwarranted and outdated regulations.  The Chairman of the FCC couldn’t have said it better than he did:

 I do not want the person in the seat next to me yapping at 35,000 feet any more than anyone else. But we are not the Federal Courtesy Commission. Our mandate from Congress is to oversee how networks function.  I am painfully aware of the emotional response this proposal has triggered. Yet, I firmly believe that if we are serious about eliminating regulations which serve no purpose, the decision is clear.

And so it is.  However, just as good sense was being instated at the FCC, the Transportation Department decided that it would take it upon itself to be the Courtesy Commission.  Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx says he has heard from numerous people (fliers, flight attendants, lawmakers, etc.) “who are all troubled over the idea of passengers talking on cell phones in flight—and [Foxx] is concerned about [the] possibility as well.”

So, Foxx has decided to insert the government into  a place where it has no business because, he claims, it is his job to decide if allowing calls on airlines is “fair to consumers.”  Here is a perfect example of a government bureaucracy overstepping its legitimate reason for existence (safety) and taking on a new mission (arbiter of values).  Foxx doesn’t like the idea of people talking on cell phones and disrupting other passengers (frankly, neither do )I.  However, on what basis should it be the Transportation Department’s prerogative to decide what will and what will not be allowed on board?  Why shouldn’t the airlines and the market be the arbiters of what is appropriate?

If airline customers really don’t like cell phones on planes, they will let their opinions be known, either by complaining or by voting with their feet.  Airlines will quickly be able to determine whether allowing customers to use cell phones is so disruptive that it drives away other customers.  If it does, the airlines will fashion a remedy.  Either some airlines will compete on the basis of not allowing phone conversations or, more likely, just as Amtrak does with its quite cars, the airlines will institute cell-free sections.

Once the issue of safety has been taken care of, cell phone use is an issue of convenience (or annoyance).   The market is very, very good at identifying the things that customers enjoy or hate and responding to them accordingly.  A Transportation Department takeover of the cell phone regulations can only lead to a monolithic solution which stifles innovation and consumer choice.  The FCC is fulfilling its duties as a public agency by relinquishing unnecessary government intervention.  The Transportation Department should not rush in to reestablish it.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, responding to the botched launch of the HealthCare.gov health-insurance website, said Wednesday she has called for a review of contracting practices and a new official to oversee risk.

She also said the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversaw the HealthCare.gov launch, will bring in a new chief risk officer who will oversee “risk management practices associated with major agency initiatives.”

Maybe the problem isn’t with the contractors (as bad as they are), but with the entire conceit that a centrally-managed approach to health care by the federal government is the best way to produce a quality system.  Just a thought.

Ron Fournier seems confused – about a lot of things.  Here’s the title of his latest column:  Clueless, Heartless, and Gutless: Today’s GOP – Republican brand at risk over food stamps, unemployment benefits, economic inequality, and trust.  According to Fournier:

 The most charitable thing you can say about the Republican Party is that it has an image problem. Even if you support its policies, no clear-eyed observer can deny that on any given day the GOP looks clueless, heartless, and gutless…  it takes just four stories to see how much worse things are for the GOP.

So, Fournier has four stories, which he picked to highlight his theory that republicans are “clueless, heartless and gutless.”  Leaving aside the maxim that the plural of anecdote is not data, Fournier has a bit of a problem – with the (possible) exception of his fourth story, none of his examples prove his point.  Fournier simply cites a story and then, with no factual basis or connection, simply declares Republicans to be whatever pejorative term he has chosen.  If we were in court, an objection would be sustained on the grounds that he has laid no foundation for his assertion.

Story #1 is a long quote from “Invisible Child: Dasani’s Homeless Life“, which is a profile in the New York Times about homelessness and children.  Here is the entirety of Fournier’s commentary:

Written by Andrea Elliott and illustrated by photographer Ruth Fremson, Dasani’s story is an indictment of a political system that is aiding and abetting America’s division by class, where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets squeezed into oblivion. Both major parties are complicit, but Republicans, more than Democrats, seem especially eager to widen and exploit American inequality.

So, using an article in the Times which profiles homelessness in Manhattan as a springboard, Fournier attributes the failings of the system to both parties, but finds the Republicans particularly at fault because, according to Fournier, Republicans exploit class divides more than Democrats.  This in interesting for two reasons.  First, the mayor of New York is an Independent (and back when he was a Republican, Bloomberg was a decidedly liberal Republican) and the city legislature (as well as the state) is dominated by Democrats.  Therefore linking New York’s problems to Republican actions is highly suspect.  Second it is on the left that you see the the 99%/1% rhetoric.  It’s the Democrats who run the candidates who play the divided nation card (John Edwards, De Blasio) and it is Democrats who like to talk about income inequality being a wedge issue.  Just standing up and saying, as Fournier is essentially doing, “it’s the Republicans’ fault!” is not much of an argument.

Store #2 is about a quote from Rand Paul and a link to a Huffington Post piece titled “Rand Paul: Unemployment Benefits Extension Would Be a ‘Disservice’ to Workers.”  Here Fournier, once again, simply declares facts, without actually offering up any evidence in support of his statements.   For example, here is Fournier’s response to Paul citing a study saying that if you extend unemployment benefits beyond 26 weeks it is a disservice to workers:

He’s wrong, and he’s making the GOP look clueless. Studies typically cited by the GOP are old and irrelevant to the current economy, which is in the midst of a once-a-century economic shift that makes it extraordinarily difficult for some workers to adjust.

Let’s look at what Fournier has done here.  Paul has made an assertion and based it upon a study.  Fournier has, once again, simply stated Paul is wrong.  Here’s his exact statement: “He’s wrong, and he’s making the GOP look clueless.  Studies typically cited by the GOP are old and irrelevant to the current economy, which is in the midst of a once-a-century economic shift that makes it extraordinarily difficult for some workers to adjust.”

Look at his last sentence.  He simply declares that we are in a once-a-century moment and, therefore, studies which contradict his thesis (i.e., the thesis of liberal think tanks and economists) are therefore incorrect.  However, it is Fournier who is wrong.  Far from the matter being settled, there is active debate as to the effects of long-term unemployment insurance, including under today’s conditions, (see here, here and (most damningly) here, for examples).  This is another place where Fournier is lucky he isn’t an attorney.  An attorney has a duty to the court to present all precedent relevant to a case, including that which might be unfavorable, in the interests of truth.  I guess journalists aren’t held to such a high standard.  Fournier may be correct, but to simply flat-out state Paul is incorrect and his studies are out-of-date represents careless journalism or worse on Fournier’s part.

Story #3 is an op-ed n The Washington Post by Robert Rubin, Roger Altman, and Melissa Kearney titled “Making the Poor Poorer.”  Their argument is “that GOP-led plans to reduce food stamps would be ‘economically and morally unsound.’”   Fournier’s entire analysis of this (again, hand-picked) example is:

Republicans argue that the food-stamp program is growing, which they blame on Democrats rather than a global economic revolution and the lingering effects of a recession rooted in Clinton- and Bush-era policies. It most cases, poverty isn’t the fault of the poor. Trust us, the GOP says. And yet …

Who can even tell what Fournier is saying here?  Is he saying the GOP is clueless because the politics look bad?  If so, why not cite some evidence that the GOP is getting slammed in the polls for perceived heartlessness?  Is his point that the GOP is clueless about food stamp operations?  If so, he offers no evidence to that effect.  All he does is cite the opinion of some economists that cutting food stamps is bad.  Whether it is true or not, and whether it is having an impact on the GOP’s image or not is left entirely unanswered.

Clueless.  Heartless.  Gutless.  Those are the charges that Fournier levels.  Perhaps he is right.  However, if this is the best he can muster in support of his thesis then the Republican party has nothing to worry about.

Irin Carmon, on MSNBC, defends Obamacare.  In her defense of Obamacare as a “women’s issue” she quotes Barbra Boxer:

“If this court is really about what it’s supposed to be about, standing up for individual rights, they will back the individual rights of the employee to make decisions about their health care,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer of the Supreme Court taking up the case.  ”What if your boss believes you should just pray your way to health?”

It is depressing, though unsurprising, that a senator knows so little about the Constitution.