On Egypt

Yet another Middle Eastern despot reliant on American support is in danger of falling. That’s just about all we know regarding the current situation in Egypt. What the future holds is anyone’s guess. The short version of analysis is best penned by Shaun Kenney:

I truly hope this is a democratic revolution, and that if so, the revolution succeeds rather than is stifled (as it was in Iran). If this is nothing more than a mere coup by the Muslim Brotherhood, then I hope it is crushed mercilessly.

The question becomes: what kind of revolution will this be in Egypt? One that empowers the people (see Central Europe)? One that further imprisons them (see Iran)? Or one that fails (see Communist China)? I’m in no position to answer just yet. I can, however, make some observations, FWIW.

Just about every largely Muslim nation has three large factions within it: democrats, secularists, and Wahhabists (in the case of non-Arab Iran, it’s Khomeinists).  If one is the majority, it usually calls the tune (Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia, democrats in Iraq and Indonesia, and secularists in 20th-Century Turkey, for example).  Elsewhere, the secularists (my term) tend to be the elites (although the other two groups will have some elite leadership) while the other two compete for support of the masses.

How the secularists react tends to drive events. In Pakistan, secularist Musharraf tried to win over the Wahhabists and freeze out the democrats, until it became clear to him that the Wahhabists would strengthen and he would weaken under that scenario. So he took a chance and tried reaching out to the democrats. Unfortunately, there was too much bad blood, and to this day in Pakistan neither the Wahhabists nor the democrats can command majority support – unless they do what is still unthinkable and reach out to Musharraf’s faction.

In Egypt, by contrast, Hosni Mubarak ruthlessly cracked down on both while insisting to each that he was their only protection against the other. The closest authoritarian model to Mubarak was the Shah of Iran, who managed to pull it off for 25 years. Eventually in Iran, Khomeinists and democrats decided it was better to knock out the secularist and argue over the future later.

Mubarak is actually 5 years beyond the Shah in longevity, but he, too, may be past his sell-by date. What we do not know yet is whether the democrats or the Wahhabists will take charge. As of Monday afternoon, the Wahhabists (known as the Muslim Brotherhood) seem to have the upper hand. They’ve already reached out to Mohammed El Baradei, who has an international reputation as head of the IAEA during the mullahs’ pre-Stuxnet drive for nuclear weaponry.

If that doesn’t reassure you, you’re ahead of the curve.

There are prominent democrats in Egypt, Ayman Nour among them, who can truly lead Egypt to a brighter future. We should do what we can to give them the upper hand.

Cross-posted to BD

Politico says Hunstman’s running

According to Politico, Jon Hunstman will indeed resign as Ambassador to Communist China and run for President. I initially commented on the speculation here, and stunningly, no one has addressed the possibility of Obama’s hardening stance in 2010 as a reason Hunstman’s doing this.

Given that Donald Trump, who is taking an instinctively anti-Communist line, is alo looking at a Presidential run, the 2012 GOP nomination contest may include a raging debate on policy toward Beijing, one the other candidates (including whoever becomes the nominee) will be forced to address.

Cross-posted to VV

Well, “Newt” is a four-letter word

There was a time when Newt Gingrich really was the reform-minded conservative he still thinks he is.  This week, he went to Iowa and dispelled any doubt that said time has come and gone (Radio Iowa via Jonathon Adler in The Corner):

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich today dismissed the “big city” critics of corn-based ethanol and suggested the biofuels industry will be able to “stand on its own” without federal subsidies once all autos are “flexible-fuel” vehicles.

. . .

Gingrich called for new federal regulations to ensure every vehicle made in the U.S. is able to run on ethanol or methane. Gingrich told reporters after his speech that he does not support extension of the federal tax create for ethanol fuel “beyond this year.”  

“If they’re prepared to insist on a flex-fuel vehicle and every car in America’s capable of buying ethanol, I think the industry can stand on its own,” Gingrich said.

Really, Newt? Are you seriously trying to claim that an industry reliant on a national regulation affecting every car in America is one that “can stand on its own”?

That’s economic illiteracy, pure and simple.

Of course, like most people who rail against imported oil, Gingrich also got his facts wrong – a high irony for someone who insisted his critics “use facts that are accurate.”

In particular:

 I would rather have the next building boom in Des Moines than in Dubqi (sic: I’m guessing Gingrich said “Dubai” and Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson committed a typo).

Dubai, Newt? Have you been paying no attention to the international economy?

For starters, the United Arab Emirates (in which Dubai is a large city) actually has sent little oil to the United States; for every barrel of oil we imported from the UAE in 2009, we bought 25 from Saudi Arabia.

In reality, I’m guessing the Saudis were Newt’s real target, but that doesn’t make him any less ignorant.

Newt’s been out of active politics since 1998, so perhaps he didn’t notice (and, to be fair, nearly everyone still in politics hasn’t really noticed either), but neither the Saudis nor the Persian Gulf as a whole are America’s primary source for foreign oil these days.

In fact, one country exported more oil to us than all the Persian Gulf nations combined: Canada, which was the source of 20% of our imported oil last year. The Saudis don’t even have a firm grip on second place, trading it from month to month with Mexico.

The point here is simple: our oil imports are much more geared toward local neighbors than Levant nuisances. The greatest victims of our ethanol policy (besides hungry children whose parents cannot afford scarce food due to so much corn going into fuel) will not be Arab sheiks, but Albertan citizens (who also happen to be the most right-wing, pro-American group of voters outside of the US itself).

The facts and realities of oil have changed dramatically over the last decade. It is truly sad to see Gingrich – who once prided himself as a dynamic futurist – to be so deeply stuck in the past.

Cross-posted to BD

Allen is in: Medicare Part D, ethanol and all

Former Senator George Allen announced today that he will try to get his old job back. In his announcement video, he talked about listening to the people and reining in government spending.

It reminded me of Daniel Walker Howe, who was referring to Henry Clay’s oft-repeated phrase, “I’d rather be right than president.” Here was Howe’s response:

Though never president, he was often right, and he would have been right more often had he tried to be president less.

In Allen’s case, we should all be happy he’s willing to listen to the voters and rein in spending; and had he actually done more of that in Washington he might have been announcing for a third term.

Now, I myself have not ruled out voting for Allen next spring – nor rule in voting for one of his potential or actual opponents.  However, there are two things I would like to note:

• Of the five aspirants/candidates/mentionables (Allen, Marshall, Mizusawa, Radtke, or Stewart), only one has supported and voted for the infamous Medicare Part D: that would be George Allen

 

• Of the five aspirants/candidates/mentionables (Allen, Marshall, Mizusawa, Radtke, or Stewart), only one has supported and voted for the Bush-Obama energy bill that sparked food shortages as 40% of Americas corn goes to dirty, wasteful fuel instead of vital food (From on High): that would also be George Allen

If Allen is looking to get back to Washington, he needs to remind everyone why we would want him there. Admitting to these two mistakes would be an excellent start.

Cross-posted to VV

Another reminder . . .

. . . being a Jets fan is the price I pay for being a Yankees fan.

Yesterday’s defeat also means I’ll be discussing the NFL labor brouhaha a little earlier than I’d hoped. Such is life. Stay tuned.

Cross-posted to VV

There he goes again

It had been quite some time since Mike Huckabee had insulted, crossed, and otherwise annoyed limited-government conservatives. As one of the very few high-profile Republicans to openly oppose TARP, he had a tremendous opportunity to rebuild bridges.

Today, at King’s College (NYC), Huckabee not only refused to rebuild those bridges, but he set fire to a few more (Brian Stewart – NRO: The Corner):

Huckabee flatly denied being a “pro-life liberal,” an accusation often made in certain quarters on the right. Not a trace of defensiveness could be detected on this point. To the contrary, the governor gave an all-out defense of his tax hikes while governor of Arkansas on the grounds that they were the only responsible course of action to repair state roads. He snorted with derision at “libertarians” who fail to recognize that “we don’t have a health care crisis in this country, but a health crisis.” He spoke with passion and knowledge on the need for preventative care to bring down exorbitant costs. And then, without the least amount of prompting, he mustered a vigorous defense of Mrs. Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign against childhood obesity. This was the “art of governing,” he argued, rather than the cheap “science of campaigning.”

Where to begin!

For starters, the tax-hikes-for-roads nonsense is a common feature here in Virginia, at least until Speaker Bill Howell and his fellow Republicans in the House of Delegates finally got over their HB3202-induced tax-fever. The rest was just Huckabee’s typical drivel. In fact, his last line about the “art of governing” - citing a First Lady campaign – would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragically ignorant.

He then digs himself even deeper with this:

Invited to plea for cuts in defense spending, he delicately declined, but noted that combat operations in Afghanistan were futile and therefore constituted government “waste.”

Let that sink in for just a minute: fighting the Taliban is now government waste to Mike Huckabee.

Stewart called Huckabee “The Face of Conservative Populism.” That Huckabee can still manage to get “conservative” attached to himself is all the more reason I call myself a right-wing liberal.

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon and Virginia Bloggers Against Mike Huckabee

What’s that, Timmy?

Tim Kaine clearly has a problem with math.

As Governor of Virginia, he left his successor (Bob McDonnell) a record budget shortfall of $7 billion; McDonnell is still asking for budget cuts to repair the damage more than a year after Kaine moved on to become full-time DNC Chairman. 

Now, Kaine’s attempt to spin the results of the 2010 elections revealed his trouble with numbers yet again (The Hill):

Kaine said the Democratic losses in the 2010 midterm elections was American voters’ way of saying the Democrats should try to be more bipartisan.

Huh?

Let’s take a closer look at 2010, shall we?

Republicans won over 55% of the districts in the House of Representatives.  It was their best result in over 60 years.  Now, Kaine and most Democrats would like us to think that the their ability to hang on to the Senate was a deliberate balancing act on the part of the voters. The actual numbers reveal something very different.

Republicans won a whopping 24 out of 37 seats – or 65%. That was the best Republican result since 1952. The only reason the Democrats maintained a Senate majority was their heavy numbers in the pre-2010 classes of Senators.

In other words, the Democrats have their Senate majority despite the wishes of the voters, not because of them.

Boehner, Cantor, et al can seze on this reality to present their agenda as the future, and any resistance to them as the pre-Teabrewer past.

In the meantime, however, it is yet another example of a reality Virginians learned long ago, but the rest of America is only beginning to discover: Tim Kaine is not very good with numbers.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

On to Pittsburgh

The Jets are back in the AFC Championship after winning a game that, truth be told, even I thought they’d lose.  Very, very impressive.

Now they’re up against the Steelers, team they beat a month ago – albeit with an asterisk the size of Polamalu’s hair (literally, the game-changing safety was hurt in December).

So . . . I feel better about this week than last year’s AFC Championship game against the Colts, but as  Jet fan for over 30 years, I have enough painful memories to take it one game at a time.

All we know for certain is that I don’t have to think about the labor-management nonsense for another week.

Cross-posted to VV

Elected officials know less about government than the people who elect them

As Jonah Goldberg put it, “Oh . . . Dear” (Richard Blake at AOL):

Elected officials at many levels of government, not just the federal government, swear an oath to “uphold and protect” the U.S. Constitution.

But those elected officials who took the test scored an average 5 percentage points lower than the national average (49 percent vs. 54 percent), with ordinary citizens outscoring these elected officials on each constitutional question. Examples:

• Only 49 percent of elected officials could name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.
• Only 46 percent knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war — 54 percent of the general public knows that.
• Just 15 percent answered correctly that the phrase “wall of separation” appears in Thomas Jefferson’s letters — not in the U.S. Constitution — compared with 19 percent of the general public.
• And only 57 percent of those who’ve held elective office know what the Electoral College does, while 66 percent of the public got that answer right. (Of elected officials, 20 percent thought the Electoral College was a school for “training those aspiring for higher political office.”)

. . .  

Overall, our sample of elected officials averaged a failing 44 percent on the entire 33-question test, 5 percentage points lower than the national average of 49 percent.

Oh dear, indeed.

Cross-posted to VV

Hiding the decline: $500,000 . . .

. . . and counting?

Blogger Tom Nelson noted this little tidbit from the Commonwealth Foundation: UVA has spent roughly half a million dollars to fight Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s attempt to get to the bottom of “Nature Trick” Michael Mann’s role in Climategate, and whether the taxpayers of Virginia were swindled.

Complying with Cuccinelli’s request (now mirrored by a FOIA request), by contrast, would have only cost $8,000.

Now, UVA has been squawking that this is all about fighting for “academic freedom.” Put aside the fact that “academic freedom” was coined as a phrase to protect students from ideological professors, and Mann’s former colleague Fred Singer supports Cuccinelli’s probe.  Fact is, Mann and his colleagues have stretched “academic freedom” to include ignoring freedom of information requests, twisting the peer-review process to silence dissenting scientists, and truncating inconvenient data (the last of which was the actual “Mike’s Nature Trick”).

There have been so many instances of errors, data manipulation, and other shenanigans, from global warming alarmists that the rest of us can barely keep up with them; the number of my posts alone on this subject stands at thirty-three.

None of that seems to matter to Mr. Jefferson’s university – all the more reason I would have been a capital-F Federalist.

Cross-posted to BD