Guest Blog
As I indicated earlier, the college atop the escarpment along the Bosque River in the heart of Texas added two "whiz kids" to its brain trust recently. One of whom, "Jerry Vorhees," whose field of expertise is International Relations, at my request, offered this insightful analysis of the US dilemma in re the Korean peninsula recently.
The other sensation, "Citlalli," who specializes in public policy, I have successfully prevailed upon to pen this analysis regarding the spirited Texas 17 race. Let's make her feel welcome. Hopefully, we can draw her into our conversation on a regular basis.
Edwards v. Taylor
With the most recent debate in Cleburne indicating that the incumbent Chet Edwards (D) and the challenger Van Taylor (R) are still letting the sparks fly, this race remains very competitive. However, Edwards, the incumbent in a Republican-strong district, has been able to stave off the political jabs and accusations of Taylor by focusing on the local issues such as the $16 million dollars he recently acquired in government contracts for L-3 or his attempts to save the Waco VA.
Further, the challenger has had only moderate success in contesting Chet Edwards on one issue, immigration. And even with that issue, Taylor has been weak. It is very difficult to say that a Democrat is soft on immigration when he votes against his own party in support of building a wall on the border and for an increased federal, state, and local presence on the border.
Which then begs the questions, what are the other issues?
As I indicated earlier, the college atop the escarpment along the Bosque River in the heart of Texas added two "whiz kids" to its brain trust recently. One of whom, "Jerry Vorhees," whose field of expertise is International Relations, at my request, offered this insightful analysis of the US dilemma in re the Korean peninsula recently.
The other sensation, "Citlalli," who specializes in public policy, I have successfully prevailed upon to pen this analysis regarding the spirited Texas 17 race. Let's make her feel welcome. Hopefully, we can draw her into our conversation on a regular basis.
Edwards v. Taylor
With the most recent debate in Cleburne indicating that the incumbent Chet Edwards (D) and the challenger Van Taylor (R) are still letting the sparks fly, this race remains very competitive. However, Edwards, the incumbent in a Republican-strong district, has been able to stave off the political jabs and accusations of Taylor by focusing on the local issues such as the $16 million dollars he recently acquired in government contracts for L-3 or his attempts to save the Waco VA.
Further, the challenger has had only moderate success in contesting Chet Edwards on one issue, immigration. And even with that issue, Taylor has been weak. It is very difficult to say that a Democrat is soft on immigration when he votes against his own party in support of building a wall on the border and for an increased federal, state, and local presence on the border.
Which then begs the questions, what are the other issues?
This morning Washington Journal featured Jennifer Duffey and Amy Walter, from the Cook Political Report; for my money, they are the two most knowledgeable political analysts working in the USA today. They are not flashy, but take what they say to the bank. If you have never heard of them, then you should definitely watch more C-SPAN.
Note: The Washington Journal link above will have today's show (Oct. 15) archived for about a week.
In terms of background, Duffey knows all things pertaining to gubernatorial races and senate contests; Walter knows all 435 Congressional districts in minute detail. Generally, Charlie Cook leans right politically, but the Cook report is scrupulously objective and always as on-target as one can be in these matters.
In brief, when pressed to prognosticate, here is what the ladies predicted:
Duffey on the
Senate: 51-49 (she would not/could not say who would be in the majority)
Governors: she predicted a 6-8 statehouse gain for the Dems
Walter on the
House: +17 pick-up for Dems (which would give them a razor-thin majority)
My view:
I think that is about right. I called the House for the Dems two weeks ago. I predict that the Senate will stay GOP. I cannot imagine Kyl losing in AZ. I have already picked Talent in MO (this is an emotional pick; I think Talent is a comer; if he makes it out of this election, he will grow to be an important and revered senator). I am picking Mike DeWine in OH on emotion as well. Duffey has MO and OH as toss-ups. DeWine and Talent would be monumental losses for the country. Therefore, I pick them to win. I hope; I hope.
Review of some of my former picks:
Note: The Washington Journal link above will have today's show (Oct. 15) archived for about a week.
In terms of background, Duffey knows all things pertaining to gubernatorial races and senate contests; Walter knows all 435 Congressional districts in minute detail. Generally, Charlie Cook leans right politically, but the Cook report is scrupulously objective and always as on-target as one can be in these matters.
In brief, when pressed to prognosticate, here is what the ladies predicted:
Duffey on the
Senate: 51-49 (she would not/could not say who would be in the majority)
Governors: she predicted a 6-8 statehouse gain for the Dems
Walter on the
House: +17 pick-up for Dems (which would give them a razor-thin majority)
My view:
I think that is about right. I called the House for the Dems two weeks ago. I predict that the Senate will stay GOP. I cannot imagine Kyl losing in AZ. I have already picked Talent in MO (this is an emotional pick; I think Talent is a comer; if he makes it out of this election, he will grow to be an important and revered senator). I am picking Mike DeWine in OH on emotion as well. Duffey has MO and OH as toss-ups. DeWine and Talent would be monumental losses for the country. Therefore, I pick them to win. I hope; I hope.
Review of some of my former picks:
14/10: Immigration & Acculturation
Does immigration threaten our security? Yes. But maybe not in the way you might imagine.
The Okie Gardener has written extensively on the nature of Islam and the threat it poses to the world and, specifically, to the United States. In the Gardener's post a few weeks ago, he reaffirmed his position in the context of Europe and Muslim immigrants:
"Old Europe has a major problem: the less-than-replacement-level birthrates of native Europeans means declining populations, and the destruction of the state welfare systems. The solution these nations have adopted is to allow large-scale immigration. But, these [Muslim] immigrants are, for the most part, not assimilated, and in many ways do not wish to be assimilated. European institutions and traditions are giving way."
In the comments section, Martian Mariner (responding to another poster) took that line of thinking to task:
"I think that Muslims "act up" the most precisely in those societies where there is a strong Islamophobic segment of society, such as France and the low countries. In others societies, where immigrant Muslims are able to integrate economically and socially into the greater culture, there aren't as many problems. The US is the prime example of this. All acts of terror committed by Muslims on American soil have come from non-US citizens, and American imams have been almost unanimous in their condemnation of such attacks."
The Mariner makes an important point and provides a convenient segue back to one of our most-pressing national crises, immigration, which we must approach with common sense and a realization that the crux of the issue is really acculturation.
In addition to some practical steps (i.e., securing the border, national IDs and treating employers who break the law as criminals), broadly speaking, what must we do to save ourselves?
1. Recognize that the number of immigrants (twelve million "illegals," mostly from south of our border) reflects a real economic need dictated by market forces.
2. Recognize that "illegal" is an arbitrary distinction. It is circular reasoning to argue that we are against "illegal" immigration because we are for "law and order." As we are a nation blessed with the ability to adjust laws as the need arises, we can solve the crisis of "illegal" immigration with the stroke of a pen. Out-dated immigration law should not force us into foolish policy. Rather, common sense should drive policy and lawmaking.
3. Recognize that there is no "American stock." Americans are not born high-achievers and engaged citizens. We are not bound by any one religion, skin color, ethnicity or tribal genealogy. American nationality revolves around one key principle: fidelity to America and Americanism. Volunteers, in fact, make the best Americans. Americans born into the franchise often fail to understand the value of the birthright.
Generally, those hearty souls, who swim rivers, crawl under barbed wire, brave deserts or traverse oceans, in order to be Americans, are much more zealous patriots than those of us raised within the fold.
Moreover, this generation of immigrants is not sub-par. They are not so different from the Pope-loving, beer-swilling, unwashed "shanty Irish," "Bohunks" and "Dagoes" of earlier times. Much like those despised immigrant groups of the past, today's immigrants are different from us culturally--but they are more like our pioneering forefathers who weathered elements and overcame danger to make life better for their families than we are. Pioneers are good for America. Quite frankly, we need them more than they need us (and they need us a lot).
4. Recognize that we need a consistent infusion of hard-working, God-fearing and family oriented people to maintain our frontier ethos. We should change our laws to find a way to welcome these twenty-first century would-be Americans.
5. Recognize that ACCULTURATION is the key to security. The market drives immigration. Integration and assimilation will happen naturally over time. Most importantly, and this will not happen without our specific attention and action, we need to acculturate these immigrants; that is, we must inculcate these groups with traditional American values.
In ordinary circumstances, this would not be a daunting task. Our immigrants are generally inclined to see the good in our system and our history. However, we are currently atop an educational complex run amok. Instead of imbuing students (immigrant and native-born alike) with a history that values "one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," our system is busy poisoning these optimistic immigrants with an alternative narrative of exploitation, pessimism and victimization.
6. Recognize that promulgating a narrative that takes apart the single unifying principle of a nation is suicide.
The Okie Gardener has written extensively on the nature of Islam and the threat it poses to the world and, specifically, to the United States. In the Gardener's post a few weeks ago, he reaffirmed his position in the context of Europe and Muslim immigrants:
"Old Europe has a major problem: the less-than-replacement-level birthrates of native Europeans means declining populations, and the destruction of the state welfare systems. The solution these nations have adopted is to allow large-scale immigration. But, these [Muslim] immigrants are, for the most part, not assimilated, and in many ways do not wish to be assimilated. European institutions and traditions are giving way."
In the comments section, Martian Mariner (responding to another poster) took that line of thinking to task:
"I think that Muslims "act up" the most precisely in those societies where there is a strong Islamophobic segment of society, such as France and the low countries. In others societies, where immigrant Muslims are able to integrate economically and socially into the greater culture, there aren't as many problems. The US is the prime example of this. All acts of terror committed by Muslims on American soil have come from non-US citizens, and American imams have been almost unanimous in their condemnation of such attacks."
The Mariner makes an important point and provides a convenient segue back to one of our most-pressing national crises, immigration, which we must approach with common sense and a realization that the crux of the issue is really acculturation.
In addition to some practical steps (i.e., securing the border, national IDs and treating employers who break the law as criminals), broadly speaking, what must we do to save ourselves?
1. Recognize that the number of immigrants (twelve million "illegals," mostly from south of our border) reflects a real economic need dictated by market forces.
2. Recognize that "illegal" is an arbitrary distinction. It is circular reasoning to argue that we are against "illegal" immigration because we are for "law and order." As we are a nation blessed with the ability to adjust laws as the need arises, we can solve the crisis of "illegal" immigration with the stroke of a pen. Out-dated immigration law should not force us into foolish policy. Rather, common sense should drive policy and lawmaking.
3. Recognize that there is no "American stock." Americans are not born high-achievers and engaged citizens. We are not bound by any one religion, skin color, ethnicity or tribal genealogy. American nationality revolves around one key principle: fidelity to America and Americanism. Volunteers, in fact, make the best Americans. Americans born into the franchise often fail to understand the value of the birthright.
Generally, those hearty souls, who swim rivers, crawl under barbed wire, brave deserts or traverse oceans, in order to be Americans, are much more zealous patriots than those of us raised within the fold.
Moreover, this generation of immigrants is not sub-par. They are not so different from the Pope-loving, beer-swilling, unwashed "shanty Irish," "Bohunks" and "Dagoes" of earlier times. Much like those despised immigrant groups of the past, today's immigrants are different from us culturally--but they are more like our pioneering forefathers who weathered elements and overcame danger to make life better for their families than we are. Pioneers are good for America. Quite frankly, we need them more than they need us (and they need us a lot).
4. Recognize that we need a consistent infusion of hard-working, God-fearing and family oriented people to maintain our frontier ethos. We should change our laws to find a way to welcome these twenty-first century would-be Americans.
5. Recognize that ACCULTURATION is the key to security. The market drives immigration. Integration and assimilation will happen naturally over time. Most importantly, and this will not happen without our specific attention and action, we need to acculturate these immigrants; that is, we must inculcate these groups with traditional American values.
In ordinary circumstances, this would not be a daunting task. Our immigrants are generally inclined to see the good in our system and our history. However, we are currently atop an educational complex run amok. Instead of imbuing students (immigrant and native-born alike) with a history that values "one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," our system is busy poisoning these optimistic immigrants with an alternative narrative of exploitation, pessimism and victimization.
6. Recognize that promulgating a narrative that takes apart the single unifying principle of a nation is suicide.
14/10: Political Reading
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Some of you who read this are political junkies. You know who you are. If you need a ready fix handy by the bed, check out this list of the best insider books on politics on the Wall Street Journal online editorial page today. From city machine politics to presidential primaries to conventions, books guaranteed to get your political high. Here. Anybody out there read any of these books?
Personally, I don't think the Republicans have earned the opportunity to retain the Congressional majority (can you say "BIG GOVERNMENT"?); and, I do not think the Democrats have earned the opportunity to become the Congressional majority (can you say "NO IDEAS"?) But, in real life we usually do not have perfect choices. Since we are living in a hot period of the nearly 1400-year-long war between Islam and everyone else, the Democrats scare me while the Republicans merely disgust me.
Though Instapundit does not give it a political interpretation, today he offers these observations that might give the Republicans hope. I am assuming that once alone in the voting booth, citizens may do something different than what pollsters predict.
SO WHEN I WAS AT THE MALL THE OTHER DAY, I saw that Eddie Bauer had a prominent display featuring this Disaster Emergency Kit for 2. It's not bad, especially for a car or apartment, though I'd certainly want to supplement it.
But what struck me more than the kit itself was the prominence of the display. Put that together with the fact that Target is marketing survival kits with the American Red Cross, Slate has run a series on disaster survival, and Consumer Reports is pushing disaster preparedness and it looks like we've got something of a trend. (Popular Mechanics is on the job, too, but you expect that from them.) And walking through J.C. Penney the same day I saw hand-cranked dynamo lanterns and radios prominently displayed by the entrance.
It's a trend I approve of, of course, as I think that everyone should be prepared for emergencies. And it's one that's being pushed by government -- my brother recently got a mailing from the State of Ohio telling him he should have a month's worth of food set aside in case of avian flu or other disasters -- but it seems to be more than that. I think that it's something that goes to the Zeitgeist. We know that the world isn't the warm, fuzzy place that it often seemed in the 1990s (it wasn't then, either, but it was easier to ignore that if you tried, and most of us tried). Modest preparations now, of course, can have a big payoff later, so I'm glad to see people giving the subject some thought. Whether or not Eddie Bauer sells many of those kits, everyone who sees them will at least have disaster preparation cross his/her mind.
More on disaster preparedness here and here. Remember, though, it's not just about buying things -- it's about learning things, too.
Though Instapundit does not give it a political interpretation, today he offers these observations that might give the Republicans hope. I am assuming that once alone in the voting booth, citizens may do something different than what pollsters predict.
SO WHEN I WAS AT THE MALL THE OTHER DAY, I saw that Eddie Bauer had a prominent display featuring this Disaster Emergency Kit for 2. It's not bad, especially for a car or apartment, though I'd certainly want to supplement it.
But what struck me more than the kit itself was the prominence of the display. Put that together with the fact that Target is marketing survival kits with the American Red Cross, Slate has run a series on disaster survival, and Consumer Reports is pushing disaster preparedness and it looks like we've got something of a trend. (Popular Mechanics is on the job, too, but you expect that from them.) And walking through J.C. Penney the same day I saw hand-cranked dynamo lanterns and radios prominently displayed by the entrance.
It's a trend I approve of, of course, as I think that everyone should be prepared for emergencies. And it's one that's being pushed by government -- my brother recently got a mailing from the State of Ohio telling him he should have a month's worth of food set aside in case of avian flu or other disasters -- but it seems to be more than that. I think that it's something that goes to the Zeitgeist. We know that the world isn't the warm, fuzzy place that it often seemed in the 1990s (it wasn't then, either, but it was easier to ignore that if you tried, and most of us tried). Modest preparations now, of course, can have a big payoff later, so I'm glad to see people giving the subject some thought. Whether or not Eddie Bauer sells many of those kits, everyone who sees them will at least have disaster preparation cross his/her mind.
More on disaster preparedness here and here. Remember, though, it's not just about buying things -- it's about learning things, too.
Guest Blog
The college atop a hill overlooking the Bosque River recently added two luminaries to its galaxy of stars. One of whom, "Jerry Vorhees," at my request, offers this insightful analysis of the US dilemma in re the Korean peninsula. Let's make him feel welcome. Hopefully, we can prevail on him to provide more on this subject and other IR matters in the future:
North Korea has become a "covert province" of the People's Republic of China. We now have evidence of a connection between the AQ Kahn's nuclear network, China, North Korea, and of course Iran. China is playing a delicate game with the United States via their North Korean proxies.
The trick for China is to push the United States to the point of desperation in our desire for Chinese cooperation without actually triggering a war in the region and losing access to lucrative American markets.
What am I getting at? Taiwan. From the first announcement by North Korea that they indeed possessed nuclear weapons, I had my eye on Taiwan. The main obstacle standing in the way of the mainland's desire to intimidate the Taiwanese into a more conciliatory position toward reconciliation is the wide spread belief that if China attacks Taiwan as its government recently voted to authorize, the Americans would feel obligated to intervene.
Indeed the China lobby in Congress would be hysterical if the United States allowed an attack on the Taiwanese to go unchecked. The ultimate objective of this latest Chinese-North Korean gambit could be a softening of the American stance on Taiwan in exchange for real Chinese cooperation on the North Korean issue, an issue they are themselves behind.
JV
The college atop a hill overlooking the Bosque River recently added two luminaries to its galaxy of stars. One of whom, "Jerry Vorhees," at my request, offers this insightful analysis of the US dilemma in re the Korean peninsula. Let's make him feel welcome. Hopefully, we can prevail on him to provide more on this subject and other IR matters in the future:
North Korea has become a "covert province" of the People's Republic of China. We now have evidence of a connection between the AQ Kahn's nuclear network, China, North Korea, and of course Iran. China is playing a delicate game with the United States via their North Korean proxies.
The trick for China is to push the United States to the point of desperation in our desire for Chinese cooperation without actually triggering a war in the region and losing access to lucrative American markets.
What am I getting at? Taiwan. From the first announcement by North Korea that they indeed possessed nuclear weapons, I had my eye on Taiwan. The main obstacle standing in the way of the mainland's desire to intimidate the Taiwanese into a more conciliatory position toward reconciliation is the wide spread belief that if China attacks Taiwan as its government recently voted to authorize, the Americans would feel obligated to intervene.
Indeed the China lobby in Congress would be hysterical if the United States allowed an attack on the Taiwanese to go unchecked. The ultimate objective of this latest Chinese-North Korean gambit could be a softening of the American stance on Taiwan in exchange for real Chinese cooperation on the North Korean issue, an issue they are themselves behind.
JV
13/10: Same-Sex Marriage
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
USA Today has a brief (but I am redundant) overview of the upcoming state ballots on same-sex marriage and partnerships. Here.
I have been hearing anecdotal reports and second-hand information from the Sacramento, Ca., area on the large number of "Russian" (as in former Soviet Union, many are from the Ukraine) immigrants. These have established large and thriving Pentecostal and Baptist churches. I have been told that these folks are like "old-fashioned" American pentecostals and baptists in their "anti-worldliness."
Now, these folks are starting to make news on the conservative side in the culture wars in California. See this article from the LA Times. California politics is usually interesting; we'll now see what these new folks add to the mix. Perhaps Farmer, a transplanted Californian, has a comment.
Now, these folks are starting to make news on the conservative side in the culture wars in California. See this article from the LA Times. California politics is usually interesting; we'll now see what these new folks add to the mix. Perhaps Farmer, a transplanted Californian, has a comment.
13/10: Climate Change
Category: Environment
Posted by: an okie gardener
Some are using the early snow in the northern U.S. today to spoof at the idea of global warming Before you join the jeer party, remember these bits:
1) The model of global warming includes increasing fluctuation in temperatures and weather. More energy in the atmosphere means more movement of air masses. And, breakdown of established patterns of air movement. One can expect some unseasonable weather during a global warming period.
2) Temperatures will fluctuate. Keep an eye on the yearly averages instead, especially the overnight lows, not on brief periods of cold or warm weather.
3) Remember, we have never trashed a planet before. We don't know exactly how it will work.
My earlier post Hot Summer and Global Warming and Global Warming: A Genuine Concern.
1) The model of global warming includes increasing fluctuation in temperatures and weather. More energy in the atmosphere means more movement of air masses. And, breakdown of established patterns of air movement. One can expect some unseasonable weather during a global warming period.
2) Temperatures will fluctuate. Keep an eye on the yearly averages instead, especially the overnight lows, not on brief periods of cold or warm weather.
3) Remember, we have never trashed a planet before. We don't know exactly how it will work.
My earlier post Hot Summer and Global Warming and Global Warming: A Genuine Concern.
12/10: KWTX Appearance
I appeared on Channel 10 this morning (Thursday) to analyze the President's press conference yesterday (Wednesday).
The gist of my comments:
On the political impact of the Rose Garden press conference:
The President needed to come out and address the very serious situation in North Korea. We expect the president of the United States to come before us in these moments. Moreover, I am not a big fan of viewing all events through the prism of politics. I reject the premise that politics drives all policy. [In fact, I am convinced that this President more often uses elections to leverage policy than he employs policy debates to influence elections.]
On the other hand, having said that, the President, as leader of the Republican Party, desperately needed to drive the discussion back toward issues that are more favorable to Republicans. The President made an aggressive attempt to seize the agenda and the initiative. As the President said time and again on Wednesday, he wants this election to be about the economy and security.
Iraq:
But the undercurrent in this election (in this presidency) is always Iraq. Are we so dissatisfied with Iraq that we turn out the Republican Congress to voice our displeasure with the war? Will we stay the course? Or will we cut our losses and come home? In many ways, this election is another referendum on our policy in Iraq and our vision for the post-911 world.
The Polls:
There is a great paradox in public opinion polling. On one hand, scientifically, the polls are very effective measurements of public sentiment; they can be very accurate in determining what people feel at any given minute. On the other hand, the polls are merely a snapshot. They tell us what people were thinking a few days ago. But that does not really tell us what is going to happen on November 7. This is a fluid election, and momentum is likely to go back and forth several times before Election Day.
[Last week Republicans were convinced that the Foley abomination was having little effect on the election. They were completely wrong and silly to listen to polling data that confirmed what they wanted to believe. This week the Democrats (and the MSM) are convinced that the Republicans are finished; they too are probably much too sanguine about what this week's polling data really means.]
Moreover, much more so than election results, polling tends to register emotion. Americans generally take voting very seriously. The weight of Election Day tends to sober American voters. Polling on any given day one-month out from an election is often wildly inaccurate in terms of predicting winners on the first Tuesday in November.
The gist of my comments:
On the political impact of the Rose Garden press conference:
The President needed to come out and address the very serious situation in North Korea. We expect the president of the United States to come before us in these moments. Moreover, I am not a big fan of viewing all events through the prism of politics. I reject the premise that politics drives all policy. [In fact, I am convinced that this President more often uses elections to leverage policy than he employs policy debates to influence elections.]
On the other hand, having said that, the President, as leader of the Republican Party, desperately needed to drive the discussion back toward issues that are more favorable to Republicans. The President made an aggressive attempt to seize the agenda and the initiative. As the President said time and again on Wednesday, he wants this election to be about the economy and security.
Iraq:
But the undercurrent in this election (in this presidency) is always Iraq. Are we so dissatisfied with Iraq that we turn out the Republican Congress to voice our displeasure with the war? Will we stay the course? Or will we cut our losses and come home? In many ways, this election is another referendum on our policy in Iraq and our vision for the post-911 world.
The Polls:
There is a great paradox in public opinion polling. On one hand, scientifically, the polls are very effective measurements of public sentiment; they can be very accurate in determining what people feel at any given minute. On the other hand, the polls are merely a snapshot. They tell us what people were thinking a few days ago. But that does not really tell us what is going to happen on November 7. This is a fluid election, and momentum is likely to go back and forth several times before Election Day.
[Last week Republicans were convinced that the Foley abomination was having little effect on the election. They were completely wrong and silly to listen to polling data that confirmed what they wanted to believe. This week the Democrats (and the MSM) are convinced that the Republicans are finished; they too are probably much too sanguine about what this week's polling data really means.]
Moreover, much more so than election results, polling tends to register emotion. Americans generally take voting very seriously. The weight of Election Day tends to sober American voters. Polling on any given day one-month out from an election is often wildly inaccurate in terms of predicting winners on the first Tuesday in November.
