Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Stragety’ Category

Putin keeps pushing

Posted by Ron Coleman on August 17, 2007

politburo.jpgBaby Stalin has ordered the resumption of long-range nuclear bomber patrols by the USSR Russia, basically because for a change there’s enough money in the kitty that he can, and because it makes him and his subjects feel mighty that they do.

Are those the only reasons? Well, he says no, of course not:

“Starting in 1992, the Russian Federation unilaterally suspended strategic aviation flights to remote areas,” Putin said. “Regrettably, other nations haven’t followed our example. That has created certain problems for Russia’s security.”

Security problems since 1992 — 15 years — sounds pretty severe. What happened then? Did Amurka bomb Russia back to the stone age? Did we ring Russia with missiles? Did we send troop across the Bering Strait? Someone find me a link!

Meanwhile, I’m awaiting condemnation of Putin’s brinksmanship from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Posted in Stragety | 2 Comments »

Star turn

Posted by Ron Coleman on August 14, 2007

Der Spiegel reports on the thing everyone in Europe — and on the coasts of this continent — wants to ignore:  Success in Iraq.

Now, look.  What’s the purpose of having a blog if I’m going to just link to the same things Instapundit does?  Well, a few thoughts:

  1. He doesn’t have a comments section (can you just imagine?!) .  So there’s nowhere else to riff on these things.
  2. Glenn gets tons of great links from all over.  More than he can even use.  But the ones he does use, well, they’re not used up.
  3. Maybe some people actually do read this blog and don’t read Instapundit.                               Well, it’s not completely impossible!
  4. I have friends here who like to discuss these things, and whether or not they read Instapundit, some of them — like Ara Rubyan — have had a lot to say about the conclusive failure of the Iraq policy and the impossibility of it ever getting anything but worse.  And I’d like to hear from them.

Is that good enough?

Posted in Orient, Stragety | 5 Comments »

War is peace

Posted by Ron Coleman on August 1, 2007

Obama:

“He [President Bush] confuses our mission,” Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. “By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want …”

I mean, some people will say anything, no matter how preposterous. Does this require real analysis to demonstrate its fatuity?

UPDATE:  Actually, I’m coming to understand Obama the Unready‘s foreign policy stragety better and better.

Posted in Politics and Poker, Stragety | 12 Comments »

If only they will let it sink in

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 30, 2007

TigerHawk:

It has begun to dawn on even lefties with a couple of brain cells to rub together that we ain’t fighting Iraq here. That war is over. We won. Saddam ain’t the winner if we leave.

Now that is a little odd, since the Smartest President ever already said “there is no victory here.”

Oh, yeah, right.  We went through that.

Posted in Orient, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

Muslims stop reading the papers

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 24, 2007

No Israeli believes Muslims are stupid. But the myth of an endless appetite for reckless suicide bombing, regardless of its tactical inefficacy, lives on in the West. Are Muslims getting tired of the self-inflicted bloodshed, though?

It hardly seems conceivable. The left promised us that anything short of asking, “Please sir, may I have another?” after 9/11 would result in non-stop terrorist attacks in the U.S., and was wrong. The same people has guaranteed us that the “desperate” and “motivated” Muslim “insurgent” would never tire of blowing himself up until the Great Satan quit the field in the Mideast. We were told that this trend would only continue the more intensively we brought the battle to the bad guys. The harder we pressed these diamonds of humanity, we were told, the harder they got, and the brighter shone their hero, Osama bin-Laden.

So what are we to make of this?:

Muslims around the world increasingly reject suicide bombings and other violence against civilians in defense of Islam, according to a new international poll dealing with how the world’s population judges their lives, countries and national institutions.A wide ranging survey of international attitudes in 47 countries by the Pew Research Center also reported that in many of the countries where support for suicide attacks has declined, there has also has been decreasing support for al-Qaida leader Osama bin-Laden.

This is great news, right? Fewer suicide bombings (except the really good kind) is good for everyone. Of course, Bin-Laden’s lack of popularity may be connected to the fact that he’s completely dead. Even in Iraq, the bombing is growing old, as this post linked to by Instapundit today makes clear:

U.S. tactics and training have made enemy efforts much less lethal. This has helped demoralize an increasing number of terrorists. Many are tired of killing Iraqi civilians, and the increasing difficulty at getting at American troops. … This has been going on for years, and an increasing number of Iraqi fighters are demoralized and quitting. Many either become informers, or surrender and speak freely.

Muslims are not stupid. They invented numbers, after all. Suicide bombings are simply a diminishing-returns proposition. Why didn’t someone tell those who were so gloriously blowing up buses and pizza shops five years ago that diminishing returns, high concrete walls and the suboptimal tactic of intending to die might not make them the vanguard of social change the papers said they would be? And will they do so now?

Of course not. It flies in the face of the antiwar mantra. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, much less the West Bank wall and the present troop surge in Iraq, were supposed to only enrage, forever, the people of the rage, who the media told us was infinitely capable of self-destructive behavior. Indeed, celebration of this bloodlust by the media was a factor in all this senseless murder. I wonder if its perpetrators, and the culture that bought into this myth, will ask Reuters, the BBC, the Associated Press the New York Times and the rest for their money, and their wasted blood, back.

It’s not over, of course. Suicide murder has not stopped. It is still not a good situation if only one percent of a billion people are prepared to blow themselves up as long as they take a piece of you, too; and we’re still way above one percent.

But this trend certainly seems contrary to what we were promised by the policy experts, the mainstream press, and the political left. Now what? Well, they can count on the Democrats in the Congress, for whom our enemies (whether it is the USSR or Al Qaeda) are always winning and it is always hopeless for democracy to fight back. That works fine when “winning” (other than winning political power) is not your goal anyway.

UPDATE: More analysis from Hot Air.

Posted in Orient, Stragety | 9 Comments »

“Reasonable degree of professional certainty”

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 21, 2007

Walter Olson, at Point of Law (link added for non-lawyers):young-frank.jpg

Those who follow the Daubert/scientific evidence wars will want to catch the back-and-forth between Beck and Herrmann and Peter Nordberg on the question of whether expert witnesses should be required to testify to a “reasonable degree of professional certainty” as to their conclusions.

See Walter’s post for the links. Now, I haven’t been following it all that closely, except as a lawyer who does trials, but I find this an odd position for conservatives to take. I supposed one’s positions can come ’round and bite you aft when the world is so complex. But since when is “professional certainty” — especially in the era of political correctness in the academy across disciplines — a gold standard? When Al Gore and the New York Times say “there’s a scientific consensus on global warming,” which objectively speaking there largely is, is that not a “reasonable degree of professional certainty” that may still, nonetheless, be scientifically suspect?

Professional “truth” is a negotiable virtue in science as everywhere else. Homosexuality was once a psychiatric disorder; now considering it abnormal is. Did science change, or merely scientists?

“Reasonable degree of scientific certainty”? We all hate litigation abuse, but I’m not ready to throw the adversarial system out with the bath water.

Posted in Lex scripta, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

It depends on what “is” is

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 20, 2007

Says disbarred retiree Bill Clinton, the new face of failure:

“The point is that there is no military victory here,” he said exclusively to “Good Morning America.” “I believe that Gen. Petraeus is a very able man. And I don’t have any doubt that they’ll win some battles. And I hope this works. I think every American hopes this works. But it can’t work beyond winning a few battles. … It has to be accompanied by progress on the political front.”

There is no way you can’t read that odd choice of the present tense in that first sentence and be reminded of the great man’s most famous sentence — “there is no improper relationship“…

That Bill Clinton. Man from Hope. Always playing games with us. And with the truth.

Posted in Orient, Stragety | 7 Comments »

Whole networking

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 11, 2007

I’m here today speaking on the topic of business and personal networking — a concept I call Whole Networking, which I am going to develop more in this space, and others.

Posted in Stragety | 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 »

Here in my car

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 27, 2007

58-olds-98.jpg“If people wanted cars with great mileage, they’d be buying them”:

Is it just Murdoc, or is energy conservation one of the most liberal of all issues? (And by liberal, I mean that proponents campaign for other people to give up things for the supposed greater good, i.e. today’s practical definition of “liberal”, not the actual definition.)Lunatics everywhere think that raising CAFE standards will somehow help gas prices or Global Warming or something. If almost everyone is so positive that higher gas mileage is a good thing, why isn’t almost everyone driving vehicles that get 35 MPG or more? There are a lot of them out there folks, and many of them aren’t too terribly expensive. . . .

Basically, Murdoc is saying that the problem isn’t car manufacturers (who have enough of their own problems these days, thankyouverymuch) but car buyers. It’s those damn people again.

And not only lunatics say it, Murdoc. The question comes down, as I mention in the article at the last link, to whether there is a rational externality-based argument — there we briefly discussed national security — for government regulation of prices, unless you are a libertarian or even a firm free-marketer and don’t believe there is ever such an argument. Murdoc mentions global warming as one “something” from which people make this case. Not only lunatic people.

But these arguments may be beside the point or, at least, may be guilty of obstructing a large part of the point, because they ignore the question of whether increased CAFE standards are a net positive for social welfare. One body of literature has argued for years that CAFE kills, because lighter cars are less safe cars, at least for the people riding in them. Another urges that they don’t even really help reduce fuel consumption. The thinking is that more efficient cars encourage more driving — it’s cheaper per mile. Now, I have argued that the cost of gasoline, at this point in history and given the overall increase in wealth, probably has very little at all to do with how much most of us drive, and indeed the Heritage data tending to prove more driving is based on decades-old data.

I don’t know. It’s complicated, isn’t it? That’s why I’m saying that pushing for increased CAFE standards as a cure-all is almost certainly simplistic, because it makes the cardinal mistake in microeconomics of not allowing for the large multiplicity of moving parts in economic policy-making. But as demagoguery, it is right on.

Posted in Gelt, Stragety | 8 Comments »