Month: July 2009

Previewing The GOP’s 2010 Offensive

Weigel checks in on their messaging:

“If the American people will let the Republicans back in charge,” said [Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)] on the Feb. 19 episode of Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, “the 60 percent of this bill that won’t be spent until after the next election, we’ll cut it off and let it go to the Americans.” That idea didn’t immediately take…But as unemployment numbers rise, and as the Obama administration is forced to admit that its early projections of what the stimulus package would achieve were overly optimistic, Republicans are returning to that February vote and hanging it around the necks of vulnerable Democrats. Increasingly, they are echoing Gohmert’s enthusiastic pledge to scrap whatever stimulus money is left in January 2011.

Then blame Obama if the recession deepens: perfect!

When Palin Quoted Cronkite

She did, of course, remove the context:

Playboy: Implicit in the Administration’s attempts to force the networks to “balance” the news is a conviction that most newscasters are biased against conservatism. Is there some truth in the view that television newsmen tend to be left of center?

Cronkite: Well, certainly liberal, and possibly left of center as well. I would have to accept that.

Playboy: What’s the distinction between those two terms?

Cronkite: I think the distinction is both clear and important. I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause – but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it’s a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they’re not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they’re preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can’t be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism.

The View From Your Recession: San Antonio vs Beloit

A lot of great discussion generated from this post. A reader writes:

Yes, strong military presence helps San Antonio, but the city is proving a magnet for foreign investors.  The new Toyota plant was a huge boon to local commerce.  The city is embracing Mexican investment much as California welcomed Asian commerce in the 70s and 80s.  It's a real win-win for everyone. South-central Wisconsin, though, has struggled for years.  Long before GM, the area had been plagued with plant closures.  Local farmers have also found it hard to compete with corporate agribusiness.

Another writes:

It is a common error – even among natives – to assume agriculture and energy are the main drivers of the Texas economy.  While energy is still important, ag is not (as you can see in this chart).  After a major energy bust in the late 80's, the state has diversified a lot, particularly in technology, finance, etc.

I personally do not know all the reasons why we are weathering the recession a bit better than other states, but at least part of it is that Texas is a low-tax, low-service state.  While this is not good for some of our livability indicators (poverty rates, etc.), it does mean that when the economy goes south we have a lot fewer government commitments to cut back on.  And of course, places like California appear to have gone completely crazy in spending over the past decade; it's not hard to appear a paragon of fiscal sanity compared to the goings-on in Sacramento.

Another:

Your correspondent was incorrect to say, "Texas years ago enacted strict laws governing exotic and aggressive mortgages (e.g. no IO loans, no 10% down, maybe no liar loans either)." I own two houses and put 5% down on the first on, 10% down on the second (all within the last 4 years). I agree with the thrust of the post – I haven't felt the recession too severely here in Austin, aside from the lighter commuting traffic – but I don't think we can thank Texas banking laws for that.

Another:

I have to agree with your readers about Texas. I sometimes find myself reading news about the economy with the same detached curiosity as I would a coup in a foreign country.

What it all boils down to is the diversity within the state. We have a large immigrant and native population. We have an ecology that ranges from deserts to forests to prairies to coastal towns. With regard to industry, we have a strong presence in agriculture, energy, finance, technology, medicine, manufacturing, and transportation. We have solid communities that span between bohemian liberal and evangelical conservative.

The state has throughout recent years weathered the oil bust, the S&L crisis, and the dotcom bust – and came out the other side of each as strong as ever. We do have our fair shar of problems, but they're mostly self-inflicted. Texas really does have it's own economy, and while the recession is certainly having an effect, we're doing quite well in the grand scheme of things.

It's not a bad place to live. Though it's hotter than hell in the summer…

Dispatches From An Alternate Universe

Matthew Continetti:

Unable or unwilling to grasp her true accomplishments and character, the media shoehorned Palin into a ready-made caricature of the know-nothing Christian PTA mom who enters politics because of "those damned lib'ruls." The reality is far different. Palin is a savvy and charismatic politician whose career has been filled with courageous stands against entrenched authority. Ideological or partisan attachments do not concern her. She has her flaws–who doesn't?–but they should be measured against her strengths. Instead the media ignored the positives and colluded with Palin's adversaries to reduce her to a cartoon.

Too Many Rats In The Maze

Ed Yong summarizes a new study:

The simple act of comparing yourself against someone else can stoke the fires of competition. When there are just a few competitors around, making such comparisons is easy but they become more difficult when challengers are plentiful. As a result, the presence of extra contenders, far from spurring us on by adding extra challenge, can actually have the opposite effect.

This appears to hold true even when the chances of success remain the same. Join a smaller gym.

(Hat tip: Vaughan)

Guilty After Proven Innocent?, Ctd

Deborah Pearlstein debates the legality of post-acquittal detention:

The Administration’s litigating position is that there is an ongoing, non-international armed conflict (i.e. a conflict not between two states, but between the United States and the organization Al Qaeda); and that the 2001 [Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)] passed by Congress gives it ongoing authority to subject certain individuals (just who is the central subject of litigation) to military detention until the end of the U.S.-v.-A.Q. conflict. There is nothing in the Geneva Conventions that would affirmatively authorize such detention. But neither is there anything in the Geneva Conventions that would squarely prohibit it (provided, as always, it’s subject to adequate procedures, humane treatment, etc.). If the Administration is right about the scope of the AUMF – an interpretation that I believe is overbroad but that has so far been largely winning in the district courts – then presumably the same logic about post-acquittal detention applies…

A.L. has more:

I think the true test of the Obama administration will be whether and under what circumstances it chooses to hold detainees based solely on their status as "combatants." Will it reserve this power in name only? Will it limit its use to people who, like Hamdi, were captured on the battlefield? Will it claim that its detention authority is limited to the duration of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, or to the never-ending "war on terror"? What sort of process will it afford detainees to challenge their designation as combatants? Will it seek Congressional approval for such detention or rely solely on executive order? If someone is acquitted of criminal charges under circumstances that make it clear that the jury did not believe he was a terrorist at all, will the Obama administration assert that he is a terrorist nonetheless?

Outing Iran: Kiosk

A reader writes:

Hey, thanks for posting so many great Iranian songs!  The band Kiosk has made a lot of nice pop records in recent years. I think they produced a lot of them in Iran, but they've since move to the West. Some of their lyrics are political, but there are others that simply poetic tunes about love and life.

From Wikipedia:

Kiosk was founded in a basement in Tehran [in 1990]. Like many other bands in Iran, they had to set up their studios literally in the underground basements of friends and families, fearing of the Islamic regime’s constant surveillance.

The name of the band comes from the original formation of the group when its members were gathering together in any possible place to play their music with the fear of getting arrested by the Islamic regime in Iran. Any little part of Tehran could be their Kiosk to get together, to separate from their surrounding environment and to share the ecstatic pleasure of playing together.

Kiosk has never been limited by music style or location. They continue to evolve and experiment by using music and lyrics to express itself and to connect to its worldwide audience. Kiosk’s distinct characteristic is their unique and innovative way of expressing cultural and social problems in a blend of blues, country and Persian music, a combination which creates something original and outstanding. Kiosk has released three albums, all of which are illegal in Iran.

Kiosk has been based in the US since 2006, with some of its members living in San Francisco and Seattle, where their studio is way on the ground. Their immigration to the US didn’t stop them from talking about the political and cultural problems in Iran.

More music videos here, here, and here.