Random Thoughts on Cheney's Win

Since he came to national prominence, I've always thought Dick Cheney was a national treasure. The very gruff, laconic, knowledgeable approach that makes him a bit "dark" on TV, I find reassuring. He's the kind of guy I imagine I'd want as a commander in war -- he'd do what he has to do to win, and do his best to keep you safe, without mincing words.

Edwards was well-prepared, expressive, knows some good courtroom techniques. He seems likeable, but he also seemed a lightweight. He didn't answer the questions, and avoided doing so in a very obvious way. A low-key demagogue.

Gwen Ifill asked some good, hard questions. I was surprised. Of course, she didn't ask about the big univited guest at the national table -- immigration. I'd like to see somebody do it, but I'm not counting on it.

Best Cheney lines:

• I preside over the Senate, and this is the first time we've met.
• If you can't stand up to Howard Dean, how are you going to stand up to Osama Bin Laden?
• Thanking Edwards for his kind remarks about his family, and then shutting up about gay marriage

Most important thing: Kerry's record is now out in the open and up for grabs and "global test" was reinforced as a GOP mantra.

With the playoffs on, the male audience, who Cheney might appeal to, was probably low. In fact it was probably low except for political junkies such as I.

Demo Signs That Make Sense

Anti-anti-war Protestors
Originally uploaded by octopod.

Couldn't resist posting this. It's from a demonstration in Austrilia.

HT: KJL at The Corner.

Risk Perception and Radiation

Evangelical Outpost has an interesting piece that argues that the popular conception of the dangers of radiation, incuding thehealth dangers of radiation from nuclear bombs and radiological weapons, is overblown.

Most people don't estimate risk based on a rational risk calculus.

There are a couple of reasons for this:

First, most people are functionally innumerate-- they don't understand numbers beyond making change.

Second, a subfield of social psychology that studies perception of risk, as here, shows that certain characteristics of risks lead people to overestimate them. For example, an unfamiliar risk tends to be overestimated, as are risks over which people feel no control.

Radiation, invisible, mysterious, and out of individual control, is an exemplar of a real risk that is widely overblown.

The existence of political movements with a state in exaggerating these risks adds to the fear. Do a Google search on "Alar," for example, and you'll get dozens of sites such as this that still argue that the pesticide, used on apples until banned, really was terribly dangerous. A contrary view is expressed here. Few of these sites have real data, mind you. For that, you'll have to dig deeper and perhaps go to a (shudder!) library.

Years ago, Congress passed something called the Delaney Amendment that sought to ban anything in food and cosmetics that presents any risk of cancer at all.

The emotionally freighted issue of the alleged health risks of electrical and magnetic fields (EMF) is another example of a risk overblown by a combination of psychological and political factors.

Hence the receptivity in some circles to Sen. Kerry's tirade about "bunker buster" bombs.

Demonstrating the cogency, no doubt, of H. L. Mencken's remark that "No one in this world, so far as I know ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."

Of course, the "What, me worry?" approach also has its political backers, although usually less shrill

One moral of the story is that in this damn'd business of politics, one needs one's brains all the time. That is a risk to which many, perhaps most, are especially averse.

Profound New Post

One John from San Francisco starts out his blog with a very wise post on Kerry's digs at our allies and on duty.

His willingness to talk morally without sanctimony is refreshing.

Honor Among Thieves?

Tom Brokaw made an ass of himself at a panel with Dan Rather and Peter Jennings:

"Brokaw blasted what he called an attempt to 'demonize' CBS and Rather on the Internet, where complaints about the report first surfaced. He said the criticism 'goes well beyond any factual information.'

"'What I think is highly inappropriate is what going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad ... that is quite outrageous,' the NBC anchor said at a panel on which all three men spoke."

Their audience is disappearing. How much can you make on Depends commercials?

Brokaw has proven to be as much of a clown as Rather.

Jihad? How many heads have we US bloggers cut off this week?

HT to Jonah Goldberg at The Corner.

Sorry, I Couldn't Resist

kerry_eiffel
Originally uploaded by octopod.

Kerry passes the "global test" on the Left Bank.

HT to Right Thinking on the Left Coast

Just War Analysis and Bunker Busters

Here is a well-thought-out discussion of "just war" analysis as applied to Kerry's "bunker buster" outburst. First, the blog quotes C.S. Lewis:

War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face as if you were ashamed of it.

Robust English common sense, the like of which we still see nowadays, but less often. Then, a piece that includes this challenging paradox:

"Like many Christians, I believe that the use of force against evil is in keeping with God’s ethical mandate and can be even be a positive act of love. For this to be true, however, the use of military force must be justifiable under the parameters of “just war theory” including the requirements for a jus ad bellum (circumstances for using force) and jus in bello (just means in using force). The issues of when and how nuclear weapons should be used fall under this category of “just means” and should be examined it that light.

"Unfortunately, the emotional baggage we bring to the topic makes it nearly impossible to rationally discuss the use of nuclear weapons. The threat of global annihilation has so colored the debate that for many people it is considered an axiomatic truth that the use of such weaponry can never be justified. While we should empathize with the anxiety that leads to this conclusion we cannot condone such a morally repugnant stance."

Whew! It's the mindless disarmers who are immoral. An unconventional view.

He's right, of course.

HT to Hugh Hewitt, of course.

The Perfect Storm Part Four

VDH's The Perfect Storm Part Four takes apart the cultural malaise he thinks underlies the Bush-hating and anti-American ambiance of the contemporary left. Here's an excerpt:

"The current war is a touchstone by which received postmodern wisdom is open and on display. The stealthy nature of our enemy, the dirty type of war we must fight, globally televised battlefields far away in the volatile Middle East or unknown here at home, the ability to punish our enemies without further endangerment of or much sacrifice from most Americans, Christian versus Muslim, West against East, strong opposed to weak, white in antithesis to brown—all these realities of this war in an almost uncanny way invite critique from the postmodern Left.

"In contrast, should the United States fight a moral, defensive war against amoral aggressive terrorists and autocrats, seek democracy and social justice in place of fascism, promote religious and gender tolerance where prejudice was endemic, find that American military force, not UN discourse, saved lives, then what in the world would the deductive Left do other than stage plays and skits about assassinating George Bush, trash capitalism through the largess of a currency speculator, cite historically high gasoline prices at home as proof of American petroleum theft abroad, or claim that American military police are the new Baathist henchmen?"

The whole series is worth reading

Bunker Busters -- Comments for Hugh

Hugh invites participation in a symposium about Kerry's impassioned denunciation of "bunker buster" weapons in the dangerous hands of us Yanks.

Since dictionary.com includes the following definition of "symposium":

A convivial meeting for drinking, music, and intellectual discussion among the ancient Greeks.

[Latin, drinking party, from Greek sumposion : sun-, syn- + posis, drinking; see p(i)- in Indo-European Roots.]

we must ask, "Is Hugh buying?"

That said, and getting over the initial visceral reaction, "Who's this jamoke that wants us to disarm unilaterally when we're at war with a bunch of medieval maniacs?", let's think.

What are the reasons for opposing U.S. development of bunker-busters?

Here are a few:

1. Nuclear weapons are sui generis and uniquely dangerous. Any attempt on our part to obtain a lead in nuclear technology will inspire an equal and opposite reaction in our opponents, and so, rather than making us safer, will increase the overall danger of an intentional or accidental nuclear exchange.


2. The nuclear option has only been used once, and now that we don't have a monopoly of such weapons, we don't want to break the taboo. The smaller and more tactical such weapons get, the more likely they are to be used, something we don't want the world to become accustomed to, because once the powers are inured to such weapons, a catastrophic nuclear exchange becomes more likely.
   
   A variant of this argument is that because of the taboo on nuclear weapons, they are unlikely to have a practical use. Therefore, r & d on these weapons is a waste of resources.


3. Because of the potential for world destruction, such weapons are inherently immoral.

Now let's deal with these arguments one-by-one.

1. The "tit-for-tat" argument had more force when we had a more-or-less symmetrical nuclear rivalry with the USSR. Those days are gone. Although the mutual reduction of nuclear arsenals is still ongoing, it's not so likely that the development of a slightly different variety of tactical nukes is going to complicate that process.
   
   The newer nuclear powers -- India, Pakistan, Israel -- have developed nukes for their own reasons, which won't be affected by what we do with bunker busters, but by their own military and political circumstances.
   
   An aside: The claim that would-be nuclear adversaries will be stimulated to redouble their efforts because of bunker-busters ignores a taboo subject -- our winking at and maybe assisting Israeli nuclear development. The Iranians, with some justice, point to the absence of U.S. or international pressure against Israeli nuclear development, as compared to the reaction to "Muslim" nukes. That's a much more important rationale for new proliferators, at least in the Middle East, than our development of bunker-busters. It's also an issue neither Republicans nor Democrats will touch. One could argue that the Israelis (unlike Libya or Iran) can be trusted only to use their nuclear arms as a last resort, but given Israel's precarious geographic and demographic circumstances and the number of kooks on the Israeli right, can we be certain?


2. The "taboo" argument has some logic to it. Unless the "bunker buster" is uniquely advantageous compared with non-nuclear alternatives, the latter are likely to be more useful, just because the threshold for using nukes of any kind is (and should be) high.
   
   On the other hand, a terrorist or Iranian subterranean nuclear HQ would very likely justify using a "bunker buster." Can we afford not to have a few on hand? Are they so much more useful than non-nuclear alternatives that having them would be important? I don't have enough information to be certain.
   
   Kerry, though, appears not to be making a rational calculation based on US-oriented military consideratons, but to be reacting viscerally to the very concept of nuclear r & d, and against the concept of US military superiority.


3. There's some logic to the "morality" argument, but ultimately this boils down to the "just war" argument, more particularly to the "just means" aspect. A nuclear "bunker buster" used against a military target when its success is likely and steps have been taken to limit damage to non-combatants, could be justly used. The "breaking the taboo" issue would have to be considered in any such case -- would a first use increase the likelihood of a massively destructive nuclear exchange -- but "bunker busters" don't seem to me to be inherently immoral.

Bottom line: There's a lot to consider before we decide it's prudent to develop or deploy nuclear bunker-busters, but Kerry's visceral reaction to them is not based on prudential considerations where the US national interest is paramount, but on sappy crackpot internationalism and nuclear-freeze-ism. It's those attitudes of Kerry's -- ignoring the fact that we are in a long-term, global war, and our survival depends on US understanding of the situation and determination to prevail -- that makes him and his party so dangerous.

A great war leader could come down on either side of this issue for practical reasons, but a great war leader doesn't worry about whether Jacques Chirac or Kofi Annan thinks we've passed the "global test." At the risk of overusing a cliché, we've known some great war leaders, and Senator Kerry, you're not a great war leader.

Not even close.

This Sums It Up

A reader at The Kerry Spot on National Review Online sums up the debate succintly:

"While John Kerry showed poise and looked presidential, I think he is still flip-flopping on Iraq and the war on terror. To summarize his comments: It's the wrong war at the wrong time, but I'm committed to winning it; We're spending too much on Iraq ($200 billion), but I'd send more troops and equipment; I'll bring in more nations to help Iraq, but the other nations currently in Iraq were coerced and do not provide much assistance; Saddam and Iraq were a grave threat, but Osama is the only terrorist worth pursuing; Terrorists are pourng into Iraq, but Iraq is a distraction to the war on terror. I still have no idea what he would do as President to fight this war on terrorism."

Hat tip to The Volokh Conspiracy.

VDH Dissects Leftist Plutocrats

Victor Hanson's third piece in a series ponders the predilection of the privileged to affect leftism. Here's an exceprt:

"The common cultural tie that binds the screeching Howard Dean, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry is not personal knowledge of the cruelty and misery inflicted by Dick Cheney’s corporate America, but precisely its dividends of prep school and lots of family money. The attack dog of Enron Terry McAuliff is $20 million richer only as a result of questionable mega-stock transactions during the eleventh-hour collapse of Global Crossing. The epitomes of American hypercapitalism—a Donald Trump, Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates—are welcomed into the Democratic crusade against George Bush’s betrayal of average America.

"Limousine liberals are not new. But the hyper-rich’s support for candidates who decry the unfairness of corporate capitalism is. Equally strange are the angry liberals at the forefront of the Democratic Party who are the elite beneficiates of capitalism—whether we see the Kerrys flying on a private Gulfstream to environmental conferences, a Barbra Streisand faxing position papers to the Democratic leadership from Malibu, or the Heinz corporation’s multinational wealth subsidizing lectures on the evils of outsourcing jobs abroad."

Hanson's a national treasure.

The Debate: My Obligatory Comment

The debate was too long -- a snooze. Lehrer's questions were largely inane. If I were running, I wouldn't want the press guys involved. I'd want a traditional one-on-one debate.

Substance. That said, on substance, Kerry really had nothing to say. He's still trying to straddle -- feeding the left the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" line, while implying for the center that he'll be tougher than Bush, and saying he has "a Plan." What plan? A summit! With whom? Chirac and Schroder? Fat chance they will help us.

Of course, I'm old enough to remember Eisenhower's "I will go to Korea" bit, which was a meaningless promise that nevertheless helped him at the time.

W. was simplistic and missed chances to knock it out of the park, but he's not a nuclear-freeze, "global test," UN guy, either. Key point, and the voters know it anyway.

Both candidates made too much of the corrupt cartel of tyrants, the UN.

Delivery and demeanor. That said, Kerry helped himself on delivery, if only because he was articulate and showed gravitas without being quite so much a stiff as he usually seems. Although on policy grounds it's a nightmare, based on last night's performance, one could imagine him as (God forbid!) President.

Bush was repetitive and seemed tired and a bit lost. But I'm bicoastal enough to have consistently underestimated the man, whose quirks annoy me. I haven't got a feel for how this played in Peoria -- or more importantly, Toledo and Tampa. W. did stay on message, and unlike Kerry did show genuine feeling, for example, when he talked about his encounter with the war widow. Not as good at "feeling your pain" as Clinton, but genuine and effective. The seculars won't get the bit about his praying with her, but they're tone-deaf to religion in a way that most Americans are not.

Effect. The journalistic consensus seems to be that Kerry won on points, but it won't help him much. However, considering he's down 5-6 percentage points in the polls, a little boost will place him within the margin of error. At that point, events and chance could change things. Probably not, but it's possible.

Usually, in Presidential elections, my view is that neither of the candidates is very good, but either way, the Republic will survive. I'm not there in this one. Bush has major problems, but Kerry and his party are a menace to our very survival. Hence my prayer that the debate will pass as no more than a blip, and Americans just won't be able to stomach electing a Massachusetts liberal.

	Substance	Delivery	Grade
Bush	B	B-	B
Kerry	C-	A-	B-

What we don't know is how much this oral quiz will be worth toward the final grade.