Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Politics and Poker’ Category

Rotten boroughs

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 17, 2007

Arnold Kling, via Instapundit:

I think that President Bush has got one thing very much right, which is that Arab-Islamic terrorism is a symptom that something is rotten in the Middle East. If anything, his failures in Iraq and Palestine are due to underestimating the degree of rot. For all the allegations of his lack of intellect, George Bush is a brainiac compared to people who want to see terrorism as a symptom of something rotten in the United States or Israel.

Well taken, but I think a little wrong. When Kling writes, “his failures in Iraq and Palestine are due to underestimating the degree of rot,” it is in fact — contrary to the next sentence — not the rot in the Mideast that Bush (and the rest of us) underestimated, but the degree of political rot right here, mainly along the Capitol / MSM axis.

Yes, he could have no idea people would be so willing to slaughter their brothers, so often and so brutally, just to put political pressure on Washington. But far worse than this is that such pressure is so resolutely successful.

Rot does not begin to describe it.

Posted in Past is prologue, Politics and Poker | 3 Comments »

More on Failure Face

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 17, 2007

Dean’s World: Great Moments For Peace

Harry Reid really is making a great career as the symbol of craven surrender.

Posted in Politics and Poker | 1 Comment »

Antireligious mania

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 12, 2007

churchsign.jpg

In an article trying to explain the involvement of doctors in the London / Glasgow plot, Christopher Hitchens, attempting to show that doctors can be terrorists as long as they’re religious enough, writes:

You may recall the case of Dr. Baruch Goldstein. On Feb. 25, 1994, this Israeli army physician stalked into the so-called “Cave of the Patriarchs” in Hebron, unslung his automatic weapon, and fired into the crowd of Muslim worshippers, killing 29 people of all ages and both sexes before being killed himself. … In Goldstein’s view, Hippocratic precepts were overridden by Orthodox teaching, and there were a number of rabbis ready to support his stand on the matter. There were also a number of rabbis who decided to consecrate his tomb as a shrine to a brave Jewish martyr, and the children of ultra-Orthodox settlers were seen wearing buttons reading, “Dr. Goldstein cured Israel’s ills.”

Hitchens is one of my favorite writers; but on the subject of religion, he’s not only wrong, he’s — quite ironically — irrational, a true believer. Phrases like “a number of rabbis,” used twice, are telling. How many? Answer: Not too damned many — essentially a Kahanist fringe. Goldstein was a mass murderer, as well as one who caused much subsequent loss of Jewish life. He was motivated by an offshoot of religion called Religious Zionism which infuses political, nationalistic action with religious themes and justifications. (For a good, sincere and intelligent discussion of Torah law and Baruch Goldstein, see here.)

If Hitchens were right and religiosity were proportional to a propensity to violent extremism the more “right-wing” a religious Jew may be, the more supportive he would be of Goldstein’s actions. This is true — on the political left/right spectrum.  But not on the religious one.  The “ultra-orthodox” Jews in Israel may be many things, but dangerous to others, as a statistical matter, they certainly are not.  It is the more religiously “centrist” but politically reactionary “National Religious” that get us Baruch Goldstein and the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin.

That is a tragedy of Religious Zionism — it has no real response to Kahanism, which is merely its nationalistic and bigoted tenets taken largely to their logical extreme. It’s complicated.  But if Christopher Hitchens is going to write about religion, though, he should get it right.

Posted in Faith and Works, Politics and Poker | 8 Comments »

How confident are the Democrats?

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 10, 2007

This confident:

For the first time the leading candidates for the presidency will hold a televised debate devoted solely to LGBT issues.

No, not a sandwich; that means, for those of you in flyover country, unconventional private behavior as galvanizing political persuasion.  Just not in that order.  Of course.

And yes, flyover country — you, they don’t need.  Or, rather, you they believe are theirs regardless.  Regardless because you are so anti-Republican, or because Brink Lindsey is right?

Either way, I think they’re both miscalculations, both premature extrapolations of trends that may not be what people think they are.  And I pray that wrong, indeed, is what they are.

Posted in O Mores!, Politics and Poker | 3 Comments »

Unhappy camper

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 9, 2007

Maybe everything’s not just Fein, after all?  Another Department of Justice veteran lashes out at the Bush Administration.  More here.  Hat tip to David Lat.

Posted in Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Don’t confuse us with the facts

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 8, 2007

The rightosphere is focusing fire, appropriately, on the Times‘s “unconditional surrender, and quick” editorial. Via Glenn, here’s a nice selection by Lorie Bird entitled, “Choose Genocide“:

I just don’t understand why those on the left are so afraid to talk about the progress that is being made. If they think it is just a waste of time and effort and lives, then they can say that, but at least acknowledge that the men and women of our military are experiencing some success. Then if they want to argue that genocide is preferable to victory in Iraq, I will at least believe they are being honest.

Actually, I think Lorie is playing with us a little and understands very well why the capitulation party does not make balanced arguments, but she, too, is making a rhetorical point, and a valid one. As I said in the comments at Dean’s World scant hours ago, there is no other way to describe this policy other than the all but formal handover of Iraq and its people — including its Sunni population — to Iran, the Islamoreich in all its glory (click the pic at right for a taste). But, as I also commented here a short time ago — and yes, this story is hot on a slow (and hot) news day — the endorsement of the New Irrationalism on Iraq by the Grey Lady is emboldening that policy’s greatest proponent, the Hon. Mrs. Cindy Sheehan, for a Comeback Tour.

Could this not be the silver lining on the whole thing — a bustup of the Wacky Left / Washington Left coalition and a genuine threat to the coronation of Senator Clinton? Is that what the New York Times is shooting for? I would never have thought of it, but … New Irrationalism, indeed!

Posted in Medialites, Orient, Politics and Poker | 2 Comments »

Tinfoil Party

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 8, 2007

Now the Associated Press prints the funnies on Sunday:

Six weeks after announcing her departure from the peace movement, Cindy Sheehan said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Mrs. Sheehan?  Please add this blogger to your fundraising mailing list!

Too good to be true.  I’m sure the fever will pass, but what better relief of a hot July day when the Yankees are out of it?

Could Mrs. Sheehan have been emboldened by the off-the-rails railing of the New York Times, urging the immediate handover of the entire world to the Islamic Republic of Iran?  She just might!  You have to savor the possibility.

Posted in Politics and Poker, Stragety | 1 Comment »

Political class?!

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 5, 2007

Instapundit: “The incompetence and venality of America’s political class surprises even those of us who are paying attention.”

That’s why we shouldn’t have a “political class.” It’s precisely the opposite of the democratic vision of the Founding Fathers, and it’s precisely what’s killing us now.

There’s one solution: Term limits.

Posted in Politics and Poker | 9 Comments »

Bruce Fein blows a gasket

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 28, 2007

“The vice president has run utterly amok and must be stopped,” writes Bruce Fein in Slate.  He goes on to say that Cheney must be impeached.  Impeached!

Forget about that — that’s one stupid and irrational idea that’s not going anywhere. (But hat tip to Ali Eteraz.) No, what’s noteworthy is just how much the conservative community has come to loathe this Administration, which, from its (“our,” I guess) perspective, gave us nothing, or worse, except Justice Roberts.

“Writes Bruce Fein in Slate” — parlous times, indeed.

Or is it?

Fein was, indeed, a deputy Attorney General in the Reagan Administration. But he’s been gunning for this one for years now. He wrote in Slate last week, too, on the White House email dustup. He gives interviews to Truthout. From all indications, he is sincerely exercised about this Administration, and has been for a long time. But it is not newsworthy, at this point, that he is raising the volume higher and higher, now making absurd impeachment threats and relying on a now threadbare resume from the Reagan years. (It’s notable for someone with that profile to be in something other than a major Washington firm, but I don’t know exactly what it does mean, so I just point it out.)

He’s not a shill for either “side,” is Fein — I agree with this recent article by him, for example, criticizing the preposterous claim by reporters that they are exempt from the law by virtue of some imagined First Amendment emanation the insulates them from the normal duties of citizenship. That’s a conservative position, in my view, so he is no “civil libertarian” in the left-wing sense of the phrase. He has even said he is “not anti-President Bush.”

So what, exactly, happened to Bruce Fein? Because while there is much to despise about this Administration, this article suggests he’s gone off the deep end. Any helpful links would be appreciated — I can’t find anyone who has analyzed this question.

Posted in Politics and Poker | 7 Comments »

GOP meltdown — and who will make the ice cubes?

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 26, 2007

Glenn Reynolds reads our very transparent minds and ponders:

WHAT SHOULD REPUBLICANS DO as the GOP seems to be committing suicide? I dunno — saving the GOP isn’t my job, and if the Democrats weren’t worse on national security I wouldn’t mind much. (And the GOP advantage there seems to be shrinking anyway).But you’ve got three basic choices: Exit, voice, and loyalty. …

Problem is, people have been exercising “voice” a lot and it’s clear that President Bush, Trent Lott, et al., don’t care and aren’t listening. … I think the GOP’s vulnerability to a third party challenge has just gone way up.

I’ll say. I’ve never been more disgusted, and that’s from a lifelong Republican and occasional activist who still voted for Clinton in 1992. Yes, I’m more disgusted than I even was then.

I never liked Trent Lott, and the fact that he was elected the Minority Leader in the Senate was a red flag. GWB has lost me completely on the immigration issue and his utter lack of leadership, right now, on just about anything. Not only that, but I am so disgusted that what I once willing to overlook for what I believed to be the Cause, I retroactively do not. The unbridled spending… the cronyism (which I have not hesitated to criticize before)… the complete surrender of the message on the Iraq war and, yes, the failure to communicate effectively about just about anything, certainly since the 2004 election.

What a squandered, ugly moment for Republicans conservatives like me. What a shame for America.

And, yes, what an opportunity for a third party candidate. And what an interesting moment for, in my view, Rudy Giuliani to ask himself if he might, perhaps, be that candidate — an idea so daft for the front-runner it just might work.

Posted in Politics and Poker | 62 Comments »