World War II was fought not just to defeat the Axis powers, but to make the world safe for the United Nations, the precursor to the World Trade Organization, the European Union and other international institutions that would strengthen weaker countries.

Who were the Axis powers? Primarily, Germany, Italy and Japan. Spain was aligned with them; Hitler and Mussolini lent support to Franco in the Spanish Civil War. There were a number of other minor partners; Finland, for example, aligned itself with Germany because it saw Russia as a graver threat.

What was the war about? Germany, Italy and Japan wanted to secure more land and resources. Germany in Europe; Italy (as a lesser partner) would take the uninteresting bits of Europe (like Albania) and Africa; Japan would take eastern Asia and the Pacific. Look at this handy little map to see what they were up to.

Who opposed them? Well, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, early targets during the war in Europe, simply didn't have the military strength to stop the Axis. Japan had already invaded Manchuria in 1931* and was expanding its presence there. There were three powers in the world that posed a significant threat: Britain, particularly the Royal Navy; Russia; and the United States.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (a non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany) dealt with Russia. Russia was ill-prepared for war at the time, having systematically destroyed the effectiveness of its own army through purges. Britain was more of a problem; the hope there was that it could be isolated until Germany and Italy had consolidated their position in Europe.

As for the United States, the chief plan was not to get them involved in the war. That may sound like a dreadful miscalculation, but in 1935 Congress had passed the Neutrality Act, which prohibited American support for any nation at war. The Act was renewed as late as 1939. American isolationism was in full flower in the 1930's, and the Axis powers were banking on it.

Then, of course, they screwed everything up. With a characteristic combination of paranoia and overconfidence, in 1941 Germany declared war on Russia and Japan declared war on the United States. The two sleeping giants were called into play in the war against the Axis, and after four more years of terrible bloodshed, the Axis was finally crushed.

World War II was entirely about the ambitions of the Axis powers. America wanted only to keep to itself; Britain had its Commonwealth; Russia was in no shape to do anything. Germany, Italy and Japan decided to take over the world. It sounds crazy. It was crazy. Something like 50 million people died for their ambitions.†

I wonder why Newsweek wants us to believe otherwise.

* The League of Nations, the UN of the day, did nothing.
† Estimates vary significantly in many cases.

Footnote: Britannica Online has this appalling bit of doublethink:

Axis Powers

Coalition headed by Germany, Italy, and Japan that opposed the Allied Powers in World War II.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 08:40 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 534 words, total size 4 kb.

I skipped the table of contents (five pages) and the preamble and signatories (eight pages). The first two articles, Establishment of the Union and The Union's values are reasonable enough. The fun starts with article I-3.

1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, and an internal market where competition is free and undistorted.

3. The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

They're communists. And communism don't work.

Look, you just one paragraph ago said that you wanted an internal market where competition is free and undistorted. If you have that, you can't also have price stability, and you can't guarantee full employment. Those things just don't work together; they're antithetical.

[Update: Commenter Jojo points out that price stability is a term used to refer to zero or very low inflation (a good thing) rather than price controls (a bad thing) as I had assumed. This does somewhat deflate my anti-communist paranoia, but the document is still devotedly socialist and statist. Its prescription for every ill is more government.]

And who gets to define what social progress means?

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

I'll skip some waffle. Article I-4 is a surprise: Short, sweet, right to the point:

Fundamental freedoms and non-discrimination

1. The free movement of persons, services, goods and capital, and freedom of establishment shall be guaranteed within and by the Union, in accordance with the Constitution.

2. Within the scope of the Constitution, and without prejudice to any of its specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

The anthem of the Union shall be based on the ‘Ode to Joy’ from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven.

The motto of the Union shall be: ‘United in diversity’.

But we're now on page 20... Of 485. Let's skip ahead a bit:

Article II-70

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Article II-71

Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

Article II-72

Freedom of assembly and of association

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters, which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests.

2. Political parties at Union level contribute to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.

Article II-73

Freedom of the arts and sciences

The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Skip skip

Article II-91

2. Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave.

Skip skip

Article III-312

3. Any Member State which, at a later stage, wishes to participate in the permanent structured cooperation shall notify its intention to the Council and to the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The Council shall adopt a European decision confirming the participation of the Member State concerned which fulfils the criteria and makes the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation. The Council shall act by a qualified majority after consulting the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. Only members of the Council representing the participating Member States shall take part in the vote.

A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.

A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.

4. If a participating Member State no longer fulfils the criteria or is no longer able to meet the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation, the Council may adopt a European decision suspending the participation of the Member State concerned.

The Council shall act by a qualified majority. Only members of the Council representing the participating Member States, with the exception of the Member State in question, shall take part in the vote.

A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.

A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.

Article IV-437

2. The Treaties on the Accession:

(a) of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

(b) of the Hellenic Republic;

(c) of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic;

(d) of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, and

(e) of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic,
shall be repealed.

Nevertheless:

— the provisions of the Treaties referred to in points (a) to (d) and set out or referred to in the Protocol on the Treaties and Acts of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the Hellenic Republic, of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall remain in force and their legal effects shall be preserved in accordance with that Protocol,

— the provisions of the Treaty referred to in point (e) and which are set out or referred to in the Protocol on the Treaty and Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic shall remain in force and their legal effects shall be preserved in accordance with that Protocol.

It's not in fact utterly dire, as a plan for a European Union. That surprised me. It's a really lousy constitution, though. Its scope is too broad; it spends far too much time on what can, should, will or may be done instead of what the government cannot do.

Better than I expected, but the French got it right.*

But they're still communists. [Update: Still communists.]

*There, are you happy? I praised the output of a bunch of Eurocrats and the common sense of the French people in one sentence. Now my brain hurts.

† Actually, on second thoughts that's another case of rights inversion. Change it around to a "Congress shall make no law" clause, and you've got it. As it stands, it has the government guaranteeing a right, which is wrong.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 07:15 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1682 words, total size 11 kb.

U.S. leaders have long believed military power and the American Dream went hand in hand.

I'm not saying you're wrong; after all, America was born out of a war against the British colonial administration. But I would like to see something more than a bald statement.

World War II was fought not just to defeat the Axis powers, but to make the world safe for the United Nations, the precursor to the World Trade Organization, the European Union and other international institutions that would strengthen weaker countries.

The war was fought to defeat the Axis powers.

NATO and the Marshall Plan were the twin pillars upon which today's Europe were built.

Today, Americans make the same presumption, confusing military might with right.

If they're making the same presumption, are you saying that they were wrong to remove the Taliban and the Ba'athists? And the Nazis, and the Fascists in Italy, and the military rulers of Japan?

Following European criticisms of the Iraq war, the French became "surrender monkeys."

The Germans were opportunistic ingrates.

The British (and the Poles) were America's lone allies.

Unsurprisingly, many of those listening to Bush's Inaugural pledge last week to stand with those defying tyranny saw the glimmerings of an argument for invading Iran:

Washington has thus far shown more of an appetite for spreading ideals with the barrel of a gun than for namby-pamby hearts-and-minds campaigns.

A former French minister muses that the United States is the last "Bismarckian power"—the last country to believe that the pinpoint application of military power is the critical instrument of foreign policy.

America has been for the most part isolationist. It would, by and large, prefer to ignore the world. When the world insists on gaining its attention, however, the results are fairly predictable.

Contrast that to the European Union—pioneering an approach based on civilian instruments like trade, foreign aid, peacekeeping, international monitoring and international law

or even China, whose economic clout has become its most effective diplomatic weapon.

The strongest tool for both is access to huge markets.

No single policy has contributed as much to Western peace and security as the admission of 10 new countries—to be followed by a half-dozen more—to the European Union.

In country after country, authoritarian nationalists were beaten back by democratic coalitions held together by the promise of joining Europe.

in the past month European leaders have taken a courageous decision to contemplate the membership of Turkey

where the prospect of EU membership is helping to create the most stable democratic system in the Islamic world.

When historians look back, they may see this policy as being the truly epochal event of our time, dwarfing in effectiveness the crude power of America.

The United States can take some satisfaction in this. After all, it is in large part the success of the mid-century American Dream—spreading democracy, free markets, social mobility and multilateral cooperation—that has made possible the diversity of models we see today.

This was enlightened statecraft of unparalleled generosity.

But where does it leave us? Americans still invoke democratic idealism. We heard it in Bush's address, with his apocalyptic proclamation that "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

But fewer and fewer people have the patience to listen.

Headlines in the British press were almost contemptuous: DEFIANT BUSH DOES NOT MENTION THE WAR, HAVE I GOT NUKES FOR YOU and HIS SECOND-TERM MISSION: TO END TYRANNY ON EARTH.

Has this administration learned nothing from Iraq, they asked?

The failure of the American Dream has only been highlighted by the country's foreign-policy failures, not caused by them.

Last time I checked, America was still there.

Foreign-policy failures? What? Where?

The true danger is that Americans do not realize this, lost in the reveries of greatness, speechifying about liberty and freedom.

Reveries of greatness? Reveries? America, who provided aid to tsunami victims by parking a spare carrier group off their shore, providing fresh water and medical care and flight facilities. That America?

You accuse America of "speechifying about liberty and freedom". America, that is right now this minute fighting to preserve freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. America that still has troops defending Germany and Japan and South Korea.

Speechifying? No. That I'll leave to France and to the United Nations. President Bush doesn't speechify. He says what he is going to, and then he does it.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 03:18 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1126 words, total size 8 kb.

PM, do you see no serious issues in Andrew Moravcsik's "Dream on America" piece that merit discussion, or is everything a zero-sum game with you?

I'm not sure what you are referring to with is everything a zero-sum game with you? The answer is no, but I don't know if that addresses your intended question.

I had thought it was a fairly accurate report of the perception of the declining importance and influence of the US in the world – so that what I found disappointing was not so much the content of the essay, but rather Newsweek’s decision not to run it in the US.

The first is on anti-Americanism. It's a real issue, and it's worth examining, but it's uniformly irrational and counterfactual. That is, when it's based on facts, it's not logical, and when it's logical, it's not based on facts.

The second was with the article itself, which rather than simply examining anti-Americanism, is anti-American itself. And since anti-Americanism is irrational and counterfactual, that was reflected in the article.

Do you disagree as a factual matter either with (i) the perception abroad of a slipping US lead, coupled with rising disenchantment with/active opposition to US policies, especially post-9/11

or (ii) the long decline in our relative economic dominance post-WWII as Asia, Europe and Latin America grow?

World War II basically destroyed Europe and Japan, and caused massive destruction in Russia, China and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. America threw huge amounts of manpower and resources into winning the war, but its infrastructure was essentially undamaged. The war wiped away any lingering traces of the Great Depression in America, but it took a long time for Europe and Asia to rebuild.

What's more, America has 5% of the world's population, but accounts for over 20% of production. That this proportion is decreasing doesn't mean that the US is declining in real terms, just that the rest of the world is starting to get its act together.

What does the CIA Factbook or other statistics tell you about the changes in the share of the US in the global economy from 1935 to 2005? If these are indeed trends, is there a reason to be alarmed about either of them?

Should we not be concerned with the antipathy towards the US in the rest of the world?

What I am dedicated to is getting good, reliable information out there, and a balance of opinion. That's a large part of the reason I run mu.nu. Too many countries live inside bubbles, I'd like to pop a few of them.

Do you see no trade-offs as the US spends huge sums (a signifcant amount borrowed against sharply cut federal revenues) on the military (including extravagant boondoggles such as missile defense, unsettling technologies such as tactical nukes, and nation-building in Iraq), while other countries are investing directly in productive industry?

Sorry, my sarcasm got the better of me there.

In order:

The US military allowed intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a standing, peace-time, all-volunteer military, with great success and minimal losses. That's a good thing.

Missile defense is hardly a boondoggle with nations like Iran and North Korea looking to lob nukes at anyone they dislike. You'd be foolish not to be investigating missile defense at this point.

Unsettling technologies such as tactical nukes? You have something of a point there. Nuclear weapons are taboo; their use is all but unthinkable. Tactical nukes would weaken that taboo, and if your number one priority is preventing the use of nuclear weapons, that would be a bad thing. I think, though, that this has to be balanced against the intended purpose of tactical nukes - bunker busters to destroy ABC (atomic/biological/chemical) warfare facilities in rogue states.

Other countries are investing in productive industry? Why, so is America. At the same time as acting as the world's policeman and planning a moonbase and a manned expedition to Mars and a billion and one other things.

It is more than simply disappointing that our invasion of Iraq has drawn no where near the level of burden-sharing that the US was able to secure in the cases of the first Gulf War and the action against Serbia.

Reflexive self-justification and denial are understandable, but do not help us to deal with real problems.

Just so you know, Tom, I'm Australian.

The US is facing a critical task to stem and reverse the serious decline in relative power that the US is now experiencing as investment and power flow to the growing economies of Asia, Europe and Latin America

Why is this a critical task?

as the Newsweek article points out so well.

Our place in the world will soon be much diminished, and we refuse to get our own house in order - enormous budget and trade deficits, declining technical and science skills, a frayed social support network, accelerating disparities in wealth (see David Brooke`s op-ed in today`s Times), you name it.

I'm not at all convinced there are declining technical and science skills. I don't see American research and engineering suffering at all.

I don't see a particularly frayed social support network either. And I don't see wealth disparities as a problem, as long as both rich and poor are improving their lot, and as long as there is opportunity for improvement, something America has always been very good at.

We face a growing dependence on imported oil but have no cogent energy policy (which should include pricing to cover defense and environmental costs).

What a mess we are handing off to our children, who will have to foot the bills and the poorer America that we seem to be willing to settle for!

Many global issues cry out for US leadership, but we refuse to accept that mantle in favor of unilateralism.

The Adminstration, Congress and big business are fiddling while Rome burns (see Tom Friedman’s op-ed in Friday’s Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/opinion/25friedman.html?th&emc=th). It is a real disappointment that the Republican party is not making a serious attempt to revitalize and strengthen the US economy, but is instead sapping our competitiveness with outrageously irresponsible budget deficits (in which the roles of tax cuts and our grossly expanded and unfunded military budget must be acknowledged).

In fact, I'm not sure what Friedman is proposing. Subsidies for industry? Protectionism? No, he seems to be pushing for trade agreements. But some sort of government intervention. What? And why? And how is that supposed to help? He seems to think that the government should shoulder the burden of GM's health insurance. Why? Why not let GM cut its health care plan, or failing that, go broke?

Budget deficits are a problem. They're hardly uncommon during wars, but long term, they need to be fixed. Expanding social programs and subsidising business isn't the road to a balanced budget.

I'll note that Australia has been running budget surpluses for years, to the point that government debt is expected to be fully paid by next year. On the other hand, we don't have anything like America's military expenses - even proportionally - because America is shouldering that burden.

While responsible for what still is the largest economy and most important country in the world, the Administration seems to be doing all it can to make sure that voters don't hear any bad news.

The administration doesn't run the media, you know.

While there may well be room to criticize the Newsweek piece, it is unfortunate that the blog discussion has ignored the real substantive issues raised by the article, but focussed instead on perceived slights to the flag and the “motives” of Newsweek.

While I fault Newsweek for selling America short by deciding not to run the piece in the US, sadly this decision seems to reflect ironically one point of the article - that in fact most of Newsweek US readers would rather hear about the Oscars, than to be forced to face unpleasant facts about our declining global position.

But then I suppose it is too much to expect, if our Administration, Congress and business leaders are not willing to talk about serious issues, that our press would show it has real balls.

It's not a question of balls, it's a question of relevance.

Can we have a real discussion of our slipping economic position, or do we all find it easier to shoot the messenger? I look forward to some enlightenment.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 12:21 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1878 words, total size 12 kb.

My grand-daughter Trixie has written of her "sleep compiler", an advanced electronic bio-feedback device that allows you to get by on just two or three hours of sleep a night. (It also lets you subscribe to the cable-dream network, but that's a post for another day.)

We seem to be catching up fast on Trixie's 22nd century world, unless it turns out that modafinil (pronounced like mow-daffodil) has some nasty side effects. Nastier than rashes and upset tummies anyway.

Modafinil (marketed as Provigil) has the curious effect of suppressing your urge to sleep. You still get tired - just not sleepy. And you still can sleep; it doesn't cause insomnia. It's just that you can remain awake and alert for extended periods without the need for sleep, and without the familiar side-effects of caffeine and amphetamines.*

It's not a stimulant; there's no high with modafinil. You wake up feeling rested, you find it easy to concentrate, you feel like doing work. You may also find yourself grinning like a feral chipmunk, so if this is not normal for you, you might find it best to keep your office door closed.

This site has first hand reports from people who have tried modifinil. It's interesting stuff, if subjective and occasionally unsettling:

I would warn that there might be a contraindication for high doses of Wellbutrin plus Provigil. I should mention I had some meth-amphetamine metabolites running around in my system from the previous night's partying (2 healthy sized tokes).

Is modafinil the magic, um, sleep thingy? No-one's ready to come out and say so just yet. As a sufferer of the dread 28-hour sleep cycle† I'm more than a little interested; as a cowardly chicken who ain't gonna take no nasty pills‡ I'm inclined to wait and see.

Now I'm just waiting for the modafinil spam to arrive.

* Well, I'm not personally familiar with the side-effects of amphetamines, but they have been studied extensively.

† Left to my own devices, I sleep ten hours out of twenty-eight, rather than eight out of twenty-four. I'm never ready to go to bed in time to get enough sleep so that I'll be ready to get up in the morning, if you follow me. If I go to bed at 11 pm, say, I don't want to get up until 9, and even if I crawl out of bed at 7 I'm not ready to sleep again until 1 am. I've been this way since my teens, so I've learned to live with it.

One thing that helps is that there are exactly six 28-hour days in a normal muggle week. So if I take a week off and let my sleep pattern take its natural course, it's back in sync at the end... Or actually, eight hours out, which is what happens every weekend, which I counter with a nap on Sunday afternoon, except then I don't get to sleep until late and...

It's after midnight, and I'm fully alert, and I have to go to bed now or I won't get up in the morning. Bah.

‡ Except my anti-sneeze tablets, because without those, life ain't worth living.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:30 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 548 words, total size 4 kb.

Le vote français plonge l'Union européenne
dans une période d'incertitudes

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 09:51 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:
"We invaded you last night - we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:

"We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 08:08 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

As older societies, we tend to think of ourselves as more experienced in the way societies evolve, and we tend to be skeptical of Americans who seem to think that if you believe hard enough, and you muster enough resources, you can change the world.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 02:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

He is blatantly a puppet for corporate interests, who care only about their own greed and have no sense of civic responsibility or community service. He lies, constantly and often, seemingly without control, and he lied about his invasion into a sovereign country, again for corporate interests; many people have died and been maimed, and that has been lied about too. He grandstands and mugs in a shameful manner, befitting a snake oil salesman, not a statesman. He does not think, process, or speak well, and is emotionally immature due to, among other things, his lack of recovery from substance abuse. The term is "dry drunk". He is an abject embarrassment/pariah overseas; the rest of the world hates him . . . . . He is, by far, the most irresponsible, unethical, inexcusable occupant of our formerly highest office in the land that there has ever been.

The thing is, after spending several paragraphs showing us just how sadly deranged his colleagues are and thereby earning our respect, McElvaine suddenly veers leftward into the swamp with his own assessment of the Bush Administration. He suggests that Bush:

Presided over the loss of approximately three million American jobs in his first two-and-a-half years in office, the worst record since Herbert Hoover.

Overseen an economy in which the stock market suffered its worst decline in the first two years of any administration since Hoover’s.

Taken, in the wake of the terrorist attacks two years ago, the greatest worldwide outpouring of goodwill the United States has enjoyed at least since World War II

and squandered it by insisting on pursuing a foolish go-it-almost-alone invasion of Iraq

thereby transforming almost universal support for the United States into worldwide condemnation.

Misled (to use the most charitable word and interpretation)

the American public about weapons of mass destruction and supposed ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq

and so into a war that has plainly (and entirely predictably) made us less secure

I'm waiting.

caused a boom in the recruitment of terrorists

is killing American military personnel needlessly

and is threatening to suck up all our available military forces and be a bottomless pit for the money of American taxpayers for years to come.

And you know, Iraq might not be sucking up all available military forces if President Clinton hadn't gutted them in the first place. This thought occured to me, but then I'm not a Historian.

Failed to follow through in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are regrouping, once more increasing the threat to our people.

Insulted and ridiculed other nations and international organizations and now has to go, hat in hand, to those nations and organizations begging for their assistance.

You wouldn't care to produce an example of this, by any chance? I like to see specifics rather than sweeping claims, but then, I'm not a Historian.

Completely miscalculated or failed to plan for the personnel and monetary needs in Iraq after the war

so that he sought and obtained an $87 billion appropriation for Iraq, a sizable chunk of which is going, without competitive bidding to Haliburton, the company formerly headed by his vice president.

Now, I know the reasons and origins of the Halliburton contract - which dates to the Clinton administration - and would never resort to misleading my audience that way. But then, I'm not a Historian.

Inherited an annual federal budget surplus of $230 billion and transformed it into a $500+ billion deficit in less than three years. This negative turnaround of three-quarters of a trillion dollars is totally without precedent in our history. The ballooning deficit for fiscal 2004 is rapidly approaching twice the dollar size of the previous record deficit, $290 billion, set in 1992, the last year of the administration of President Bush’s father and, at almost 5 percent of GDP, is closing in on the percentage record set by Ronald Reagan in 1986.

Cut taxes three times, sharply reducing the burden on the rich

reclassified money obtained through stock ownership as more deserving than money earned through work.

Severely curtailed the very American freedoms that our military people are supposed to be fighting to defend.

Called upon American armed service people, including Reserve forces, to sacrifice for ever-lengthening tours of duty in a hostile and dangerous environment while he rewards the rich at home with lower taxes and legislative giveaways and gives lucrative no-bid contracts to American corporations linked with the administration.

Second, we freed fifty million people from tyranny. When did that last happen without sacrifice, Mr Historian?

Third, your points on taxes and Halliburton have already been made and refuted. You don't get to run them up the field again.

Given an opportunity to begin to change the consumption-oriented values of the nation after September 11, 2001, when people were prepared to make a sacrifice for the common good, called instead of Americans to ‘sacrifice’ by going out and buying things.

Proclaimed himself to be a conservative while maintaining that big government should be able to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights

and that the government must have all sorts of secrets from the people

but the people can be allowed no privacy from the government.

And here's McElvaine's parting gift:

Some voters may judge such assessments to be wrong, but they are assessments informed by historical knowledge and the electorate ought to have them available to take into consideration during this election year.

But they are most certainly untroubled by any knowledge of economics or the conduct of war, by any care for human rights, or any concern for hewing to the truth.

An F for you, Mr McElvaine. A B+ for President Bush.

(Via Instapundit)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:30 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1465 words, total size 10 kb.

As in most previous surveys of journalists, a high number called themselves politically "moderate" (49%), with 31% describing themselves as "liberal" and just 9% as "conservative."

Forty-eight percent of the public but only 11% of journalists said news organizations were "often inaccurate." When serious mistakes are made, 74% of the journalists said news organizations quickly report the error, but only 30% of the public said they do. In the public, 24% said news organizations try to ignore errors and 41% said they try to cover them up.

"That was the most surprising thing, the public perception that journalists don't correct errors," Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Center, told E&P. "We focused on the serious errors and you have journalists believing they correct them. You'd like to know what the truth is."

That's not a gap, that's a chasm. A yawning gulf:

"This study reveals a worrisome divide between the public's view of journalism and journalists' own views of their work," Geneva Overholser, a former Washington Post ombudsman and the author of a new book on the press, said in a statement. "If journalists do indeed believe that what they do is valuable, fair, and ethically sound, it's past time they began to put that case more effectively to the public."

(Via Roger L. Simon)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.