Greta Van Susteren's Interview with Former President George W. Bush

I'm wading my way through President Bush's memoirs, Decision Points. I know many conservatives lost faith in Bush, especially for the dramatic expansion of government during the administration. Michelle had the best post on this, "Bush Nostalgia: Let's Not Get Carried Away, OK?" I don't disagree with Michelle, although I'd add that while I'm not thrilled with the GOP's leadership in the runaway growth of government, GWB's moral leadership is his saving grace, and will never be forgotten in my case. Frankly, I came of age ideologically during the Bush years. Late bloomer, I guess, but this has been personally monumental. I've spoken so many times on my disgust with the left, and much of it had to do with the extreme toxicity of BDS. And that continues, as told by Doug Powers: "Left Greeting Bookstore Release of Bush’s ‘Decision Points’ With Level of Maturity You Might Expect."

In any case, President Bush is done with his network news interviews and has taken to Fox to finish out the book promotions. I envy Greta. I think meeting and talking with President Bush would be a real highlight. RELATED: From Kill Truck, at POWIP, "Decision Points: Quitting."

American Exceptionalism

From the letters at Los Angeles Times:

People who believe they're part of a great nation represent a problem for those who'd like to tear the house down and start over. Thus the left works tirelessly to persuade other Americans that they're nothing special — that in fact they're so bigoted, backward and selfish, only a fundamental restructuring of society can redeem them.

As a vote-getter, this proposition has obvious limitations. Obama skillfully shrouded it in gauzy platitudes during the 2008 campaign, but issues like Guantanamo, civilian trials for accused terrorists and Arizona's immigration law have since made his government's ideological distance from the mainstream unmistakable.

Most of us see a good country with flaws. The left sees a flawed country with potential — and the last two years as progress.

Michael Smith

And here's the original Jonah Goldberg essay: "The Bashing of American Exceptionalism."

The Reign of Right-Wing Primetime

I love the sound of that, at The Hollywood Reporter.

And Kathy Shaidle has more: "Two Americas -- Even When It Comes to TV Viewing."

RELATED: "Nielsen: 5 Million Watched Palin's TLC Show: 'Sarah Palin's Alaska' premiere Gets 5 Million Viewers, TLC's Best Series Premiere Ever."

Defeated House Dems Cry Me a River

Boo freakin' hoo. At The Hill, "Dejected House Dems Wipe Away Tears as GOP Celebrates Victory." (At Memeorandum.)

Always pathetic. Reminds me of crybaby Julián Tavárez bawling his eyes out after the Atlanta Braves beat the Cleveland Indians in the 1995 World Series. Disgraceful. Sometimes you gotta suck it up. Democrats. Losers.

George W. Bush on Hannity

I've got President Bush's interview with Greta Van Susteren scheduled for early morning, but this clip is short, and it's interesting to see some of the top administration advisers in the audience:

'Are IPE Journals Becoming Boring?'

Dr. Benjamin J. Cohen, my former professor at UCSB, argues that the formalization of international political economy, and the field's envy with the discipline of economics, and made for increasingly rigorous and sophisticated scholarship, but boring:

Many reasons have been suggested for American IPE’s love affair with scientific method – editorial control of journals, the standards applied in tenure or promotion cases, the way we teach our graduate students. But these are more symptom than cause. Underlying them all is a deeper issue, involving us and our peers in the economics profession. To be blunt: political scientists in the United States appear to have an inferiority complex when it comes to economics – what I have elsewhere described as a case of peer-us envy (Cohen 2009). The parsimonious reductionism of mainstream economics has come to set the standard for what passes for professionalism in our field. If today the most highly rated work in the American school tends to mimic the economist’s demanding hard-science model, it seems in large part to demonstrate that the field, for all the ambiguities of the political process, is no less capable of theoretical elegance and formal rigor. IPE scholars want respect, too. A kind of “creeping economism” has come to define what constitutes the legitimate study of our subject.

Not everyone agrees that this is a problem. For many, the trend represents progress – all part of the “maturing” of the field, as David Lake (2006) puts it. The more IPE scholars agree on a common epistemology, the more their work approaches the respectability of “normal” science. In Lake’s words (2009: 49), “cacophony” yields to “Kuhnian normalcy.” But at what cost? To my mind, such a happy assessment is altogether too kind, since it ignores all that is lost as a result. The price of this kind of “progress” is measured by how much now gets left out of what we have available to read.

In effect, the creep of economism has tended to shrink the horizons of scholarship. To a significant extent, this is because of the practical requirements of empiricism. By definition, a hard science model depends on the availability of reliable data. Research, accordingly, tends to become data-driven, diverted away from issues that lack the requisite numbers. In effect, the approach plays a key role in defining what can be studied, automatically marginalizing broader questions that cannot be reduced to a manageable set of regressions or structured case-study analysis.

RTWT at the link.

iTunes Store to Carry the Beatles

At WSJ, "Apple Finally Snares Beatles" (via Memeorandum):

Steve Jobs is nearing the end of his long and winding pursuit of the Beatles catalog.

Apple Inc. is preparing to disclose that its iTunes Store will soon start carrying music by the Beatles, according to people familiar with the situation, a move that would fill a glaring gap in the collection of the world's largest music retailer.

The deal resulted from talks that were taking place as recently as last week among executives of Apple, representatives of the Beatles and their record label, EMI Group Ltd., according to these people. These people cautioned that Apple could change plans at the last minute.

Spokesmen for Apple and EMI declined to comment.

Apple on Monday posted a notice on the home page of its iTunes Store that it would make "an exciting announcement" Tuesday morning.

Terms of the deal that brought the Beatles music to iTunes couldn't be learned, and it was unclear whether other online music services would gain access to the catalog too. However, Apple maintains a roughly 90% market share in the online music business.

More at the link, and also Media Gazer.

I heard "Back in the U.S.S.R." during afternoon drive time today, on The Sound L.A. Wikipedia's entry is here.

Newsweek: Is the Presidency Too Big a Job?

Is this a Tina Brown production? I wasn't holding my breath, but sheesh. This Daily Beast merger's got to do something for Newsweek (via Glenn Reynolds):

On the spring day that Obama signed his health-care-reform law, for instance, he also had an economic briefing on unemployment, discussions about financial reform, a meeting at the Department of the Interior, a quick lunch, a meeting with senior advisers and then with Senate leaders on ratification of a new nuclear-nonproliferation treaty with Russia, and an Oval Office summit with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on devising a model for Middle East peace. On cable TV, meanwhile, pundits offered nonstop analysis of the holes in the new reform package, while Sarah Palin renewed accusations of Obama’s “government takeover” of health care. A new poll showed that, for the first time, more of the country disapproved than approved of his job performance. In an interview with 60 Minutes that week, the president joked, “If you had said to us a year ago that the least of my problems would be Iraq...I don’t think anybody would have believed it.” Then he laughed. Steve Kroft, the interviewer, asked if he was “punch-drunk.”

More often, Obama projects a demeanor of unruffled cool: he can handle the pressures and demands of the job just fine (how could he suggest otherwise?), and he didn’t run for office “to pass on our problems to the next president or the next generation.” But the issue is not Obama, it’s the office. Aides to George W. Bush make similar complaints about the demands on the executive. “It was a much different place than even during the Bush Sr. administration,” says Joe Hagin, Bush 43’s deputy chief of staff, who also worked for Reagan and Bush 41. “There was much less time [under the second Bush] to catch your breath during the day.” He recalls the constant juggling of issues—from the wars to Katrina—often all at the same time. “There’s only so much bandwidth in the organization,” he says.

Can any single person fully meet the demands of the 21st-century presidency? Obama has looked to many models of leadership, including FDR and Abraham Lincoln, two transformative presidents who governed during times of upheaval. But what’s lost in those historical comparisons is that both men ran slim bureaucracies rooted in relative simplicity. Neither had secretaries of education, transportation, health and human services, veterans’ affairs, energy, or homeland security, nor czars for pollution or drug abuse, nor televisions in the West Wing constantly tuned to yammering pundits. They had bigger issues to grapple with, but far less managing to do. “Lincoln had time to think,” says Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University. “That kind of downtime just doesn’t exist anymore.”

Among a handful of presidential historians NEWSWEEK contacted for this story, there was a general consensus that the modern presidency may have become too bloated. “The growth is exponential in these last 50 years, especially the number of things that are expected of the president,” says presidential biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin, who had dinner with Obama and a handful of other historians last summer. Obama aides speaking on background say that the president’s inner circle can become stretched by the constant number of things labeled “crises” that land on his desk—many of which, like the mistaken firing of Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod in Georgia or the intricacies of the oil cleanup in the gulf, could easily be handled by lower-level staff. “Some days around here, it can almost be hard to breathe,” says one White House official who didn’t want to go on the record portraying his boss as overwhelmed. Another senior adviser says that sometimes the only way to bring the president important news is to stake out his office and “walk and talk” through the hall.

The growth of the presidency has been a sort of Catch-22. Most presidents after Roosevelt, at least until the Vietnam era, got by with only a few dozen advisers. Ted Sorensen, the Kennedy speechwriter who died last month, was actually hired as a domestic-policy counselor, one of only a handful (he wrote speeches in his spare time). Today there are more than 35 staffers devoted to domestic policy, plus more who parachute in on particular issues, like health care or energy. Yet as the president’s responsibilities have grown, the instinct has been to hire more people to help manage the work, including the flow of information. “That’s wrong; the more people you have in the White House, the more problems are sucked into it,” says James Pfiffner, a George Mason University professor of public policy whose 2007 book, The Modern Presidency, examined the enormous growth of the office. Other historians point to the changing role of cabinet secretaries. While Obama has more department leaders than ever before—15, compared with Gerald Ford’s 11 and Lincoln’s 7—many of them have less power and influence, which has required minor decisions about trade, energy, and economic strategy to be handled by White House staffers.

Political scientist Thomas Cronin once credited the period between World War II and Watergate as the “swelling of the presidency.” It was during the Eisenhower administration that historians first asked if the president simply had too many demands. But those were far less cluttered times. “We had a lot to do, and many people were asking questions, but we were never overwhelmed,” says Harry McPherson, who served as counsel, then special counsel, to Lyndon Johnson. Such memories sound quaint to current White House staffers. “There is never a day we come in and there are only a few things we need to do,” says Bill Burton, Obama’s deputy press secretary.

Interesting how the piece assumes that the crises of the '30s, '40s, '50s, and '60s were cakewalks compared to what Obama's facing today. Of course, we had a Great Depression, World War II, Korea, and the Cuban Missile Crisis in those days, and that's not counting Truman's seizure of the steel mills, Eisenhower's intervention in Little Rock, and Kennedy's promise to "pay any price, bear any burden ... in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." I just don't think Obama's up for it, as Glenn points out, "Is the Presidency too big for one man? Nope. Just for the inexperienced guy with no management experience that we elected. As Jay Cost wrote a while back “America is not ungovernable. Her President has simply not been up to the job”..."

More at the link.

Janet Napolitano Defends TSA Full-Body Scans and Pat Downs

From Janet "The System Worked" Napolitano: "Scanners Are Safe, Pat-Downs Discreet":

Nearly a year after a thwarted terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner last Christmas Day, the recent attempt by terrorists to conceal and ship explosive devices aboard aircraft bound for the United States reminds us that al-Qaeda and those inspired by its ideology are determined to strike our global aviation system and are constantly adapting their tactics for doing so.

Our best defense against such threats remains a risk-based, layered security approach that utilizes a range of measures, both seen and unseen, including law enforcement, advanced technology, intelligence, watch-list checks and international collaboration.

This layered approach to aviation security is only as strong as the partnerships upon which it is built ...

And we ask the American people to play an important part of our layered defense. We ask for cooperation, patience and a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy.

As part of our layered approach, we have expedited the deployment of new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) units to help detect concealed metallic and non-metallic threats on passengers. These machines are now in use at airports nationwide, and the vast majority of travelers say they prefer this technology to alternative screening measures.

AIT machines are safe, efficient, and protect passenger privacy. They have been independently evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all affirmed their safety. And the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items we've found during AIT screenings have illustrated their security value time and again.

Rigorous privacy safeguards are also in place to protect the traveling public ...

RTWT at the link.

Napolitano indicates that the "officer assisting the passenger never sees the image" of hot naked travellers, and those pat down techniques are "conducted by same-gender officers," heterosexual, of course.

And Secretary Napolitano stresses repeatedly that we "face a determined enemy." Right. This is the same cabinet secretary and Obama crony who claimed there was no evidence that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's bombing attempt was "part of anything larger."

That said, conservatives and libertarians are demanding what? No more pre-flight screening procedures? Yeah, I know. We're combatting the last terrorist attack. But still? Unless we start racial profiling we're gonna have these searches Or, well, maybe not. See, Art Carden, "Full Frontal Nudity Doesn’t Make Us Safer: Abolish the TSA" (at Memeorandum). And Reason.TV:

RELATED: "Hey, Hey, TSA, guess what? We won't fly."

IMAGE CREDIT: Voting Female.

VIDEO: Charlie Rangel Walks Out of Ethics Trial

The story's at Politics Daily, but see New York Times, "Ethics Hearing Goes Ahead After Rangel Walks Out" (and Memeorandum).

Paul Krugman Was Against Death Panels Before He Was For Them

The first thing I noticed was that Robert Kagan was in the house, one of my favorite writers on foreign policy. But secondly was the hilarious moment at about 1:30 minutes when George Will shakes his head at Paul Krugman's babblings. When George Will shakes his head people stand up and take notice! And that's before Krugman even got to his hypocritical blather about "death panels." Krugman-in-Wonderland has the story. And no, it's not that Krugman's way too sophisticated for "right-wingers" to comprehend. It's that Krugman's confirming that "right-wingers" were right all along. ObamaCare would contain costs by rationing services. More on this at Memeorandum.

Newly Released Intelligence Report Says Hardline Islamists Want to Build a 'Parallel Society' in Canada

At National Post, "Document: Islamist extremists and the promotion of a parallel society."

Remembrance Sunday Pictures

At London's Telegraph: "In pictures: The Queen leads tributes to Britain's war dead on Remembrance Sunday."

The Middle East Problem in a Nutshell

Awesome clip, from Dennis Prager (via Theo Spark):

Facebook's 'Koobface' Security Challenge

At NYT, "Attacker That Sharpened Facebook’s Defenses." I've seen these a couple of times. Don't click 'em if you see 'em:

A friend on Facebook suggests that you watch an amazing or funny or sexy video. The link may seem innocuous enough. But with a few simple clicks, you could end up infecting your PC with the Koobface worm.

Koobface, whose name is an anagram for its preferred social network, is a malicious program that has plagued Facebook for more than two years, ensnaring hundreds of thousands of people and keeping the site’s security team on the defense.

The worm was Facebook’s first major security challenge and remains the most persistent threat on the site. As such, Koobface has played a big role in shaping Facebook’s approach to combating malicious software, or malware, and propelled the development of increasingly elaborate defenses.

Yet the worm continues to be a thorn in the side of Facebook’s in-house investigators, who say they are on the trail of the organized criminal group that created it but, so far, have been denied the satisfaction of arrests.

Koobface, which spreads only on social networks, appeared on Facebook in May 2008 and has hit nearly every major social network since then. While not the first or only worm to strike social sites, it is notable for the way it has relentlessly returned again and again, particularly to Facebook.

There have been 136 versions of Koobface’s main component alone, said Ryan R. Flores, a senior threat researcher at the security software company Trend Micro. By continually adapting to obstacles set up by Facebook and the security industry, “Koobface is the one that made it big,” he said.

The attacks have pushed Facebook to expand its security team, to develop a sophisticated apparatus for quickly detecting and stopping malicious activity, to create tools for talking with its users about security and to build relationships within the security industry. And the company continues to gather evidence that could help law enforcement arrest and prosecute those responsible ...

Nart Villeneuve, the report’s lead researcher, estimated that the group earned more than $2 million from June 2009 to June 2010 by delivering the victims of its worm to unscrupulous marketers and makers of fake antivirus software. He said the release of the report coincided with a multiweek effort to dismantle the group’s infrastructure and take down its “botnet,” or network of Koobface-infected PCs, though he conceded it was likely to be rebuilt.

Mt. Everest

At Michael Yon's:

How Britain and the Web Are Changing Stuffy American Journalism

From Toby Harden, at Telegraph UK:

Often caught between the two, I’ve always been fascinated by the differences between journalism in Britain and the United States. One of the most striking things is the contrast between the self-image of journalists on either side of the Pond. In Britain, journalists (who prefer the term “hacks”) mostly view themselves as grubby tradesmen, living proof of Nicholas Tomalin’s dictum that “the only qualities essential for real success in journalism are rat-like cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability”.

In the US, journalists have traditionally been much more self-important, viewing themselves as part of a noble profession to be venerated and respected in the same way as doctors, lawyers and accountants. They have tended to see themselves as part of the Establishment. The difference has often been on display at White House press conferences, with long-winded, respectful, often pompous American questions contrasting with short, aggressive and impertinent British questions (which sometimes elicit much better answers).

While British newspapers have always been opinionated and agenda-driven, American newspapers, on their news pages at least, have always stuck to the notion of disinterested objectivity. Articles are longer, worthier and more academic. Americans would counter that on the whole they’re more accurate and fair.

All these divisions are becoming blurred now, largely because of the web. The pithier, more sardonic and opinionated British style lend itself to the web (look at how much British stuff gets on Drudge). American readers are increasingly exposed to british reporting – a huge proportion of the Telegraph’s web traffic comes from the US.

And there’s a bit of a British expansion going on in US journalism. Tina Brown’s Daily Beast is on the up. Piers Morgan is taking over from Larry King on CNN. Emily Smith, formerly of The Sun, is Page Six editor at the New York Post. The main reporter on the National Enquirer’s John Edwards scoop was Alexander Hitchen, a Fleet Street veteran. Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post is Greek-born but she spent her formative years in Britain.

Perhaps related to the breaking down of the divide between British and American journalism is the blurring of the old distinction between print and the web. Some very big names are moving to web-only outlets. Tina Brown recently hired Howard Kurtz at the Beast while Howard Fineman and Peter Goodman have gone to the Huffington Post. The journalistic trend in the US is away from the insider, access-based American model towards the iconoclastic, reporting-with-attitude British model ...

Beyblades

My son likes Beyblades. At top is a cool extra-large stadium. We're gonna see if we can find one like that. The bottom clip is an ad originally found at the Beyblades website:

The Left's Campaign Against Christie Blatchford

How democracies perish.

From Canadian communists calling themselves the "Anti-Racist Action." Pure leftist totalitarianism:

The goal of this action was to silence Blatchford, and make it clear to her and her supporters that the people of Kitchener-Waterloo will not tolerate bigoted, ignorant analyses of our allies, and we will not stand by and watch undisturbed as Blatchford and people who share her views attempt to poison the minds of people across Turtle Island. The members of ARA who participated in this action feel this goal was clearly achieved, as she was not invited to take the stage due to our presence and did not protest at the lack of invitation. We feel it has been made evident to the community that Christie Blatchford and her like are not welcome, and that the KW ARA is alive and well, as well as energetic and well-informed. We are proud to have stopped this racist apologist from further disseminating her lies, and we firmly pledge to be present at the rescheduling of this event in order to continue our Campaign Against Christie.

Blazing Catfur has the video, "Christie Blatchford Silenced By Idiot Students At U of Waterloo."

Also, Jay Currie, "The Left Embraces Free Speech," and Russ Campbell, "Truth to Power? Apparently, Not for Christie Blatchford."

RELATED: "Blatchford’s Appearance at UW Derailed by Protesters."

Quantitative Easing and the Compromised Hegemony of the U.S. Dollar

An interesting piece, from Sean McEniry:

Obama has defended the Fed's use of quantitative easing to inject liquidity into the US economy1. This process involves the Fed creating money which is backed by no assets and usually using it to purchase government debt from private banks, who hopefully lend the money at low interest rates for domestic investment, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. The Fed, with a government appointed chairman and board of directors, monetizes the government's debt, and in the process the government funds its own spending with money that was created “out of thin air.” Therefore, the benefits of inflation accrue entirely in the hands of the government at the expense of the holders of the government's currency and debt, since there is an increased supply of currency in relation to the assets which back up that currency and the purchasing power of that currency goes down.

The international acceptability of the US dollar as a medium of exchange has resulted in its use as a reserve currency, an anchor currency, and even as an official currency in some countries. In addition, the US government's bonds are considered one of the most secure investments on the market. Universal holding and use of US currency and debt means that these notes are backed by foreign-owned assets as well as Americans' assets, which allows the Fed to effectively mobilize the resources of non-citizens in order to make improvements inside the country. A large portion of the loss of US purchasing power is offset onto other currencies and economies, and as a result the US economy is able to realize a net gain from inflation. The removal of the US dollar's convertibility to a commodity has thankfully allowed for flexibility and autonomy of monetary policy in dealing with temporary crises, but if the Fed continues to rely on inflation to stimulate the economy, an increasingly vigilant and adaptive financial system will reduce the benefits of this policy. *As the international use and acceptability of US currency is a result of its stable exchange rate and the US economy's capital mobility and security, the US government must surrender some of its autonomy to manipulate its currency by removing the Fed's central banking privileges and moving to a currency that is fully backed by assets if it wishes to remain market leader as the top currency. Otherwise, increased fear of inflation will drive the international market to look for inflation protected investments or even to switch to more solidly backed reserve currencies, and the US economy will cease to benefit much from inflation.

As a result of globalization, networking, and interconnectedness, competition among currencies is increasing, and the reduced transactions costs provided by computers and the internet will allow markets to flee from the dollar quickly in case of any lack of confidence in the stability of the exchange rate. In an ongoing process called currency deterritorialization, national currency systems have been unable to maintain a monopoly of money use within a territory. Typically, this takes the form of currency followership, in which a country with a weak national currency adopts a stronger, more internationally acceptable national currency, such as the dollar or the Euro. There are, however, also examples of interpenetration by complementary currencies such as elderly “caring relationship tickets” in Japan and business to business credit in Latin America, which is modeled after the Swiss Wir bank. Due to the fact that "currency choice is becoming less restricted, and cross-border competition is once again becoming the rule," the American government must maintain anti-inflationary monetary policy if it wishes to keep the international seignorage advantages that are provided by the current universal acceptability of the US dollar ...

More a the link.

This last paragraph is documented with a lot of citations to my old IPE professor, Dr. Benjamin J. Cohen, of whom I'll have more tomorrow.

RELATED: At Doug Ross, "Photos of the Quantitative Easing Krugman, Weimar Edition."

'If You Touch My Junk': Man Ejected From San Diego Airport for Refusing Security Check

I didn't even think about this when I traveled to New York for September 11th. The only incident I had at John Wayne airport was when I didn't empty the change out of my pockets. The guy kept making me go though the metal scanner. I was a little embarrassed by it actually, but once through I let it go. No doubt a full body scan would be just a bit more humiliating, although I hadn't even considered it, and wasn't sure how many airports perform those searches. And that's not all? How 'bout airport security copping a feel up my groin? That's a bit much. I read John Tyner's piece this morning: "TSA Encounter at SAN." At the second video linked, at 3:43 minutes, Tyner tells the TSA officer, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."

Plus, from San Diego Union-Tribune:

John Tyner won't be pheasant hunting in South Dakota with his father-in-law any time soon.

Tyner was simultaneously thrown out of San Diego International Airport on Saturday morning for refusing to submit to a security check and threatened with a civil suit and $10,000 fine if he left.

And he got the whole thing on his cell phone. Well, the audio at least.

The 31-year-old Oceanside software programmer was supposed to leave from Lindbergh Field on Saturday morning and until a TSA agent directed him toward one of the recently installed full-body scanners, Tyner seemed to be on his way.

Tyner balked.

He'd been reading about the scanners and didn't like them for a number of reasons, ranging from health concerns to "a huge invasion of privacy." He'd even checked the TSA website which indicated that San Diego did not have the machines, he said in a phone interview Saturday night.

"I was surprised to see them," said Tyner.

He also did something that may seem odd to some, manipulative to others but fortuitous to plenty of others for whom Tyner is becoming something of a folk hero: Tyner turned on his cell phone's video camera and placed it atop the luggage he sent through the x-ray machine.

He may not be the first traveler tossed from an airport for security reasons but he could well be the first to have the whole experience captured on his cell phone.

RTWT.

Current Status of Science Around the World: Implications For the Distribution of World Power

Via Glenn Reynolds, I'm interested in this report from The Economist, "Climbing Mount Publishable: The Old Scientific Powers Are Starting to Lose Their Grip":

TWENTY years ago North America, Europe and Japan produced almost all of the world’s science. They were the aristocrats of technical knowledge, presiding over a centuries-old regime. They spent the most, published the most and patented the most. And what they produced fed back into their industrial, military and medical complexes to push forward innovation, productivity, power, health and prosperity.

All good things, though, come to an end, and the reign of these scientific aristos is starting to look shaky. In 1990 they carried out more than 95% of the world’s research and development (R&D). By 2007 that figure was 76%.

Such, at least, is the conclusion of the latest report from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, UNESCO. The picture the report paints is of a waning West and a rising East and South, mirroring the economic shifts going on in the wider world. The sans culottes of science are on the march.

More food for thought in light of last night's entry, "China Challenges United States for Aerospace Leadership."

RELATED: "Chinese Plan to Buy Stake in GM."

Jessica Simpson Engaged — UPDATED!!

Update: I'm talking down the previous pic, since with Tony Romo it was causing some confusion. If I see some other nice photos I'll update with a new post altogether.

*****

The news is all over WeSmirch.

And in related news, Chris Smith of The Other McCain is getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan. Thank you for your service, Linkmaster!

And folks are going to miss him! American Perspective's got the links, as well as pics of Denise Richards.

Mind Numbed Robot and Pirate's Cove have roundups, and check Bob Belvedere and Irish Cicero as well. And as always, Theo Spark's got the goods. I'll have a special Rule 5 entry a bit later ...

Netanyahu Lobbies Israeli Cabinet on U.S. Peace Talk Incentives

At LAT:

Under pressure from the Obama administration, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began nudging his Cabinet on Sunday toward accepting a multibillion-dollar package of U.S. incentives designed to restart stalled peace talks with Palestinians.

But Netanyahu immediately faced a flood of opposition from conservative politicians and settler groups, who vowed to block the American proposal because it would reimpose building restrictions on West Bank settlements for three months.

After a hotly contested Cabinet meeting, Moshe Yaalon, Israel's vice prime minister, rejected the U.S. offer as a "honey trap" that "will lead us down a slippery slope and into another crisis with the American administration after three months, or perhaps even sooner."

Netanyahu told Cabinet ministers that the terms of the U.S. offer are still being negotiated by the two countries and he pledged to bring it for a vote before the security Cabinet when the details are finalized.

The package, discussed last week between Netanyahu and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during talks in New York, includes 20 stealth fighter jets worth $3 billion and a promise to veto anti-Israel proposals raised in the U.N. Security Council during the next year, including a potential Palestinian bid to seek international support for a unilateral declaration of statehood.

In return, Israel would renew its partial West Bank construction moratorium for 90 days, including units that broke ground after the previous freeze expired in September. Peace Now, an anti-settlement group that tracks construction, said settlers have resumed construction on 1,650 units over the past six weeks.

ObamaCare Waivers

At Michelle's, "Waiver-Mania! The Ever-Expanding Obamacare Escapee List":

Video Hat Tip: The Rhetorican.

Should the Government Do More to 'Stimulate' the Economy?

No, says Professor John Cochrane at the Los Angeles Times' symposium, "Can the economy be saved?" ...

Should the government do more to "stimulate" the economy? No.

Before fixing a car, it's a good idea to figure out what's not working. If the starter is broken, "step on the gas" is not the right answer. The same is true for the economy.

Why are we in the doldrums? Most answers to this question point to structural, tax and regulation problems. For example, one consequence of 99 weeks of unemployment benefits is that people tend to stay unemployed longer rather than take an unattractive job or move. That may be the right and humane policy, but it also means that unemployment will remain high, no matter how much stimulus we do. Looming healthcare, labor market regulation, and tax and regulatory uncertainty make it even harder for companies to hire. Congress has not even started debating what taxes will be Jan. 1. How can anyone plan?

"Inadequate stimulus" is an unlikely diagnosis for our problems. Banks are sitting on about $1 trillion in reserves, up from $50 billion before the recession. If they don't want to lend the first trillion, is giving them another half-trillion going to make any difference? The Fed did a great job of putting out the fire in the financial crisis. Alas, once the fire is out, more water will not make the house grow back.

More "stimulus" is not free. Additional "fiscal stimulus" -- borrowing and spending -- means higher taxes later on, which could usher in a low-growth lost decade -- or, worse, a calamity if investors decide not to renew loans to the U.S. Plus, it's unlikely that taking money from A and giving it to B makes us all better off anyway. Additional monetary stimulus, along with efforts to devalue the dollar, threaten the whole world financial and trade system.

We need to solve the nation's actual economic problems, most of them created by rampant government-induced uncertainty, rather than papering them over with more "stimulus."

Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco

From Zombie:

Come join Nancy Pelosi as she shows you around the wild places of her home district. All the sights and sounds of San Francisco, as you’ve never seen them before…with Nancy as your guide!

More --- lots more --- at the link. And it's the real deal, stuff the MFM never talks about while dissing the Palin family as a bunch of extremists. Added: Now a Memeorandum thread with posts at American Digest.

'Vicky Christina Barcelona'

I'm grading papers and enjoying this movie. It's only about an hour in, but I'm impressed with Javier Bardem. Suave and seductive. What a guy. Haven't seen Penélope Cruz yet, although I'm intrigued by Rebecca Hall, who I don't recall seeing previously:

More blogging a bit later ...

UPDATE 10:10am: Penélope Cruz is in the house! Getting fun around this movie!

China Challenges United States for Aerospace Leadership

I mentioned earlier some of my quibbles with Professor Joseph Nye on the likelihood of continued American preponderance. Actually, my quibbles are even smaller than quibbles, if quibbles can be quantified. Mostly, our massive fiscal deficits are upsetting, and I'm hoping to have something to say on "American Profligacy and American Power," by Roger Altman and Richard Haass. But I have to admit I was caught off guard by this report at LAT, "China to Unveil Its Own Large Jetliner":

China is aiming to reshape the global aviation industry with a home-grown jetliner, a direct challenge to the supremacy of Boeing and Airbus, the world's only manufacturers of large commercial aircraft.

The communist government has staked billions of dollars and national pride on the effort. What may surprise some Americans worried about slipping U.S. competitiveness is that some well-known U.S. companies are aiding China in its quest.

That partnership will be on display next week at an air show in southern China with the unveiling of a full-scale mockup of the C919. Slated for production by 2016, the 156-seat, single-aisle passenger plane would have its fuselage emblazoned with Comac, short for the state-owned Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China. But inside, the most crucial systems would bear the trademarks of some of the biggest names in Western aviation.

Honeywell International Inc. will supply power units, on-board computing systems, wheels and brakes; Rockwell Collins Inc. will handle navigation systems; GE Aviation is building the avionics; Eaton Corp. is involved with fuel and hydraulics; and Parker Aerospace of Irvine is responsible for flight controls. Powering the aircraft will be two fuel-efficient engines built by CFM International, a company co-owned by GE and French conglomerate Safran.

Global supply chains are common in the aviation industry: Chicago-based Boeing and Europe's Airbus rely on parts makers and assembly operations around the world. But China isn't content just to buy sophisticated gear for the C919; the government has required foreign suppliers to set up joint ventures with Chinese companies.

That has put U.S. and European suppliers in a tough spot: Be willing to hand over advanced technology to Chinese firms that could one day be rivals or miss out on what's likely to be the biggest aviation bonanza of the next half a century. Honeywell alone has snagged contracts worth more than $11 billion for the project.

"You're faced with either being part of it or not," said Billy Lay, a Dubai-based partner at PRTM, an international consulting firm with expertise in aerospace. "I don't know what the alternatives are."

Actually, we've dealt with such scenarios before, when Americans were concerned with growing Japanese industrial competitiveness in the late-1980s (see, "Beyond Mutual Recrimination: Building a Solid U.S.-Japan Relationship in the. 1990s," and "Do Relative Gains Matter? America's Response to Japanese Industrial Policy"). Back then, the U.S. response was to place export controls on sensitive industrial sectors, especially in aerospace. I can't imagine in just twenty years that kind of realpolitik in economic policy (neo-mercantilism) has been completely repudiated at the top levels of strategic planning. Perhaps Japan was more brazenly competitive, or China's more stealthy now. Either way, concerns for relative gains contributed to restrictions on sensitive technologies, and limits on private sector exports and cooperation in strategic technologies.

Maybe we're complacent. But we're still on top, at least for now. See, "Asia and Europe Giving U.S. Science a Run for the Money":

The United States still leads the world with its scientific clout, armed with highly respected universities and a big war chest of funding, but Europe and Asia are catching up, according to a Thomson Reuters report released on Friday.

The U.S. emphasis on biological and medical sciences leaves the fields of physical sciences and engineering open to the competition, the report finds.

"The United States is no longer the Colossus of Science, dominating the research landscape in its production of scientific papers, that it was 30 years ago," the report reads.

"It now shares this realm, on an increasingly equal basis, with the EU27 (the 27 European Union members) and Asia-Pacific," adds the report, available at http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/grr/.

I'll be back to this topic soon. President Obama was just in the news last week with the statement that America's best days were behind us: "Obama Acknowledges Decline of U.S. Dominance." The president is post-American anyway, but the matter's worth paying attention to. As noted, I'm mostly with Joseph Nye above. But extreme levels of deficit and debt, and now with new signs of threatening international economic competition, look to be putting tremendous pressure on the continuation of American world leadership.

More later ...

Seattle Times Movie Critic Watches First Six 'Harry Potter' Movies Back-to-Back in Single Day

Saw the preview today at the movies, and since I've been movie blogging (and my little kid wants to see "Deathly Hallows"), here's this, from Moira Macdonald:

By the end, I think I was starting to talk like Professor McGonagall. Or maybe Hagrid.

On a dark, stormy Thursday in late October, in anticipation of the opening of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I" I watched all six "Harry Potter" movies back to back. A stunt, to be sure, but in my line of work there aren't too many opportunities for such things, and I've always wanted to be able to say that I do my own stunt work. I told some people of this plan and noted that the responses fell neatly into two categories: "Oh, that sounds like so much fun!" and (I'm quoting directly here) "You are insane, lady."

The Potterthon at my house began at approximately 7:45 a.m. (when the sunrise would have been, if there had been one, which seemed perfectly Potteresque) and ended roughly 15 hours later, a little before 11 p.m. I watched every minute of every movie — not even fast-forwarding the dull parts in the last hour of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" — except for the end credits, which weren't legible on my TV screen and which would have added at least another hour to the viewing total (they last about 10-15 minutes per movie). Meals were eaten in front of the screen; breaks between movies were no more than 10 minutes. All this struck me as a feat quite worthy of Gryffindor; delightful as the experience was, only the brave — or the heroically foolish, or at least those possessed of comfortable chairs — should attempt six movies in a row.

And what did I learn from the Potterthon? Various random musings, as follows...

And follow the link to see what she learned.

The 'Unstoppable' Real Life Backstory

Following up on my post yesterday (with Kenneth Turan's review), things turned out and I was able to take my two sons to "Unstoppable." This is one thriller in which the description "non-stop action" is definitely not a cliché. The viewer is totally pumped by the end, and completely satisfied. But is it really a "true story"? Actually, the movie is "inspired by actual events." Even the most faithful dramatic picture throws in a little license here and there, and it's no exception with "Unstoppable." Plot Spoiler Warning: See the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "At Times, 'Unstoppable' Goes Off Track From Reality."

Husband John Puts Kibosh on Cindy McCain's NOH8 Campaign

While I support repeal of DADT, I've always thought Cindy McCain's NOH8 campaign was lame. Husband (and Senator) John McCain thinks so too: "Cindy McCain Tweets Support of John McCain's Standing on Don't Ask Don't Tell, Despite Recent Video."

Cindy's tweet is here.

And New York Mag asks, "Did John and Cindy have some sort of 'talk?'" Plus, leftist dickwipe (ideological if not literal) John Aravosis puts it more bluntly, "Cindy McCain Is a Hater - Reverses Self On DADT 24 Hours After Doing Video Linking the Gay Ban to Gay Youth Suicide." (At Memeorandum.)

RELATED: On the gay suicide media myth: "The 'Suicide Crisis' in the Gay Teen Community."

Myanmar Frees Democracy Leader Aung San Suu Kyi (VIDEO)

The main story's at LAT, "Myanmar Frees Opposition Leader Aung San Suu Kyi." I'm just blown away by the brazen and bankrupt maneuvering of the military junta, which just held the most carefully scripted elections imaginable, the first elections in 20 years. The timing of Suu Kyi's release naturally followed the balloting, if it could be called that. To release her ahead of the vote may well have helped topple the regime in power. See WSJ from earlier this month, "Myanmar's Muted Election: Residents Debate Importance of Sunday Vote, First in 20 Years":

Myanmar, led by a secretive military junta regarded as one of the most oppressive in the world, is holding a closely watched—and controversial— election on Nov. 7. The government says the vote is part of a "road map to democracy" that will replace generals with civilian leaders and give the public more say in public affairs than at any time in decades.

But during a five-day visit to the country recently, across two of Myanmar's biggest cities, the only evidence this reporter saw of the election race was a small campaign poster for an obscure ethnic party hanging on a shopkeeper's wall in a muddy and trash-strewn Yangon outdoor market. Government television stations and newspapers featured some coverage, but it was heavily censored. It included a series of 15-minute segments in which party candidates sat at desks passively reading policy statements approved by government minders.

To the extent anyone discussed the election, it was mainly in the form of quiet whispers in tea houses or in private residences. Locals say there are small gatherings of candidates and voters. The exiled media have reported that campaign signs, mostly for the government-backed parties, appear here and there.

Some were impressed when the largest opposition party, the National Democratic Force, did take out a full-page advertisement in a private newspaper. The simple ad showed the party's logo, a bamboo hat and a giant black check mark. In small type, it reads: "The Hope for Democracy: NDF for the People."

Strict election rules make it tough to do more. Candidates are barred from chanting, marching, or saying anything at political events that could tarnish the state's image. To register to run, they have to pay $500, a huge sum for average Myanmar citizens. Those restrictions—and the government's detention of more than 2,000 critics in prison, according to human-rights groups—have left some candidates unable or reluctant to do more than quietly ask friends and allies for support.

There's also an interactive information feature at the link.

Facing Opposition, Obama Scales Back Expectations

Ace commenter Dennis wrote recently, in response to the criticism against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "Isn't that what the opposition is supposed to do?" And that reminded me of Martin Van Buren, the great Jacksonian president who is remembered by political scientists as favoring a vigorous opposition party: "Martin Van Buren ... was a realist who argued that a governing party needed a loyal opposition to represent other parts of society."

Well, here's more to that effect, at LAT, "Postelection White House Meeting Underscored Obama's Diminished Sway":

Three days after the midterm elections, senior Obama aides suggested to a gathering of liberal groups at the White House that they might need to scale back their expectations. In the wake of the big Republican win, there would be no new major legislative pushes from President Obama in 2011.

The mood, according to some participants at the meeting, was dour. Although the White House advisors said job creation would be a central goal, they did not lay out a concrete plan for putting more people to work. "There was an undercurrent of, 'Hey, folks. We're going to have to play some defense,'" said one attendee.

Since then, the sense of a president in a crouch has only deepened. Obama was unable to seal a long-anticipated free trade agreement with South Korea during his trip to Asia and was the odd man out at the Group of 20 summit over global economic strategy, where preferences for belt-tightening policies predominate.

When he returns to Washington, he faces an energized Republican opposition. The first issue will be whether to extend George W. Bush-era tax cuts, and Obama is already showing a willingness to compromise on his long-held position that the cuts should expire for families making more than $250,000 a year.

At a news conference Friday in Seoul, Obama bristled at reports that he was caving in to Republican pressure.

"It would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high-income tax cuts," he said. "I think that would be a mistake, particularly when we've got our Republican friends saying that their No. 1 priority is making sure that we deal with our debt and our deficit."

He added, though, that there "may be a whole host of ways to compromise around those issues."

Sneak Peek of Katy Perry's Performance at the 2010 Victoria's Secret Fashion Show

The show airs November 30th on CBS:

Obama 'Has Largely Lost the Consent of the Governed'

I don't take these calls all that seriously, mainly because I don't believe that Obama's a cut-and-run president, and while I disagree with him profoundly, that's a good quality to have. He just needs to find a new tack, perhaps become more humble, and more attuned to a centrist style that's genuinely appreciated by Republicans. I don't know if there's a way for that after two years of thinking you know what's best for the country and screw everyone else, but if Bill Clinton showed us anything in 1994 it's that you can be a colossal screw up and still be reelected to a second term. And folks shouldn't get me wrong --- I want Obama to fail, the way Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail. It's just that there's no office like the presidency, an institution that's an engine of history. Announcing he'd not seek reelection in 2012 would make him even weaker than is now. He'd be transformed into a lame duck immediately, instead of after 2013 or so, after he'd expended his capital from reelection to a second term. And for what? Lyndon Johnson got a shellacking in the 1968 Democratic primaries. He stepped aside to "devote full attention" to the war in Vietnam. The president who signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is rarely referred to as one of the nation's greatest presidents. Obama not only wants to be remembered as the first black president. He wants to be remembered as the black Lincoln. That's probably out of reach, but he won't even be the black Truman if he announces he won't seek a second term.

In any case, from Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell at WaPo, "One and Done: To Be a Great President, Obama Should Not Seek Reelection in 2012" (via Memeorandum):

President Obama must decide now how he wants to govern in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election.

In recent days, he has offered differing visions of how he might approach the country's problems. At one point, he spoke of the need for "mid-course corrections." At another, he expressed a desire to take ideas from both sides of the aisle. And before this month's midterm elections, he said he believed that the next two years would involve "hand-to-hand combat" with Republicans, whom he also referred to as "enemies."

It is clear that the president is still trying to reach a resolution in his own mind as to what he should do and how he should do it.

This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents.

The best way for him to address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature is to make clear that, for the next two years, he will focus exclusively on the problems we face as Americans, rather than the politics of the moment - or of the 2012 campaign.

Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible. Obama can and should dispense with the pollsters, the advisers, the consultants and the strategists who dissect all decisions and judgments in terms of their impact on the president's political prospects.

Obama himself once said to Diane Sawyer: "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." He now has the chance to deliver on that idea.

More commentary from Another Black Conservative and Allahpundit.

Marxists at Brecht Forum in New York

The main story's here: "Where Marxists Pontificate, and Play."

And Lee Doren's got something to say about that:

The Brecht Forum website is here. These are some really, really bad people.

The Bangles

The band's bassist, Annette Zilinksas, used to have my name on the guest list for their gigs in Los Angeles. She later left the band to form her own, Blood on the Saddle. I lost contact with her years ago, but searching around a bit online it turns out she's been working as an account executive for media production firms in L.A.

Jews for Injustice Against Jews

From Melanie Phillips:

No sooner had the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared his principled stand in support of Israel and against anti-Jew bigotry – even at the expense of his country’s seat on the Security Council of the Club of Terror – than he was venomously attacked by... Jews. Specifically, those obnoxious Finklers, the ‘Independent Jewish Voices’ – part of that broader coalition of hatred which should surely be called Jews for Injustice Against Jews.

According to these individuals, rising Jew-hatred is but a figment of Prime Minister Harper’s imagination; any such claim is merely a device to shut down freedom of speech. Quite why the Canadian Prime Minister should wish to shut down freedom of speech, and for a cause to which he has no obvious endemic affinity, and on behalf of such a cause furthermore to court such ostracism in the highest councils of the world community, is of course a mystery explicable only to the Jews for Injustice Against Jews in their parallel universe of pathological moral inversion.

The rest of us look on aghast at the intimidation and racial bullying being directed against Jewish students on campus, for example, which was specifically referred to by Harper – in the US it’s producing this kind of thing, or this at Brandeis – but to which the JfIAJ are of course wholly oblivious because they are signed up to the culture that is producing it.

They also unleashed their venom against Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu during a speech in New Orleans a few days ago, when a bunch of them heckled him over building for Jewish households in East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu accused the protesters of joining those who believe ‘Israel is guilty until proven guilty’. ‘The greatest success of our detractors is when Jews start believing that themselves. We've seen that today,’ he told the assembly of Jewish Federations of North America.

... The hecklers were members of the Young Leadership Institute of Jewish Voice. Rae Abileah, a 28-year-old protester from San Francisco, shouted ‘the settlements betray Jewish values’.

On the contrary: Jewish values embody justice and truth. Along with the rest of the JfIAJ, people like Rae Abileah stand for injustice and lies – and one of the biggest lies is to egregiously misrepresent the Jewish values they presume to appropriate.

What makes these Jews for Injustice Against Jews such an appalling phenomenon is not that they ‘criticise’ Israel. That happens in spades every day within Israel itself. No, it’s that they flatly deny Jewish victimisation and find only malign intent in Israel’s every action. They thus turn Israel into some kind of cosmic evil, uniquely malign and thus deserving of a unique censure – which they certainly do not mete out to the tyrannies of the region or anywhere else. They effectively depict Israel as standing outside the bounds of humanity itself. And that is classic Jew-hatred.

More at the link.