The Bosque Boys

And I'm not talking about the bailout, although that was nice.

I'm talking about the Senate's other action yesterday, to approve the nuclear trade treaty with India. The treaty allows civilian nuclear trade between the U.S. and India for the first time since India started its own nuclear program in the 1970s.

I don't think I could overstate the importance of this action.

I'm not talking about the impact of Indian nuclear reactors but about the fact that India is now in the inner circle of U.S. allies.
[Although the nuclear power issue is important, as well. India is in position to out-consume the U.S. in terms of energy (well, not for a decade or so) and a network of nuclear plants will make a significant difference in world CO2 output.]

And, for once, I agree with Condoleeza that this is a very good thing.

Bosqueboys has previously commented on the strategic importance of a relationship with India here and here.

In short, India is a natural ally of the U.S. - a big, noisy, federal democracy. It's on its way to join the top-tier economies and it's got the potential to be the major maritime force in the India Ocean. The arguably two largest threats to the U.S. in the next 10 years are Iran and China - both of which are significant threats to India, registering behind only Pakistan (in the minds of Indians, at least.)

This deal is getting some flak, and understandably, for the fact that India is a non-signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Critics of the trade deal insist that it's sending the message that a state can flout international convention and be rewarded for it. I would humble point out that the single largest recipient of American aid, Israel, is also a non-signatory to the NPT (and Israel almost certainly has nuclear weapons, too.)

I hope that our next President, whoever it is, cultivates what could very well be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Now this is funny right here, I don't care who you are.

Machina Est Deus

From Iowahawk via the Rottweiler.

In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, dated 27 September, the Congressional Black Caucus declared bankruptcy reform directed at "distressed homeowners" an essential component to any "financial rescue package." Otherwise, the letter suggests, the Caucus would see the plan as a bailout for Wall Street rather than a benefit to the American people.

As you know, the bankruptcy reform did not make the final cut.

What role did the Black Caucus play in the Monday vote?

Of the thirty-nine (39) members of the Caucus casting votes on the bill, twenty-one (21) voted in the negative. While approximately 60 percent of Democrats voted in the affirmative for the bill, 21/39 in opposition is significantly higher than the party profile. Moreover, four out the five Congressional Black Caucus officers voted against the measure.

As you know, the bill failed by twelve votes.

We have been told repeatedly by Democratic leadership that Barack Obama has never been more than a phone call away during this crisis, ready to help the process along in any way possible.

Interesting Question:

What influence did Senator Obama, member in good standing within the Black Caucus, exert on the votes within this oftentimes extremely unified coalition?

The Problem with democracy? The People are sometimes ill-informed, short-sighted, and selfish.

In truth, the will of the people is not always the same as the public interest. This is why self government based on representation by courageous statesmen is far superior to the tyranny of the majority (see James Madison et al, 1787).

"Not with my money you don't" is demagoguery. Politicians who caved in to this populist claptrap should be ashamed.

The biggest problem: most Americans see this as happening to somebody else. Unfortunately, we all own this economic crisis.

The other major problem: we are a conspiracy-driven community. Wackos on one side think this is a Bush-Wall Street conspiracy (similar to the conspiracy to rush us into war with Iraq for various nefarious reasons). Wackos on our side see it is a socialist, big-government cabal to extinguish liberty and the market economy.

Up until now we have been a culture so wealthy and free that we could indulge ourselves with these sorts of paranoid fantasies. That era may be coming to an end.

My prediction: if the stock market tanks (and by that I mean a 2000+ drop) over the next few days, my guess is that this misguided empty populist rebellion will evaporate quickly.

BTW: I notice that a lot of congressional Democrats whom I recognize as part of the Black Caucus voted against this rescue. Any ideas what that means?

Everyone knows the old saw "Success has many fathers, but Failure is an orphan." How does McCain explain this?

Perhaps all is not lost. A note of calm from an old friend of the Bosque Boys,

Swabian Prince:

I won’t venture a prediction about the debate, but I think (to speak in the metaphor of the moment) the valuation on Sarah’s stock was way too high at the outset, but now has fallen way too low. I also think the race is very, very close, and much of the gloom in conservative circles is WAY out of hand, and shows how easily we STILL, even in spite of all we know, are manipulated by MSM and polling data. I talked over the weekend with a friend, a very distinguished political scientist, who is in despair because Obama appears to have “won” the debate, as demonstrated by the tracking polls inching toward him over the weekend. And this is someone who should know better. Much more to be said, of course, but I agree with Bill Kristol about letting Sarah be Sarah.

Somehow, the key role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in this financial debacle needs to be brought out more clearly, and the clear connection between Obama and the Dems and the culprits. (You no doubt have seen the videos that have been circulating.) And McCain absolutely has the credentials to do it. But maybe Sarah can start the process, since the media will be glommed onto her every word anyway.

A Bosque Boys Timeline:

30 August: A Hail Mary (a low-percentage play that just might work and why).

31 August: The Genius of the Palin Pick (three reasons why Palin might play well and a prediction that the prObama frenzy might backfire).

5 September: The Homerun (how Palin's convention speech changed the nature of this contest).

6 September: Is She Reagan? (she is engaging and polarizing, in a positive political way--but a word of caution: we have only known this woman for eight days).

11 September: Immediate Analysis of the Charlie Gibson interview (not devastating but not great). September 12: Charlie sinking; Sarah on the rise.

13 September: Let's be honest with what we have here (Sarah has limits; she is no Republican David; she may be as good as Reagan was when he first emerged on the national stage--but early Reagan was much rougher than we remember).

Where Are We Now?

Palin is not as good as her maiden speech--but she is not as bad as Tina Fey (who, by the way, may well prove to be the single-most influential and effective outside actor in this entire election season).

What has happened to our girl? Bill Kristol had it right today on FOX News Sunday: "we have not let Palin be Palin."

We/they have gotten inside her head. She is a raw natural talent with great instincts. We have filled her head with "do's and don'ts." Team McCain has overprotected her, creating the impression inside and outside the camp that she is vulnerable. They have her second-guessing herself.

She needs to relax. She needs to breath through her eyelids.

Let Palin be Palin.

It is worth mentioning that no candidate in history has ever had so much scrutiny and/or so many bright lights in the American intelligentsia rooting for her complete and utter humiliation. In this way, at least, she is Reaganesque.

There is no question that she faces an atrocious double standard. If some reporter had her on tape blithely conversing about visiting all fifty-seven states, or placing President Roosevelt on TV in 1929, she would be over. Sarah Palin does not get the benefit of the doubt, ever. She is the nation of Israel; every battle, every interview is a fight for survival. She is singular among the candidates in that she faces a sudden-death situation every time she walks out of her house.

An Important Aside: the double standard is not sexist--although her liberal tormentors play on sexual stereotypes. Rather, the double standard is the half-century-old conservative disadvantage dealing with left-leaning media institutions, multiplied by a factor of 100 because so much is at stake and her presence makes the race so volatile.

But no honest observer can deny the double standard. Obama can hem and haw, stammer and stutter, and misspeak all across America--but nothing he says will ever do damage to the template of the articulate and erudite constitutional law professor. Joe Biden is good for a gaffe a day (and the Roosevelt thing is perhaps the worst of all time--much worse than "potatoe" in the mind of this history teacher), but none of that matters. Joe Knows.

In truth, none of these gaffes really do matter very much--but the glaring unfairness of the coverage frustrates us. "Call 'em both ways, ref." You can call fouls any way you choose--just make sure a foul is a foul on both ends of the court.

So What?

We got a big event coming on 2 October. It's a Thursday (one day before my 10th Wedding Anniversary--thanks be to God). But this truly is Must See TV.

Conventional Wisdom: silver-haired Senator Joe Biden is going to demolish Tina Fey.

My guess (my hope, perhaps) is that Tina Fey won't show up. From Day One, we have all known Sarah Palin had to deliver on two occasions: her convention speech and the veep debate. She hit a homerun in late August. If she can muster coherence on this Thursday night in early October, it will be tantamount to slapping a tough pitch down the first base line into the right-field corner for a triple.

Is that even possible? If nothing else, we have the expectations game on our side. Although Team Obama understands this--and with their willing accomplices in the media--they may attempt to rehabilitate Palin a bit this week, to fatten her up for the kill. However, Tina Fey and the boys (ours and theirs) and Sarah Palin herself have done too much over the last fortnight to establish the Palin template--it is set in stone.

We will be tuning in on Thursday to see a ferocious liberal lion devour a confused and nearly defenseless Christian. If she can hold her own, we might just have something new to talk about for a week. If she can rise above the expectations, SNL may actually have to come up with a goofy Democratic character.

On the other hand, if she falters at all, say goodnight, Gracie. This debate very well could be exactly what most observers expect: the final nail in the coffin for McCain-Palin 2008.

For centuries Euopeans were captured and enslaved by Muslim corsairs operating from North Africa. The author of the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 estimates that over a million Europeans suffered this fate in the time period he examined. Book summary.

In history, the impact of a story depends in large part on when the story begins. For example, if the story of the bombing of Hiroshima starts with the Manhattan Project, then the U.S. looks like the bad guy. If the story begins with Pearl Harbor and includes the Bataan Death March plus atrocities committed by the Japanese in their conquests (ask the Chinese), and also relates how the defenders of Iwo Jima and Okinawa fought to the death against hopeless odds, then the decision to drop the Bomb appears more reasonable.

I am not defending colonial empire building in all its forms and in all places. But, the French, Italian, and Spanish conquest in North Africa does not seem as depraved if the story begins with centuries of pillage and enslavement suffered by Europeans at the hands of the Muslim corsairs.

Now its coffee products and candy that are being recalled. Story here.

If there is a free society in existence in 500 years, I predict lots of dissertations in economics, political science, history, and ethics, debating why the U.S. allowed China to become its number one source of most everything.

I have never been a conspiracy theorist explaining world events in terms of the Tri-Lateral Commission, or the Masons, or the Illuminati, or Zionists. But I am edging closer to the conclusion that some world events are controlled by multinational corporations accountable to no one but themselves and interested only in profits.

China is creating a new African empire. And it seems to be worse than the European ones of the past.

From Peter Hitchens in The Mail: How China Has Created a New Slave Empire in Africa.

Someone explain to me again, why do we trade with these bastards?