The world's opinion-makers, in both government and media, seem to have settled on the idea that imposing a "no-fly zone" over Libya would be a good idea for all concerned. Not everyone has jumped on this bandwagon yet, but it seems to be the most popular option under discussion by those advocating "doing something" about the situation in Libya. But would a no-fly zone really change the dynamic all that much? Even if it had been imposed two weeks ago, would it have achieved any real goal? These are hard questions to answer, but anyone advocating a no-fly zone (especially one largely imposed by the U.S. military) really does need to at least consider them.

Put aside the global politics of the situation, and assume for the sake of argument that all the relevant international bodies backed the no-fly zone (the U.N., N.A.T.O., regional organizations such as the Arab League). This is far from where we currently stand, since China and Russia have their own ideas about when the international community should intervene in situations like the one in Libya (remember Tiananmen Square?). But assume for now that all the international groups gave the no-fly zone a green light.

The first thing that would happen, most likely, is that a U.S. aircraft carrier would position itself off Libya's shore. A swift attack would follow, on the radars and air defense capability Libya possesses. To "own the skies" you have to wipe out not only the missiles on the ground, but also the "eyes" (radars) which are capable of tracking your flights. This may also coincide with pre-emptive strikes against the airfields themselves (bombing the runways so they cannot be used), and against the planes in the hangars (again, so they cannot be used). Any Libyan planes which rose to defend against this attack would also be fair game, of course.

I have every confidence that the United States military is fully capable of success in such an attack. Within hours, we could wipe out the radars, anti-aircraft batteries and missiles, airfields, and (if we chose) a goodly portion of the Libyan Air Force's planes and helicopters. And that this would -- both militarily and psychologically -- be a huge victory over Ghaddafi's forces. But, even having said that, would it truly change much of anything on the ground? Even if it had happened two weeks ago?

Continue Reading »

Last night my local television news led off their broadcast with the first video of the devastation in Japan. An absolutely enormous earthquake had struck off the coast -- an earthquake almost one hundred times as big as the one which hit San Francisco in 1989 (the Richter scale is logarithmic -- the difference between 7.0 and 9.0 is a factor of 100 -- and the Loma Prieta quake was either a 6.9 or a 7.1 while the Japanese quake was either an 8.8 or an 8.9). That is a big quake, folks. Video was streamed live of the four-meter-tall tsunami wave destroying and carrying away everything it touched -- cars, semi trucks, boats, buildings (some of them still on fire). It was a stunning bit of truly breaking news.

And then -- you simply can't make this stuff up -- the anchor uttered the worst segue I think I've ever heard, possibly the worst in all of television news history: "We turn from the live feed of the tsunami in Japan to a police raid on Charlie Sheen's house in Los Angeles...."

Chalk one more up on the "only in America" media chalkboard, I guess. Sigh. Which means, for the second week in a row, I must begin with the all-encompassing statement: "In non-Charlie-Sheen news..."

Continue Reading »

Unions suffered a major defeat in Wisconsin this week, as the Republican legislature figured out a parliamentary maneuver which allowed them to pass a Union-busting bill even without the Democrats present to form a quorum in the upper house. In an unrelated story, two of the highest-ranking officials from National Public Radio stepped down from their jobs in the wake of yet another "gotcha" video from the guy who took down ACORN. Democrats, in both cases, are loudly decrying the political tactics used. But they really shouldn't be, because the tactics themselves are neutral (even though their use was -- as is almost always the case -- extremely partisan).

To be fair, Democrats and Republicans alike are prone to doing this sort of thing. Both using political tactics such as these, and decrying them as being somehow "unfair." There's no monopoly by either party on this type of political hypocrisy. Yes, hypocrisy is the right word to use. Unless you'd prefer "political moral relativism of the worst kind," which is slightly more accurate but a little wordy. Either way, the equation reads: "This sort of thing is just fine when our side uses it, but downright evil when the other side does the same thing."

Continue Reading »

Last week, President Barack Obama tried to make some news on the healthcare issue. Unfortunately for him, the story was all but swallowed by bigger news (Libya, the budget fight, Charlie Sheen...). But this is a story which deserves some attention, because it might prove to be the answer to the endless bickering on Capitol Hill on what to do about the newly-passed healthcare law. Obama, by backing a bill put forth by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and Republican Senator Scott Brown, has essentially tossed a gauntlet down in front of the Republican Party. The heart of Obama's challenge: "You think you can do healthcare reform better in your states? Fine. Go ahead and do it better."

Continue Reading »

[Program Note: I know I just did one of these "re-run" columns last Thursday, and that it is probably way too soon to do another. Sometimes, I re-run columns because I have a dentist's appointment or have to get the car fixed or whatnot, but in both recent cases I am re-running the original column because I think the point made needs making once again. In other words, that the original column is relevant to a contemporary discussion. This week, Republican Representative Pete King is holding hearings in the House of Representatives on Islam and American Muslims. King has, in the past, not only made some rather disparaging comments about Muslims, but has also been on record supporting a terrorist group (the I.R.A.), so he brings a (shall we say) unique perspective to the table. But while we'll have to wait until Thursday to see just what gets said in these hearings, I thought it was pertinent to remind everyone that congressional hearings on religion have indeed happened before in this country. Granted, the situation is not exactly the same, but I feel the following is still instructive. I wrote this column right after Mitt Romney gave a speech on the campaign trail about his religion, for context.]

[Originally published 12/10/07]

It always amuses me when Americans are told that the political climate today is "poisonously partisan" or "divided" and that this is "the worst partisanship Washington has ever seen." While pundits in the mainstream media love to whip this non-story into a frenzy every election year, it only goes to prove their utter ignorance of American history.

Take just one example: the church and state debate. Much ink was spilled over Mitt Romney's speech last week about his Mormon faith. Very little attention was paid to America's dark history of anti-Mormonism. Americans, as a whole, are not taught these things in their basic history classes in school, because we naturally shy away from the uglier episodes in our country's past.

Continue Reading »

Ever since the midterm congressional election last year, Republicans have been repeating the phrase "The American People" as often as they can, as a sort of mantra. This isn't all that unusual, since politicians claiming a popular mandate is par for the course in the political game. But Republicans are exhibiting a rather large amount of overreach when it comes to claiming what "The American People" really want the government to do (and not to do). This is going to be on full display in the coming weeks, as the budget fights heat up (finishing this year's budget, raising the debt ceiling, and tackling next year's budget). Most Republicans, especially those of the Tea Party persuasion, are firmly convinced they've got a sweeping mandate to slash federal spending in all sorts of areas. But they may be surprised by what the public really thinks about these issues, and what they do and do not support. Helpfully, a new poll put out by the Wall Street Journal and NBC shows a clear list of priorities for what the people really want to see cut, and what they don't.

The answers, however, may come as a complete surprise to the inside-the-Beltway set -- both politicians and the mainstream media. Because it is not what we've been told, by both Republicans and their media enablers, in recent months.

Continue Reading »

This just in... Charlie Sheen and Sarah Palin caught smoking pot in love nest!

Well, no, sorry, that's absolutely false. However, it would make a dandy headline, wouldn't it? In terms of media catnip (or even "click-friendly" online media), the obsession over the shiny, shiny media non-stories sadly continues, at the expense of the actual news (not to mention the field of "journalism"...). So, while that first line was indeed fun to write, there will be nothing at all in this article about Charlie Sheen, Sarah Palin, smoking pot, or love nests. Sorry about that.

Sigh.

In other mainstream media idiocy news, today was the day all the networks had slated as "Government Shutdown Day" (you just know they had snazzy graphics and a theme song waiting in the wings, don't you?). Sadly for them, it did not come to pass.

The media, of course, loves conflict. They bear a giant portion of the blame for politics descending to Roman-gladiator levels, and this was to be the prize fight -- Democrats! Republicans! Obama! Granny's Social Security check! But, again, it didn't happen, and you could just see the disappointment dripping from the well-coiffed set on television this week as they reported that the shutdown had been averted. Oh, well, maybe they'll get lucky in two weeks when we go through this all over again.

Sigh.

Continue Reading »

[Program Note: I wrote this article almost exactly one year ago, when the Fred Phelps case was moving up to the Supreme Court. This week, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Phelps, and the First Amendment. Meaning my conclusion in this article (or my professed outcome) was half-right, at least. The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech, for the simple reason that popular speech really doesn't need much protection. Which is why such cases routinely feature such groups as Ku Klux Klansmen, Fred Phelps' "church," and pornographers. In any case, when re-reading my article from last year, I realized that it pretty accurately sums up my feelings on the issue, so in a burst of laziness, I decided to re-run the article today.]

[Originally published 3/8/10]

Fred Phelps is a hatemonger.

On this, there is no question. It's actually about the most polite way to describe what Phelps' perceived mission in life drives him to do and say. He, and his "church" (mostly made up of members of his family) are the ones who arrive at various places and events all across the country, waving hate-filled signs which convey Phelps' belief that God hates the United States, homosexuals, the U.S. military, and dead American soldiers. He shows up at Jewish sites, gay events, schools, and other places he feels would benefit from his hatemongering. Most notably, this includes the funerals of dead soldiers. Phelps and his followers line up on a public sidewalk with signs saying things such as "God hates dead soldiers" -- which is one of the least offensive thing his signs say, I should mention (I refuse to reference any of his other messages, since I find them so personally odious). Phelps has become so notorious for doing so that a group of motorcycle enthusiasts have banded together to provide a human screen between Phelps' group and military funerals, to spare the families.

Continue Reading »

Obama consolidates his gains

In January, President Obama had the biggest improvement in his public approval rating of his entire presidency. In February, Obama consolidated and built on his January "bump," by posting his second-most-improved month ever. This turnaround has set the clock back for Obama over a full year (in terms of his overall polling numbers), to roughly where he was in December, 2009. All in all, not a bad month for the president.

But that does come with a caveat -- Obama started the month strong, but then leveled off for the rest of February. His bump may well have "crested" this month, but even if this proves to be true, Obama looks most likely to plateau at the higher rate rather than falling back. In other words, he has successfully consolidated the gains in his approval rate over the past two months or so, rather than watching them bounce right back down.

Let's get right to this month's chart, so you can see what I'm talking about:

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

February, 2011

Continue Reading »

We are now roughly twenty months away from the next presidential election. But, rather surprisingly, only one Republican has announced he's running for president -- and he's not exactly a "top tier" candidate. So one has to wonder, where are all the Republicans?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying it is a bad thing (or, for that matter, a good thing) that the 2012 election cycle hasn't gotten off the ground yet. Presidential races, according to conventional wisdom, just get longer and longer by starting earlier and earlier each time. The joke right after the midterm congressional elections last year was that the next day was the kickoff for the '12 campaign. But the conventional wisdom has turned out to be wrong this time around. Because there is no "field" of candidates yet on the Republican side.

Exactly four years ago, in the winter of 2007, both major parties had a full slate of candidates. For the Democrats, everyone had already announced their candidacy, either formally or informally. The list of Democratic contenders, at the beginning of March, 2007, consisted of: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and Tom Vilsack. There were other names being bantered around as possible contenders (such as Wes Clark), but none of them wound up running in the end.

On the Republican side, all the heavyweights had already announced, as well as a few less-than-heavyweights. Their fringier candidates, for the most part, had held back and jumped into the fray later on, but in March, 2007, the following Republicans were already in the race: Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Several other names were being batted around, some of whom went on to run and some of whom did not: Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson. One vanity candidate jumped in the Republican race very late in the game, but Fred Thompson never went much of anywhere after he formally announced.

Continue Reading »