Month: October 2004

High Irony in the Cozy World of Government Contracting

Here’s a story from BBC News that won’t make even a small dent in the spin and counter-spin about the presidential debates:

US air force official imprisoned

The former number two buyer for the US air force has been sentenced to nine months in jail for corruption.

Darleen Druyun, 56, admitted to boosting the price of a tanker plane deal to win favour with Boeing, the company she was about to work for.

She also pleaded guilty to giving Boeing a competitor’s secret data.

The judge said the stain of her offence was very severe, and the case “must stand as an example”, given the high office she held….

There are two ironies here. First, Druyun was caught doing something blatantly that others manage to do more subtly in Washington. I couldn’t begin to count the number of retiring generals, admirals, and high-ranking bureaucrats who, shortly before they retire, start making nice to contractors to whom they’d like to sell their consulting services for, say, $150 an hour.

Second, I remember that when Druyun was still in her government job she was a panelist at a symposium on ethical practices for government contractors. Of course, she was all in favor of ethics. Isn’t everyone in Washington?

Well, maybe not Tom DeLay. Though DeLay’s real sin is being a “take no prisoners” Republican in the mold of Newt Gingrich. If you’re too nasty to the opposition, they stop giving you a free pass for behaving like everyone else on Capitol Hill. Then the opposition suddenly discovers ethics — not theirs, of course, just your lack of them.

Ha, Ha Funny Stuff from the Left

So Daily Kos comments about something or other that Fox News’s White House reporter Carl Cameron wrote about Kerry, apparently in jest, which Fox News quickly retracted and apologized for. Kos says this:

If a network calls itself “fair and balanced”, it shouldn’t have a blatant anti-Kerry reporter on the beat.

Okay, so how about if all the networks that don’t call themselves “fair and balanced” — because they know better — take all their blatant anti-Bush reporters off the White House beat? That would leave a lot of empty seats in the press briefing room, wouldn’t it?

Not to mention empty anchor desks. But, the anchors I have in mind are empty suits, anyway.

P.S. By Fox’s standards, CBS should have apologized for the fake National Guard memos about Bush’s service before airing them.

Whose Side Are They On, Anyway?

The American Thinker highlights more moral confusion on the left. First, Thomas Lifson:

…John F. Kerry pledged that he would end America’s program to develop miniature nuclear “bunker-buster” weapons, the type of weapon which would be suitable to remove the threat from underground nuclear weapons facilities belonging to rogue states. Yet in the very same debate, Kerry decried the progress made by North Korea and Iran toward nuclear weapons, weapons which are produced using underground facilities of the type which could only be destroyed by ultra-powerful bunker-busters.

How do we explain Kerry’s position that the United States should not possess weapons capable of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to rogue states, a threat he identified as the most important one facing the United States? The answer to that question can be found in the writings of leftist theoreticians, critical of what they call American “dominance.”

They have openly expressed their fears that a world in which the United States is the most powerful actor will be unjust, and is undesirable. Of course, no candidate for president will go so far as to baldly state the thesis that the United States is not to be trusted with power, and that we need to be checked and balanced by the power of foreign states, comparably armed and able to project their power against us. But these intellectual doctrines seem to have been incorporated into the national security thinking of John F. Kerry, the would-be next Commander-in-Chief, because they explain his peculiar views on disabling America’s ability to address the threat of North korean and Iranian nukes….

Then, Justin Hart:

Al Gore’s now infamous MoveOn.org speech in May 2004 highlights a theme that has “dominated” left-leaning scholarship for last three years. Said Gore: “An American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as dominance does.”…

This “dominance motif” is the bedrock of modern leftist thought, seeding a host of conspiracy theories and birthing a thriving industry of Bush-bashing tomes. Understanding the history, rhetoric and proponents behind these claims illustrates the flawed worldview of the left….

[There is] a vein of leftist scholarship and publications warning of the “imperial grand strategy” that the Bush administration has “embraced.” All of these writers allude to the 2002 policy document, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America….

In [leftists’] minds, there is…something inherently sinister about it. To summarize their fears: The birth of “neocons” during the first Gulf War gave rise to the “Bush Doctrine” of “forward deterrence.” Before the 2001 attacks, “preemption” was a rhetorical device employed by U.S. administrations since WWII, that has now become a declarative policy under Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell and associates. Employing an “Arab façade”, the Bush Administration has struck a “Faustian bargain,” vying for U.S. hegemony while simultaneously “socializing” a military economy, driving huge deficits and creating “powerful pressures” to cut federal spending.

Bush is seen as a “born-again global crusader,” fixated on enriching his oil-rich peers. He advocates a Pax Americana, with a swagger of “open contempt” for international law, and displays an insatiable desire for global dominance. The common premise across these worldview conspiracies is that the Bush Administration has insidious designs to dominate and “run the planet by force to protect their privilege.”

Empire, where’s the empire? Where’s the global dominance? Where’s the international law? (Hint: It’s not to be found in the United Nations.)

Have these people died and gone to some magical kingdom where lions and lambs commingle in peace? Tell me how to find it. I’ll check my weapons at the gate.

Some Will Yell "Censorship"

George Mason University — a State university in northern Virginia — has cancelled a speaking engagement by Michael Moore, according to The Washington Post:

GMU Disinvites Moore

Speech, $35,000 Fee Drew Criticism

By Amy Argetsinger and Lisa Rein

Washington Post Staff Writers

Friday, October 1, 2004; Page A01

George Mason University canceled a scheduled speaking engagement by liberal filmmaker Michael Moore yesterday after two conservative state legislators and others complained that public money should not support an overtly political event.

Moore, the outspoken director of the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11,” was to have received about $35,000 for his Oct. 28 speech at the Patriot Center on the Fairfax campus — an event that university officials had arranged a week ago and had not begun to publicize.

Word spread quickly, and after complaints from the legislators and some members of the community reached the office of President Alan G. Merten this week, the school announced that the event, coming so close to the presidential election, would be “an inappropriate use of state resources.”….

It is the second time in recent weeks that a public university has canceled an appearance by Moore, currently on a 20-state “Slacker Uprising Tour” of college campuses that has drawn sellout crowds as well as heated criticism at almost every stop. The president of California State University-San Marcos, near San Diego, canceled a $37,000 campus appearance by Moore….

Del. Vincent F. Callahan Jr. (R-Fairfax), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and considered a moderate on many issues, called Moore “a sleazebag of the first order.”

“They should have Democrats and Republicans speak, but not somebody whose living is libel and slander. . . . That’s not appropriate for a first-class university,” Callahan said….

The same goes for Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, James Carville, Paul Begala and any number of similarly vicious idiots out there — left and right — who have nothing to add to the sum of human knowledge. The citizens of Virginia (and I was one of them for most of 40 years) shouldn’t pay one red cent to support the gaseous emissions of the lunatic fringe.

Advice to GMU: Take the $35,000 and buy 7,000 pocket copies of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States from the Cato Institute. (Maybe Cato would throw in a few more thousand copies for such a large order.) Spread the copies all over campus. The contents would be an eye-opener for most students. They’d learn something about the wisdom of the system that Moore and company are busily trying to tear down.

You Say Slacks, I Say…

…trousers. Virginia Postrel writes about slacks:

Ed Haggar, who coined the term “slacks,” has died. From the Dallas Morning News obit:

Mr. Haggar teamed with legendary Dallas advertising pioneer Morris Hite to coin the term “slacks,” his son said. Pants were largely known as trousers until then.

“During the war years, people tried to get more casual during the weekends, during slack time or down time,” [his son] Eddie Haggar said. “Dad and Morris Hite…came up with the name slacks.”

….

Yeah, but, women wear slacks; men wear trousers. See:

Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and James Stewart, on the set of The Philadelphia Story, 1940. Hepburn is wearing slacks. Grant and Stewart are wearing trousers. (And Grant is wearing white socks — with a pin-striped suit. Who’d ever believe it could happen?)

Doing What You Have to Do, Israeli Style

Arab terrorists and their sympathizers — from Manhattan to Paris and Bonn — will call it a crime against humanity. I call it doing what you have to do to protect your people from their enemies. What is it? This:

Armored Vehicles Mass at Gaza Border

By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer

JEBALIYA REFUGEE CAMP, Gaza Strip – Armored vehicles massed on Gaza’s border Friday after Israel’s security Cabinet approved a large-scale military operation — dubbed “Days of Penitence” — to stop Palestinian rocket fire….

The Cabinet approved the offensive late Thursday, at the end of a day of heavy fighting between troops and Palestinian gunmen in the Jebaliya refugee camp, the Palestinians’ largest and most densely populated.

In bloodshed Friday, five Palestinians were killed and at least 22 were wounded in fighting in the camp. The army said troops fired at one group of militants planting explosives and another setting up a rocket launcher….

On Friday, fighting erupted in Jebaliya and nearby towns. In separate incidents, Israeli troops fired two tanks shells and a missile from an aircraft at a group of militants attempting to launch a rocket….

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the security Cabinet he was determined to stop the rocket fire. Israeli officials said the operation would be open-ended.

“What can we do,” a participant quoted Sharon as saying. “The Jews, too, have a right to live.”…

On Friday morning, some 200 tanks, armored personnel carriers and bulldozers assembled along Israel’s border north and east of Gaza. Troops were setting up makeshift camps, apparently in preparation for an extended operation. Some officers were going over maps….

Militants have been stepping up attacks on Israelis in recent months in hopes of portraying Israel’s planned withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 as a retreat under fire. The army has been pounding the militants in intensifying strikes to deny them such claims.

Mofaz, the defense minister, said that when Israel withdraws, it will not be under fire….

Palestinian militants have fired hundreds of rockets and mortar shells at Gaza settlements and Israeli border towns since 2000. Most attacks caused damage and minor injuries.

There have been two deadly strikes, including Wednesday’s hit on the border town of Sderot that killed two children playing on the sidewalk in a quiet neighborhood at the onset of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot….

“No government can tolerate the continuation of … missiles falling on the heads of the civilian population,” [Israeli government spokesman Gideon Meir] said.

Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat denounced the Israeli raid as “a war crime and state terror,” and said he feared all of Gaza would soon be reoccupied.

Aha! We finally got to “war crime and state terror.” As for the reoccupation of Gaza: “Whatever it takes” is my bit of unnecessary advice to the Israelis.

Palestinians want their land to be recognized as a sovereign nation? Not as long as they persist in terror attacks on Israel.

Why not have a summit? That would be John Kerry’s solution, despite the fact that a summit would simply be a ploy on the part of Arab terrorists (1) to make themselves look legitimate in the gullible eyes of world opinion and (2) to buy time in which to rearm and regroup.

What’s This about a Summit?

I didn’t watch the debate, for reasons explained here. But I did sample some of the live-blogging and post-debate posts. The best of the bunch — by 20 lengths — is James Lileks’s super-rant about Kerry’s summit idea. I have no idea exactly what Kerry said, nor do I think it matters exactly what he said, because Lileks has undoubtedly captured what I would have said had I heard exactly what Kerry said (got that?). Anyway, here’s a bit of Lileks:

…And another thing: the idea of a summit with the Muslim world doesn’t particularly billow my sails, either….

[D]o you think a summit in which the various satrapies of the Middle East and elsewhere convene for a marathon bitchfest about Gaza is going to make America beloved in Sadr City? They want us to extend a hand, yes, so they can lop it off. Ah, but what of the moderates. Those who have been turned against us because we threw out the Taliban and deposed Saddam – the relentlessly secular Saddam, as we’re often reminded. If it hasn’t occurred to these folks before, let me spell it out plainly: if you think there’s a war against Muslims now, you lack a certain sense of perspective. If tiptoeing around sacred sites and taking special care to pick off the snipers hiding in mosques so as not to disturb the plaster is a war against Islam, you will be looking for new terms when Putin drops a big bag of hammers somewhere someday….

So no, I’m not enthused about a summit, unless we get to set the agenda….Item three: we’re going to play a video of the events of 9/11. And then we’ll have a discussion. We’re willing to entertain all sorts of commentary, with one proviso: the moment you use the word “but,” you’re escorted from the building and put back on a plane home. You can never come to the US again. Your nice condo in the new Trump building will be sold for five dollars to a nice Jewish lesbian couple we met the other day at parent’s night at our school in Park Slope. One’s an artist, the other’s a lawyer….

Ask yourself this: you’re a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most? A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you’ve bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century

B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer

What would you want in this situation? The answer starts with “S” and ends, five letters later, in “T.”

So, I get it. We are wrong and bad and stupid and stupidly wrong-bad. We failed to make France act as though it wasn’t, you know, France, a militarily insignificant nation that is understandably motivated by self-interest, and we haven’t convened a summit so we could be castigated for ignoring the extralegal use of Israeli helicopters to turn Hamas kingpins into indistinct red smears. You’d think we nuked Paris and converted everyone to Lutheranism.

Here’s the thing. I’d really like to live in John Kerry’s world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well….

That’s it — in a nutshell, wrapped in a glorious rant. One of these days someone’s really gonna p*** off James.

Election Projections, Explained

REVISED 11/18/04

In Method 1, I assign all of a State’s electoral votes to the expected winner in that State, according to TradeSports.com. A price of greater than 50 indicates a Bush win; a price of less than 50 indicates a Kerry win. (A winning bet of $50 on Bush at a price of 50 returns $100, for a $50 profit; a winning bet of $60 on Bush at a price of 60 also returns $100, for a $40 profit; a losing bet on Bush at a price of 60 pays off those who bet on Kerry; and so on.) If the price is exactly $50, I record the electoral votes as a tossup and don’t allocate them to either candidate.

In Method 2, I allocate all of a State’s electoral votes to Bush if the TradeSports.com price is 55 or greater, and all of a State’s electoral votes to Kerry if the Tradesports.com price is 45 or less. For prices between 45 and 55, I allocate a State’s electoral votes according to Method 2. Method 2 has no predictive power; it simply measures the uncertainty around the estimate yielded by method 1.

Method 3* translates the expected share of two-party popular vote into electoral votes, based on a statistical relationship for presidential elections from 1952 through 2000. I use two sources to estimate the leader’s share of the two-party vote: the popular vote-share share market at Iowa Electronic Markets; the leader’s share of the Bush-Kerry vote according to the Rasmussen tracking poll. I use those share estimates in the following regression equation:

Fraction of electoral vote going to the popular-vote leader =

– 8.327 (a constant term)

+ 29.249 x the leader’s fraction of the 2-party popular vote

– 23.161 x the square of the leader’s fraction of the 2-party popular vote

+ 0.0696 (if the leader is Republican, otherwise 0).

The r-squared of the equation is 0.95; the standard error of the estimate is 5.8 percent; and the t-stats on the coefficient and three variables are -2.908, 2.836, -2.509, and 2.507, respectively.

Electoral-vote percentages for the elections of 1952-2000 fell within or very close to the normal range of the estimates (mean, plus or minus standard error). However, Bush’s percentage in 2004 (53.2 percent) fell markedly below the normal range (62.4 to 70.2 percent). That result is consistent with a pattern that has emerged since 1980, when Reagan’s electoral-vote share was above the normal range of the estimate. Since then, the electoral-vote share of the popular-vote leader slipped steadily through the range, hitting bottom in 1996 and 2000, then dropping below the range in 2004.

Based on further analysis of the elections of 1952-2004, I have concluded that the Republican electoral-vote advantage applies only when the Republican candidate is winning decisively in the two-party popular vote (54 percent, or more). Thus, in tight races, method 1 is the best way to estimate the electoral vote. At any rate, it worked well this year.

I hereby retire methods 2 and 3. It’s method 1 for 2008.

__________

* Revised slightly on 11/18/04 to correct a minor data entry error.