Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Look in the mirror

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 8, 2007

Instapundit:

PROMISE BREAKERS:

The ABC News/Washington Post poll found that among all Americans, only 29 percent approve of the way Bush is handling the immigration issue. That’s the lowest Bush has ever been on the issue in the survey.

Note, too, that overall approval ratings of the Democratic majority in Congress are even lower than those of the president.

Clearly, most Americans don’t approve of promise breakers.

But that’s what we keep getting.

Glenn makes it sound like catching a cold or receiving an unwelcome birthday gift. We’re not “getting” them. We’re re-electing them.

There won’t be change until we demand it, and until we, the governed and the enablers, lose our appetite for what these promise breakers cut us in on while they’re at the trough.

Posted in Politics and Poker | 6 Comments »

The perils of transparency

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 7, 2007

Blogger aTypical Joe has posted a piece called “Exposing the plea bargain racket” where he contrasts his reasonable insistence that plea bargains terms be made more public — maybe there should even be a public comment period, too! (I’d like to start with this one) — with the understandable problem of a “Who’s a Rat,” a website that features information about “rats.” “Rats” are what defense lawyers, defendants, and murderous criminals call people who, for whatever reason, cooperate with legal authorities attempting to secure convictions of malfeasors.

I have never liked this terminology, whether applied to informants or people who work for a living without the permission of a union. Like Joe, I certainly understand why a criminal defense lawyer would want to know as much as possible about cooperating witnesses, especially when they have “turned” from the fellow-criminal to the (usually self-serving) friend-of-law-enforcement side. But there’s no question that it is an abuse of this transparency, and one that will inevitably dry up the well of cooperating crooks, to post such information on websites like Who’s a Rat — one of whose purposes must be to get people killed.

Joe hits the nail on the head, saying he’d be glad “for us to learn the difference and distinguish between ‘public’ as in ‘not secret’ and ‘public’ as in “made easily accessible to the world.” This applies to a lot of things — a lot of categories where public information is and should be public, but is not and “should not be” instantly and simultaneously available to everyone all the time. The largest of these categories, I would say, relates to legal proceedings. Courts and legal proceedings should be open and public, yes; but intimate and limitless? That is one reason why, unlike a friend of mine who once lobbied hard trying to lower the hurdles to the insertion of TV cameras into every courtroom, I am against it.  One reason is that cameras badly distort behavior in the courtroom.  But the other is that I do not believe either justice of the public good are served by making the prospect of seeking justice, civil or criminal, an utter surrender of privacy and dignity.

How do we make these distinctions?

Posted in Lex scripta, O Mores! | 6 Comments »

“A Continent of Losers”

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 7, 2007

Craig Karpel sends this along (I’ve added the link for background):

According to [Professor Gunnar] Heinsohn, 80 per cent of world history is about young men in nations with a surplus of sons, creating trouble. This trouble may take many forms — a increase in domestic crime, attempts at coups d’état, revolutions, riots and civil wars. Occasionally, the young commit genocide to secure for themselves the positions that belonged to those they killed. Finally, there is war to conquer new territory, killing the enemy population and replacing it with one’s own.But, as Heinsohn emphasizes again and again, the unrest and the violent acts caused by youth bulges have nothing to do with famine or unemployment. In his book he describes it as follows: “The dynamic of a youth bulge — it cannot be emphasized too often — is not caused by a lack of food. A younger brother, who may be employed as a stable hand by the first-born son and who may be well fed and perhaps even fat, does not seek food but position, one that can guarantee him recognition, influence and dignity. Not the underweight but rather the potential losers or the déclassé are pushing forward.”

This actually doesn’t sound all that different from how Marxist historians have explained the Middle Ages. But left-leaning academics do not dare suggest the same “forces of history” could apply to non-Europeans — or, rather, non-white Europeans.  We, however, can.

Posted in Euroids, Past is prologue | 1 Comment »

Hands in the viscera jar

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 6, 2007

Jihad Watch reports that the Boys from Tehran have been caught red-handed –– and, I take it, provably so — to be supplying the arms and bomb stuff that kills American soldiers in Iraq, and Iraqis.

The George Bush of even four years ago would take action, and maybe even firm action.  The George Bush of five years ago, and even Colin “James Baker” Powell, might even take double-plus firm action.

The weakened, politically ineffectual George Bush that I think inhabits the White House now — what is he going to do about it?   I can’t imagine.

Posted in Orient, Politics and Poker | 2 Comments »

That wicked, wicked man

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 6, 2007

Robert Cox offers a little perspective on presidents as targets for opprobrium.

Posted in Americana, Past is prologue, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Enraged?

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 4, 2007

Mickey Kaus:

A few days ago I speculated that Bush had to take a prominent role as champion of the immigration bill, even if that hurt its chances, because his goal is to convince Latinos that he, a Republican, achieved the legalization of illegals. A friend points out that I didn’t take the argument far enough: To really drive the Bush-as-Lincoln point home, Bush has to be seen as defending the bill against racist, anti-Latino opponents. That would explain why he has raised the race issue–e.g., “America must not fear diversity”–even though it has served to enrage the opposition.

Most of us are too exhausted for rage, though admittedly not all of us.  But the space opened up between presumptive, and indeed historical, Bush supporters (like me) and the White House just keeps stretching and yawning.

“American must not fear diversity”?!

Posted in Americana, Politics and Poker | 4 Comments »

Which ox does the goring

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 3, 2007

Instapundit links to the answer to the question, “What if Israelis had abducted BBC man?”

Throughout Mr Johnston’s captivity, the BBC has continually emphasised that he gave “a voice” to the Palestinian people, the implication being that he supported their cause, and should therefore be let out. One cannot imagine the equivalent being said if he had been held by Israelis.

Well, he is certainly giving a voice to the Palestinian people now. And the truth is that, although it is under horrible duress, what he says is not all that different from what the BBC says every day through the mouths of reporters who are not kidnapped and threatened, but are merely collecting their wages.

Ouch. But they don’t learn, as Charles Moore, the article’s author, makes it clear. Moral “equivalence”? We’re past that, and on the other side looking in. No one deserves it better than the BBC, but regrettably, it is not they, nor theirs, that pay the full price for what can be, at best, described as moral obtuseness — and which others describe as merely an aspect of long-held British contempt for the Jews.

Posted in Medialites, Orient | Leave a Comment »

Back off, Ivan

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 1, 2007

The Russians are going nuts, their pronouncements and threats sounding increasingly like the protests of the weak and desperate, not the confidence of the strong. They may be mostly for domestic consumption. But the weak and desperate can be mighty dangerous, especially when they have a demonstrated history of success with cultivating self-hating westerners by using the wedge between them and their own institutions and leadership — easy these days given the loathing of George W. Bush. This experience Russia has.politburo.jpg

Yet Condi parries nicely:

Russian attitudes are locked in the past, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday, adding that the United States is perplexed by the current fracas with Russia over a planned U.S. missile system in Europe.

“We want a 21st Century partnership with Russia, but at times, Russia seems to think and act in the zero-sum terms of another era,” Rice said, referring to the suspicions and territorial ambitions of the Cold War.

I think that’s well said. She is not backing off, but she is inviting the Russians to “man up” and move on. It won’t be that easy, but I think her tone is the right one.

UPDATE:   Vladimir Putin’s demonstrates how to win friends and influence people.

Posted in Euroids, Stragety | 7 Comments »

The White House gets lonelier

Posted by Ron Coleman on May 31, 2007

It must be May 32nd. My utterly alienated blogfather — Andrew Sullivan — and his (says me) replacement, Glenn Reynolds, are on the same page about the White House’s unreal attitude toward the immigration bill. Yes, we’re all disgusted: “It’s the arrogance and condescension that finally makes your blood boil.”

It’s not as if it hasn’t happened before. It’s of a piece with the Bush weakness for cronyism, which is a family trait not entirely unrelated to loyalty.

Now who could be less of a crony to the Bushes than a Mexican immigrant pulling weeds from your garden? Well, some people insist that this is about President Bush’s strong compassionate feeling for the unfortunate Mexican immigrants who just want to make a life for themselves. Who am I to gainsay that? I don’t know the President. But the cronyism I wrote about at the link above, which put the Harriet Meiers debacle into the context of the Dick Cheney nomination, can be added to the President’s insistence on standing by a mediocre Attorney General, to get the following sum:

George Bush is a man of principle. Popularity polls and even congressional elections do not sway him from what he believes is the right course of action — say, in Iraq. But being, in that way, the anti-Bill Clinton, George Bush relies on a small inner galaxy to direct his inclinations. The result is an inappropriate amount of trust in his inner circle, and almost a contempt — or deafness, perhaps — to popular sentiment, maybe even iced with enjoyment of swimming upstream.

That’s a lonely place to be, especially when your hunches don’t work out so well, and especially in your lame duck years in office. Bill Clinton would not lead politically; defiance of the popular will was only something he did while signing midnight pardons on the way out the door. George Bush leads with his heart to the extent that his White House condescends even to its grass roots supporters. Unlike Bill Clinton’s all-night carnival, the Bush White House seems like a lonely world to live in, but for the governed, it may be worse.

Next time, can we get something in between?

Posted in Americana, Politics and Poker | 3 Comments »

Serve me, or else.

Posted by Ron Coleman on May 31, 2007

Reuters says that eHarmony has been sued for running its business pursuant to its own moral — or business — compass:

The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

I am sure she was not “denied access to eHarmony.” From the sound of it, she was denied the provision of services eHarmony doesn’t provide: Homosexual dating. How does eHarmony explain itself?

eHarmony could not immediately be reached for comment. Commenting in the past on eHarmony’s gay and lesbian policy, [Dr. Neil Clark] Warren has said that he does not know the dynamics of same-sex relationships but he expects the principles to be different.

You’ve heard the commercials, probably. Dr. Warren, in his strained voice, talking about his touchy-feely personalized matchup process. You can buy into that or not; but what he sells is what he claims to know. Homosexual relationships, he says, he does not know. Tough luck, Dr. Warren. California law requires you to know.

This is particularly interesting because, again, contrary to the “denied access” claim, homosexuals have by all indications not been denied access — they just want a new division of the company started for them:

Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a “men seeking men” or “women seeking women” option.

The plaintiffs here are actually arguing that eHarmony is obligated not just to open up its existing service to people of all sexual predilections. It is requiring eHarmony to actually provide new services that it claims neither an interest nor any degree of expertise in, and which may require an outlay of millions of dollars. Let’s not even get into the moral preferences of the owners and management, which are presumed irrelevant by laws which outlaw discrimination against homosexuals or, in this case, may mandate the provision of special services to them.

Where are the libertarian defenders of free enterprise? We’ll see.

UPDATE:  The heavy lifters.

Posted in Americana, Lex scripta, O Mores! | 18 Comments »