Who Cares Who Discovered America?

So the president of Turkey says that Muslims discovered the New World before Columbus did.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Saturday that the Americas were discovered by Muslims in the 12th century, nearly three centuries before Christopher Columbus set foot there.

Yawn. It might well be true, I suppose, though it must have been crowded on the beaches, what with the Vikings, Irish, Chinese, and various others all taking turns discovering us.
But, if it is true, or if any of the other claims is true, so what? Given that it's un-PC to celebrate Columbus Day anymore, are we really supposed to even care who discovered the continents? As a matter of fact, I think it may even be un-PC to refer to it as 'discovery'.

A Look at the Republican Field for 2016

Because I know the multitudes are waiting impatiently for me to decide which candidate I'll be supporting in 2016, so they can be guided accordingly, I'll offer this very early (okay, too early) assessment of the Republican contenders.

(I suppose I should promise that I'll soon do an assessment of the Democrats, but the chance that I'd back Hillary or Biden is nonexistent, so my only 'assessments' of them will come in the form of periodic snarky comments).

In 2012, I was an ardent Mitch Daniels supporter, and I'm still convinced the Republicans would have been far better off with him as their nominee. But Daniels withdrew, and that's that. I never really settled on another candidate, and eventually it became obvious that Romney would get the nomination. By that time I was preparing to leave the country, convinced that Romney would lose. (An embarrassing admission: there was a point in October where I came around to thinking he might pull it out – wrong again!).

Anyway, on to 2016. I would still support Daniels in a heartbeat, but he seems perfectly happy as president of Purdue University, and getting him to change his mind about subjecting his family to the ugliness that American politics has become is, uh, unlikely.

So I’ll have to find someone who can fill the same slot – a reformist with executive experience, highly competent, able to relate to ordinary people, both fiscally and socially conservative, and defense-minded.

On those last three points let me add this, since the 'social conservative' part may surprise some, who know that I'm not particularly conservative on social issues):  the Republican Party (and any party that is more than a splinter movement, e.g., the Libertarians or the Greens) is a coalition. Any candidate that is going to unite a coalition must be, at minimum, acceptable to all major factions. Not that s/he is the favorite of all of them (or any of them). But s/he must not be obnoxious to any of them.

Therefore, in my opinion, the Republican nominee need not be a hard-core deficit hawk, but must not go far in the opposite direction; need not be a culture warrior but must not be pro-choice (or even weakly pro-life); need not be an interventionist, but must not be isolationist. Which means the candidate must be able to thread needles quite nicely.

Oh – and one more qualification: I refuse to support anyone who can’t win.

For my early choice I’m leaning toward Scott Walker. Walker is identified primarily with fiscal and reform issues (especially reining in public employee unions), but his social policy credentials are sufficient that I think my most ardently social conservative friends would find no problem accepting him (part of why I think this is because he is well to my right on social issues). I know nothing about his defense views (having held only local and state offices, he has not had occasion to take positions on defense). I’ll look forward to seeing what he has to say about defense and foreign policy.

He also comes from a solidly middle-class background (mom a bookkeeper, dad a Baptist minister) and can relate to the suburban and blue-collar people Republicans must get in order to win. He has that easy-going 'Midwestern Nice' thing going for him. Coupled with his inoffensive (some say ‘bland’ and/or ‘boring’) manner, he (like Daniels) seems able to take strong positions without being offensive to middle-of-the-roaders.

My second choice for now is Bobby Jindal, who shares many of Walker’s qualities – a proven record of reform at the state level (including a successful school voucher program), plus strong fiscal and social policy credibility. In addition, his grasp of policy is legendary, and to be blunt, his skin color is a positive. As with Walker, I know nothing of his defense views, and I’ll be waiting to learn more.

On the negative side, I have a perception of Jindal as being very outspoken on social issues – to the point that it might create problems for him with social moderates (whether or not strongly-held socon positions are a political negative in a national race is, in my opinion, dependent on words and tone more than the positions themselves).

This is just a perception, I admit, and only time will tell. I also think a Midwesterner would be a better choice than a Southerner.

It’s no accident that my two main choices are both governors. I strongly prefer governors for two reasons: 1) If Obama has proven anything, it is that executive experience matters greatly; and 2) I think the anti-Washington mood will continue into 2016, and these two, and most other governors,
will have little difficulty painting Hillary Clinton, assuming for now that she's the nominee, as an insider and contrasting her to themselves.

As for the others, just a few words on why I choose not (for now) to back them.

Mitt Romney – Obviously meets my executive experience criterion, in spades. He totally fails on appealing to blue-collar types and is past his sell-by date. In any case, I’m inclined to think, for now, that he isn’t running.

Mike Huckabee – Another governor who can sell socon positions with a smile, though I think he is so closely identified with social issues that he comes across as a one-issue candidate. His Arkansas record makes fiscal conservatives like me uneasy, to put it mildly. I can’t support him for that reason, and I think he will have problems with a big enough bloc of Republicans that he’ll be stymied.

Rand Paul – Certainly a better salesman for libertarianism than his father, though that isn’t saying much. (As a libertarian myself, I prayed nightly for Ron Paul to just go away). Unless he starts quickly to moderate his foreign policy views, however, I think he has zero chance of getting the nomination. Also – no executive experience.

Jeb Bush – If only he had a different last name. By all accounts he was an excellent governor, but … well, let’s put it this way: Republicans have an opportunity to run against a hard-core insider and are contemplating nominating a Bush? Really?

Marco Rubio – No executive experience. Probably hasn’t been in Washington long enough to be perceived as being 'one of them'. My problem with him is that I see no reason to support him other than his ethnicity.

Ted Cruz – Another short-term Senator. In addition to having no executive background, the guy is a loose cannon. Heaven only knows what he’d spout on the campaign trail.

Rick Perry — We’ll see if he learned anything from 2012. If he did, he might be worth giving attention to (though I think he’s damaged goods). If he didn’t, we won’t have to wait long for him to be gone.

Chris Christie – “Shut up and sit down!” might go over big in NY/NJ, but it will get real old real fast in the rest of the country. The guy just lacks the temperament for a long national campaign.

Paul Ryan – A fiscal conservative’s wet dream. On sober reflection, I don’t think a Representative can do it – though he has the advantage of having run a national campaign (losing, but still …). My objection is no executive experience, but I certainly wouldn’t be upset if he were the nominee.

Rick Santorum – Remember I said that a coalition can't afford to nominate somebody totally offensive to any of its major factions? That's Santorum.

Ben Carson – Okay, I’m scraping bottom now. Time to quit.

Told You So!

Because I'm that kind of person, I want to draw your attention to this prediction that I made just about a month ago:

Within a very few days (probably no more than two or three) there will be no mention in the mainstream media of the beheading in Oklahoma. 

Was I right or was I right? (Told you I'm that kind of person).

People with Sense Need Not Read This

... but there are, unfortunately, still a lot of people with illusions about communism.

Particularly among the academic community and among those poor students who believe what their teachers tell them, one can find many who believe that communism is about empowering the working class and raising living standards for the poor.

One would think that real life examples of communism in action would have opened such folks' eyes, but such would be a vain hope.

Just to offer one more example though, here is the party boss of Hong Kong, in response to the recent demonstrations there, speaking about the dangers of allowing free elections:

... obviously you would be talking to half of the people in Hong Kong who earn less than $1,800 a month.

Heavens -- what a frightening idea!

I'm Betting That the Senate Will Flip

Chris Cillizza, in the Washington Post, has a good article making the point (as others have also done) that the 2014 election is looking a lot like 2006, with the parties reversed.

The most interesting part, to me, was this graph, which shows Republican Senate candidates' vote shares, compared to President Bush's approval rating in each state.

Almost all the Senate candidates failed to get any more than just a few points above Bush's rating.

At the time, I was wondering just how bad President Obama's approval ratings are on a state-by-state basis, with emphasis of course on the states where there are tight Senate races. Ask and I shall receive, apparently -- tonight there is just such a poll, and the news for Democrats is very, very bad.

Pretty much everybody expects that the three open seats (MT, SD, WV) will go Republican. If this poll is right, though, then a number of Democratic incumbents are in trouble. In virtually all the key states, Obama's approval rating is in the low forties or worse: CO (42), NC (41), IA (40), GA (39), NH (36), LA (34), AK (31), AR (27).

If all these states go to the Republicans, then the Senate would switch from 55-45 Democrat to 55-45 Republican. That won't happen, of course -- at least one or two Democrats, and maybe more, will manage to escape the Obama Effect.

But things are looking pretty grim for the Democrats.

The Bombings Will Fail, People Will Die, but Obama Will Get through November

I make no claim to military expertise, but this guy can do so, and his position seems plausible.

The top ranking former British military official was head of the UK Defence Staff, and led ISAF forces in Afghanistan during his exceptional career. The Sunday Times reports his comments: "Ultimately you need a land army to achieve the objectives we’ve set ourselves — all air will do is destroy elements of Isis, it won’t achieve our strategic goal. 

“The only way to defeat Isis is to take back land they are occupying which means a conventional military operation. 

“The only way to do it effectively is to use western armies but I understand the political resistance.”

I think everyone pretty much realizes that President Obama's policies are based almost entirely on political calculations – the actions of ISIS had outraged voters to the point that doing nothing was an impossibility; on the other hand, to reintroduce ground troops was equally impossible politically, since it would be an open admission that his previous policies were a failure. Cornered, he chose the 'safe' route of air strikes only (safe for him – not for the pilots).

That this will accomplish little or nothing is less important than that he will be perceived as acting, in the run-up to the election.

Prediction

Within a very few days (probably no more than two or three) there will be no mention in the mainstream media of the beheading in Oklahoma.

The American Elite do not want us thinking about such matters.

Very Late on This

I have been meaning to mention this for a while: I think the New York Mets' uniforms this season are arguably the ugliest in the history of any sport.

Goose Island

I was a little surprised to find Goose Island beer for sale at a convenience store in Show Low, Arizona. (Or maybe it was Pinetop -- anyway, it was somewhere where they read the White Mountain Independent).

I have fond memories of Goose Island (the island, not the beer). My office, for almost ten years, was at the south end of the Halsted Street bridge, with the island at the north end. I would usually cross the bridge for lunch, because there was a greasy spoon diner at a Greyhound maintenance depot just at the end of the bridge. Great cheeseburger/fries and nice folks. Since we were next to the notorious Cabrini Green projects, there weren't a lot of high-end dining choices.

The Goose Island Brewery was very trendy at the time. My daughter tells me it has been bought by Anheuser-Busch, which explains why it has wider distribution; she adds that it has also lost much of its cachet.

Another Glorious Day in the History of the Religion of Peace

I am sure everyone is much comforted and reassured because the beheading in Oklahoma has been classified at 'workplace violence'.

Why Nobody Respects the NCAA -- II

Over and over, the NCAA demonstrates why it is considered such an absurd organization (and why it needs to just go away).

Just two weeks ago, I posted this, and now they give us another example of their priorities.

Here's the sort of thing they get all worked up about:

Little League star Mo'ne Davis says she's "sad" that Connecticut received a secondary NCAA rules violation for coach Geno Auriemma's congratulatory phone call to her during the Little League World Series. 

Davis said they talked last month about her success in the World Series for Philadelphia's Taney Dragons, and there was no recruiting talk. 

Meanwhile, they continue to completely ignore the allegation that last year's Heisman Trophy winner is a rapist.

I'm pleased that Florida State claims to be investigating it, by the way, but I'm not expecting them to do anything real.

Just Like Old Times

I wrote a check just now, to pay a doctor bill. It was the first one I had written in over two years.

It was kind of fun, in a weird way -- it felt so strange and 'old school'.

Death of a Conference

Here is an interesting article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal about how much the Mountain West Conference has declined, and how dim its future is.

The days of the Mountain West being just a step behind the power conferences are over, and they’re not coming back. 

If anyone wanted a sense of just how much the conference has fallen, the first weekend’s results provided clarity. 

Boise State lost 35-13 to Mississippi, Fresno State 52-13 to Southern California, New Mexico 31-24 to Texas-El Paso, UNLV 58-13 to Arizona, and Utah State 38-7 to Tennessee. And there were some unimpressive victories, such as UNR’s 28-19 win over Southern Utah. 

That’s a far cry from the days when Mountain West schools could at least compete at a high level, but with the power grab taking place by the big five conferences, the MW and the four other little sisters are being left behind. 

“To the extent that there was ever any parity in college football between the 65 power conference schools and everybody else, it is now effectively over,” USA Today college football writer Dan Wolken wrote. “In truth, it has been for the last few years.”

A few years back (when Boise State was doing so well and Utah and BYU were still in the MWC), I was arguing (correctly, I still think) that the MWC was more worthy of an automatic BCS slot than the pathetic Big East was. That's not saying much, of course.

But now the Big East is dead and the Mountain West might as well be.

There's much to be said for the new set-up (anything is better than the BCS), but there are always some negative consequences.

The Latest from ISIS

It's terrible to learn that another American journalist has apparently been beheaded by ISIS, and they are threatening a third (a Brit).

I understand that President Obama is so upset that it has completely messed up his putting.

Other Than That, This Guy Is Definitely a Winner

From the LA Times:

As a candidate in the 51st Congressional District, Stephen Meade's politics are a problem. 

He's a conservative Republican in a district where voter registration is more than 2-to-1 Democratic. The district is 70% Latino, but Meade does not speak Spanish. 

He has no money to campaign. And his opponent, Democratic Rep. Juan Vargas, has the power of incumbency. 

There's another thing that may make things difficult for the 88-year-old political novice: He wears women's clothing. 

Unknown Writer Shouts, "Look at Me! Look at Me!"

Somebody named Will Self thinks he's a better writer than George Orwell.

He probably also thinks he's a better writer than Bob Houk. He may well be right on the latter point, but on the George Owell/Bob Houk spectrum, he's probably well over on the Bob Houk side.

Self objects to Orwell's passion for simplicity and clarity. Given that the the starting point of writing is (or should be) to communicate, one suspects that Self has yet to master an understanding of his trade. This lack of understanding, unfortunately, seems to be widespread among current writers. He summarizes his own limitations in what appears to be an attempt to mock Orwell.

I like Orwell's writing as much as the next talented mediocrity.

A bit of attention to clarity might have saved Self from calling himself a mediocrity.

To be fair, this is probably just an attempt to get people to pay him some attention, and it seems to have succeeded.

Who Needs a Strategy to Beat a JV Team?

Obama re ISIS: "We don't have a strategy yet."

Second Thoughts about That 'Libertarian Moment' Thing

Only 57% of people who say they are libertarians know what the word means.

I particularly enjoy that 7% think that “someone whose political views emphasize individual freedom by limiting the role of government” is the definition of a Unitarian.

It seems that saying one is a libertarian has become mildly fashionable* among some – there is currently a bit of a debate among the political cognoscenti about whether we are currently in a 'libertarian moment'. The cool thing about totally vague terms like that is that one can argue either way with equal validity.

In any case, it's not all that fashionable – only 14% of Americans say they are libertarians. Of course, I guess it still could be fashionable if those 14% were the coolest 14% of people in the country. Unfortunately, based on myself and the other libertarians I know, I think that's probably not the case.

Of those who say they are libertarians, 6% think the above definition means Authoritarian, 6% Communist, and 20% Progressive, in addition to those who chose Unitarian, which I guess was thrown in by the pollsters for laughs (though the other answers are also pretty giggle-worthy), or didn't answer.

Besides what this says about peoples' knowledge of politics (we can deride them for this, but we should also be aware that most people simply feel, with some justification, that there are more important things to worry about – like their jobs, or their families, or at which bar they are most likely to find the best-looking members of the opposite sex), this also might offer some lessons for those, of whatever political viewpoint, who are interested in persuading those folks who don't give a damn about politics.

In a newsletter I receive, Jim Geraghty makes the point quite well. The example he chooses is school choice:

Which argument is likely to be most effective? 

A) School choice is a good idea because it is consistent with the conservative principles that the government that is closest to the people is most likely to make the best decisions, is most accountable for those decisions, and is easiest to correct those decisions [sic]. 

B) School choice is a good idea because it is consistent with the libertarian principles that the power of the state should be limited and the power of the individual should be maximized. 

C) School choice is a good idea because it puts decisions in the hands of parents, who know what is best for their children.

As a supporter of school choice, I would agree with all three arguments. But, whatever one might believe on this particular issue, I think it is undeniable that C is the one that would motivate the most people.

* For the record, and stealing shamelessly from Barbara Mandrell, I was libertarian before libertarianism was cool.

About Golfing and Vacations

Over the past year or so, there has been a rising level of criticism of President Obama over the amount of time he spends golfing and about the alleged frequency and lavishness of his vacations. This reached a crescendo a few days back when the President briefly interrupted his vacation to express his outrage about an American photographer, James Foley, being beheaded by ISIS, and then followed up his comments by, uh, going golfing.

President Obama returned to the golf course on Saturday amid mounting Republican criticism that he is spending too much time hitting the links during several international and domestic crises. 

The early criticism came almost entirely from Republicans, it's true, but now Democrats are joining in, as the New York Times (a publication usually solidly in Obama's camp) noted:

But the criticism went beyond the usual political opponents. Privately, many Democrats shook their heads at what they considered a judgment error. Ezra Klein, editor in chief of the online news site Vox, who is normally sympathetic to Mr. Obama, wrote on Twitter on Wednesday that “golfing today is in bad taste.” The Daily News published a front-page photograph of a grinning president in a golf cart next to a picture of Mr. Foley’s distraught mother and father under the headline, “Prez tees off as Foley’s parents grieve.” 

And if it's only Republicans, then Maureen Dowd must have switched parties:

FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL. 

I know reporters didn’t get a chance to ask questions, but I had to bounce. I had a 1 p.m. tee time at Vineyard Golf Club with Alonzo Mourning and a part-owner of the Boston Celtics. Hillary and I agreed when we partied with Vernon Jordan up here, hanging out with celebrities and rich folks is fun. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil divide in Ferguson, which does not even have a golf course, and that’s why I had a “logistical” issue with going there. We are testing whether that community, or any community so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure when the nation’s leader wants nothing more than to sink a birdie putt.

There are also, of course, people defending Obama. And if I thought the criticisms of golfing and vacations were really about golfing and vacations, I would agree with the defenders. Hey, it's a tough job and everybody has a right to unwind.

But I don't think that golf and vacations are anything more than symbols, being used as stand-ins for a wider but more difficult-to-define complaint – that Barack Obama is distant and out of touch with the American people and, worse, disengaged and even disinterested in being president.
Howard Kurtz stole what I was thinking about and wrote earlier this week:

It started with the ObamaCare debacle and continued through his seeming passivity or slow reaction time in the wake of the VA scandal, the Bowe Bergdahl mess, the military collapse in Iraq and so on …. 

What is striking now is a growing sense, fairly or unfairly, that Obama is not capable of rising to the occasion, that he just doesn’t like politics, that he’s disengaged, that despite his soaring rhetoric in 2008 he has a passion deficit.

I have often thought (and may have written here previously) that Obama resigned a year ago, and just forgot to tell anybody. It seems a lot of people, of both parties, are coming to the same conclusion.

Newspaper Tries Paying People to Subscribe

I went to the website of the Arizona Capitol Times, a weekly Phoenix newspaper dealing with politics and government, because they came up on a Google search as having an article that I was interested in; however, they wouldn't let me read the article because I'm not a subscriber. Fine -- that's absolutely their right, and I have no argument with publishers who take that approach.

I didn't care enough about the article in question to pay their subscription prices, though, so I passed.

But then I looked more closely at their offer.

A digital subscription is $179/year. A digital and print subscription is $149.

Read that again -- I had to do so several times before I was sure I had read it right. They are charging thirty bucks less for both formats than for digital only.

Though this seems on the face of it to be totally insane, the reasoning is not too hard to figure. Publishers can make more selling print ads than they can for online advertising. Therefore, the publisher is willing to give you a thirty buck discount if you'll just pretend to be a print subscriber so that they can charge their advertisers a bit more. "Hey, don't worry, you can just throw it away when it arrives."

Presumably they can, or think they can, sell enough additional ads to more than offset the discount (and to pay printing and delivery costs on the extra papers they're sending to people who don't really want them). But one wonders how long advertisers will keep paying for those ghost readers.