Very good video, even though you probably know all this. Via The Corner. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:42 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

The system double-posted. So I'll make this an open thread. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:42 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

An amphibious assault ship? Like a ship designed to support a beach landing by Marines?

What the hell? Who the hell is talking about that? And why would they be talking about that?

There is a reason for some such ships, if you're going to launch airstrikes -- pilots may (likely: will) get shot down, and you're going to need, probably, some special forces and armored helicopters to recover them.

I don't like this, though. This isn't what I had in mind at all. There is national interest and there is national interest so great it justifies an invasion. Libya is the former but it is not the latter.

I guess I assume these are here for worst-case evacuation purpose. I assume that no one's planning a new Shores of Tripoli mission. Still, I also have a queasy feeling, all that stuff people kept saying about not getting involved at all because our government doesn't know when to say when.

United States will deploy additional amphibious ships to the Mediterranean, the military said on Friday, as part of the Obama administration's plans for responding to ongoing violence in Libya.

The USS Bataan Amphibious Ready Group will deploy on March 23 "ahead of its original schedule in order to relieve units from the USS Kearsarge (Amphibious Ready Group) currently positioned in the Mediterranean Sea," it said in a statement.

These ships carry choppers (and some Harriers) which I assume have ground-strike capabilities but Iraq has taught us -- I hope -- that helicopters are extremely vulnerable to all sorts of ground-fire, including fairly primitive types of ground-fire, and there is just no good reason to send a helicopter if a higher-flying plane is capable of doing the job (which it usually is... except for picking people up and dropping them off).

Update: Obama says no ground troops.

Posted by: Ace at 10:24 AM | Comments (365)
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

I used to say that plans like this weren't realistic. But the situation has changed, the Overton Window has moved, and what was unrealistic is now a lot more plausible. Plus, even if it's still not doable, it is always useful to push towards the right here.

Let us not presume that all federal agencies are needed. Zero-based budgeting: Every year an agency must argue for its relevance.

It's time to start cutting, seriously, and this seems serious. Via Hot Air.

Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., unveiled today his five-year path to a balanced budget, leaving several federal agencies behind. Among the items on the cutting room floor are the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce and Housing and Urban Development.

“There’s a lot of things in here that everybody could agree to, Republicans and Democrats, but nobody’s leading on the president’s side and on our side we felt we needed to put this forward to get the debate started, at the very least,” the freshman Senator explained at a Capitol Hill press conference this afternoon.

The proposal also calls for the repeal of “Obamacare,” but leaves entitlements untouched.

...

According to Paul, a Tea Party conservative, the proposal will bring spending to the “historic average since World War II” in just one year. He further claims the budget achieves a $19 billion surplus by FY2016 and will bring all non-military discretionary spending back to FY2008 levels.

"Leaving entitlements untouched" is a nice selling point to get these cuts enacted -- and all cuts are good -- but the fact is there is no way to balance our longer-term budget without some combination of jacking up taxes on those working or reducing some benefits for those retiring. There is no Option C. If you're in favor of full benefits, they you're also in favor of hiking taxes on workers to historic highs. That may be a lot of things but it's not remotely conservative.

So I presume Rand Paul means this would balance the budget only in the time frame proposed and, likely, only with respect to the non-entitlement side of things. But that's okay -- we are in such dire fiscal straights we need an All of the Above policy. If Paul is proposing to get the current operating budget side of things in shape -- good, that is one of the things we need.

We need other things, but we need that too.

Posted by: Ace at 09:44 AM | Comments (209)
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

A day or two ago I read (I think on NRO) a knock-down of the left's weird obsession with the Koch Brothers. The point was that the Kochs didn't contribute all that much, in the scheme of things, to the conservative cause, especially when compared to other high-dollar donors. Like George Soros, for example.

The article posited that the motivation for this personalized, particularized attack on the Koch brothers was to give the left a bugaboo to fear, in order to gin up emotion and fundraising dollars.

That's part of it, but I think there's another part that competes with that: The left likes talking about particular people, making particularized threats, because you can't really threaten an amorphous group like the Tea Party. Well, you can, but no particular person in the Tea Party will be strongly alarmed by the treat, being that it would be a generalized sort of blanket threat.

But you can threaten individuals and penalize their participation in the political process by physically harming them, threatening such harm, or just conducting general terror campaigns against them. You only need to suggest the possibility of violence -- or creepy, stalker-ish watching -- to take away a person's usual feeling of basic safety.

So I don't think the Koch brothers are being attacked, personally, just to gin up counter-fundraising on the left. I think they're being attacked, and threatened, in order to drive them from the public square entirely, and even more importantly, to let the next high-profile donor know in no uncertain terms: This could happen to you.

Maybe it's just best to let liberals get their way, eh? Otherwise -- shame if something happened.

That's why I think that Ann Althouse is being singled out by some lefties for threats. She's done original reporting, offered legal opinions contrary to the left's narrative, and contributed in important ways to the real narrative of lawless, violence-minded supporters of the unions. (Interesting, a lot of these people don't even belong to a union because they're either student radicals or unemployed radicals. They're just the black-bandana anarchist left looking for people to hurt.)

Therefore, Althouse needs to be terrorized, not just to scare her off, but to scare off the next person who takes a line not approved by the Party.

This could happen to you. Shame if you wound up harassed and looking over your shoulder every time you were on a public street.

Maybe it's just best to let the leftists have this one, eh?

We will harrass the ever loving shit out of you all the time. Campus is OCCUPIED. State street is OCCUPIED. The Square is OCCUPIED. Vilas, Schenk's Corners, Atwood, Willy Street – Occupied, Occupied, Occupied, Occupied. Did you really think it was all about the Capitol? Fuck the Capitol, we are the CITY... We have the numbers and we don't back down from anyone. We all know each other. We all know each other. We know each other from Service Industry Night at the Orpheum, because we're regulars at the same coffee shops, restaurants and bars, we know each other from the co-ops, we know each other because we've had a million jobs each (and we all worked at CapTel at least once), because we live in every shitty townie house in ever-changing groups of 2 – 7 people, because we are young and horny and screw each other incessantly, because we're all on facebook, and because we aren't anti-social, life-denying, world-sterilizing pieces of human garbage like the two of you. WE WILL FUCK YOU UP.

Dan Riehl tracked down the guy making the threat -- what a shock, he's a long-term unemployed radical who works as a freelance dishwasher.

And he's got some intriguing theories about the American political system.

Apart from his nasty rant, if Shankman, a self-defined “radical progressive” reminded me of anyone, it was Peggy Joseph, who, after hearing Obama speak in October of 2008 said, “I won’t have to work, I’ll put gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage.” Now, those perceived promises unfulfilled over two years into the Obama presidency, Shankman emphatically and repeatedly claims “Obama is the worst president in history.”

Asked about his politics, Shankman expressed no great regard for Democrats or union bosses and sees them as forces, combined with moderate Republicans, who pose a serious threat to America’s future. While denying he is a socialist, or Marxist, Shankman labeled his economic ideology “distributionist.” He believes we should divide the wealth of America across the population “so that everyone can buy a house,” feed and support themselves, starting over from there based upon some concept modeled somewhat after Catholic charity. He also believes in single payer health care and believes Obama has abandoned progressives on that issue.

He had a kind word for both Sarah Palin and Andrew Breitbart, not for their actual politics, but for advocating for what they believe and embracing the new media.

So, be on alert: If the media ever covers this threat (which they won't), here's your headline:

Radical Follower of Sarah Palin Threatens Law Professor

This skel then offers up his ideology:

Finally,as regards Ann Althouse, Shankman said he believes in what he called the “law of privilege.” As best as I could interpret it, it meant that if the majority of Madison residents were progressive and didn’t want an Ann Althouse in their midst, then they are somehow entitled to make it unpleasant enough for her to live there, so that she’ll leave.

The "law of privilege." I guess that's a pretty good sum-up of the leftist mentality. They can violate any law because they have a special privilege to do so.

Posted by: Ace at 08:41 AM | Comments (222)
Post contains 976 words, total size 6 kb.

If Democrats can't win at the ballot box, in the legislature or even on the streets, there's always the courts.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order Friday, barring the publication of a controversial new law that would sharply curtail collective bargaining for public employees.

SumiÂ’s order will prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law until she can rule on the merits of the case. Dane County Ismael Ozanne is seeking to block the law because he says a legislative committee violated the stateÂ’s open meetings law.

Sumi said Ozanne was likely to succeed on the merits.

Via Brian Faughnan and Sean Hackbarth.

From Kevin Binversie who follows Wisconsin politics...

Well, this news proves it doesn't matter what your argument is in Dane Co., if you're a liberal, you're gonna get your way.

More via Gabe, the judge in this case said earlier this week that she was unlikely to rule on this today since she's going on vacation until March 28th. Two days later, she reverses herself and then heads for the door.

Ah, the joys of being a liberal.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:45 AM | Comments (235)
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

Alrighty then.

Several administration officials held a classified briefing for all senators on Thursday afternoon in the bowels of the Capitol building, leaving lawmakers convinced President Barack Obama is ready to attack Libya but wondering if it isn't too late to help the rebels there.

...Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) told reporters that he expected the military operations to be run out of Sicily, where NATO Base Sigonella and U.S. Naval Air Station Sigonella are located.

"I know we have naval assets that are some distance away, so this would have to be U.S. Air Force Europe that would have the majority load for the time being, if the order is given," said Kirk.

And what exactly are we fighting for in Libya? According to the UN resolution adopted yesterday, to protect civilians and get a ceasefire.

Are we in this to overthrow the Gadaffi regime and hang him high? Maybe, maybe not. The resolution is open to political interpretation. If we can't kill him and the rebels can't overthrow him, then what? Are we going to send in ground troops to grab him on War Crime charges like we did with various thugs in the Balkans and Somalia?

These may well be worthy goals but it seems this is the kind of thing that should be laid out before you start dropping bombs on people's heads. Once you do that, failure either isn't an option (and you escalate until you win like in the Balkans) or you suffer the consequences of being ineffective (like we did in Somalia).

What if Kadaffi follows through on his promise of a ceasefire before the bombs start dropping? I doubt he will but if he does, do we say, "Oh. Um, great. Let's call that a win and head home"? Or do we need to boost the rebels up in their drive to overthrow him by providing air cover for their offensive?

Again, what exactly are we signing up for and how we will know it when we see it? Seems this is the kind of thing you layout before you commit American troops to their 3rd war in a Muslim nation, not after you've committed troops to the battle.

I'm not demanding an "exit strategy" like silly liberals do. On the other hand, I think honestly laying out the goals of a military campaign is a vital part of making the decision to go to war in a democracy. Speaking of which, will Obama submit this little adventure for congressional approval?

It seems there are an awful lot of unanswered basic questions. For a guy who complained we recklessly went into Iraq (after 6 months or more of debate and preparation) he seems to be running off pretty quickly into a French led, UN sponsored African adventure. I'm not sure much good can come from that combination.

Another question: What's our national interest here? As best I can tell, it's putting two in Qadaffie's forehead. We owe him that many. There should be no expiration date on national vengeance. "We never forget" is something wannabe enemies should factor into their decision making process. But I haven't heard Obama make that (or any) case.

Beyond that, what? Protecting the rebels is nice but not our problem. I was more amiable to the idea when they were on the outskirts of Tripoli three weeks ago. Now they have a long way to go to get back there. Are we flying top cover for that?

Well, I'm sure it will buy us plenty of good will in the Muslim world. You know like Kuwait, Bosnia and Somalia did before 9/11.

You know how you can tell there's no definable American interest involved (beyond killing Gadaffi on general principles)? The UN, the Euros and a guy like Obama are for it.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:12 AM | Comments (199)
Post contains 648 words, total size 4 kb.

Just some quick hits today:

Victorville, CA: Boned!

Dingy Harry: Don't sweat Social Security! All is well! We've got two decades before we have to worry! By the way, and on a completely unrelated note, I'll probably be dead by then so what do I care if it collapses or not?" (Translation: LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA.)

Speaking of Social Security: Means-testing won't do shit to solve the problem because you'd have to define "rich" so far down that someone barely making $50K per year would have to be shoehorned into the "rich" basket to make means-testing have much impact. (The problem isn't that too many rich people get SS; the problem is that too many poor and middle-class people get it.) It would also expose the program for being the wealth-transfer welfare program it's been all along. (There is some good news hidden in the Social Security bad news, though: Americans are living longer. I'll be able to slave away in the salt-mines until I'm ninety, at this rate! Yay me!)

Teh Krugman finally notices something that has been obvious to most of us for a long time now: The Obama Administration really doesn't give a damn about the unemployed. We can infer this by the fact that nothing Obama has done so far is intended to grow the economy -- every action Obama has taken is intended to expand the reach of the government and the welfare-state. (Of course to Krugman this means MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!!!, but this also is something we all knew without having to read a word he wrote.)

The sovereign-debt crisis has moved to the back pages in the wake of the natural disaster in Japan and the unrest in the Middle East, but it didn't just go away: Portugal is next in line on the ECB's bailout train. It's becoming a rule of thumb in the Eurozone that a bailout becomes inevitable a couple of days after the leader of the country gives an interview assuring everyone that they definitely won't need a bailout. Spain is next in line, and that's the end of the whole farce, really: there isn't enough money in the whole Eurozone to bail out Spain.

And in other DOOM!-related news: Japan has conceded that the last resort to solving the nuclear-meltdown threat at their crippled Fukushima nuclear plant will be to adopt the "Chernobyl Solution": bury the site under many tons of sand and concrete, and then build a lead-lined crypt over it. The massive need for Yen liquidity on the part of the Japanese government has caused a spike in USD-JPY spreads, but the Yen is sinking back down as the liquidity move completes.

[UPDATE]

More good news: New York Fed confirms intervention in currency markets. Everybody on the money train, baby! (h/t MarkC in the comments.)

[UPDATE 2]

Cost of living in the US is the highest in history. Combine that with high unemployment and record-low labor participation, and what do you have? Obamanomics, baby! Break out your boogie shoes and dance the night away! (Via Instapundit.)
more...

Posted by: Monty at 05:06 AM | Comments (174)
Post contains 615 words, total size 4 kb.

Almost a month ago, we had a poll here asking whether western powers should intervene in Libya. At that time, Gadhaffi had just begun fighting back against the rebels and there was particular concern that his air force gave him an insurmountable advantage. Hence, the no-fly proposal. You guys overwhelmingly said "no intervention."

Since then, there has been a great deal more information to answer the questions I raised in that post -- is intervention practical, legal, ethical?

The military has the means to contribute to an intervention force, particularly with the other NATO powers involved, but the testimony of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to Congress is that another war would stretch the military a little thin.

On the legal front, the UN has blessed intervention, so international law is no obstacle. But as I wrote last month, domestic law is the real legal issue. Andrew McCarthy seems to think that intervention will require a congressional declaration of war (which typically takes the form of an Authorization for the Use of Military Force these days). On the other hand, James Joyner notes "that ship sailed" with the War Powers Act, which authorized certain military operations without further congressional action.

On the ethics front, the State Department has been emphasizing that the purpose of intervention would be to protect civilians, not to regime build. But Andrew Exum identified some other ethical issues:

What happens if Gadhafi pulls back? Do we continue to try and press the advantage of the rebels until his government falls? Do we have the authorization to do that? Do we expect a civil war in Libya to drag out, and if so, how will we take sides? If Gadhafi falls, what comes next? What will the new Libyan government look like? Will they be friendly to U.S. interests? Someone please tell me how this ends.

A lot of the things I have been reading have been along the lines of, "After the dictator falls, everything will be alright," which sounds awfully familiar to Iraq '03 veterans. I would hope that this time around, we are planning Phase IV and have a clear vision for how stabilization and reconstruction should go.

Though I believe that the U.S. military has the ability to contribute to intervention and that it would be legal to do so (including under domestic law), I do not support intervention because I believe the questions Exum asks have not been answered. What is being proposed is another war without an exit strategy, or at least one in which the exit is so contingent on a series of events that there is basically no end date. Gadhaffi is bad, literally a raging lunatic, but we don't know who will replace him. And I question the morality of sending U.S. service members to fight -- and die -- in a place where no one has identified any U.S. interests.

That does not mean that the President has done the right thing with respect to Libya. Like Ace wrote yesterday, Obama's waffling is likely costing Libyan lives. It would be better if he had committed U.S. support and then followed through than his present policy of committing U.S. support and then waiting to see all the Libyans who took him at his word get shot in the head.

The President needed to keep his trap shut while he decided what to do. This is one of those occasions when his endless speechifying actually has a demonstrable result. And that result is to get a whole bunch of people killed when his actions inevitably fall short of his words. That's Obama's MO: first, give a nice speech; second, golf.

I have no doubt that with NATO gearing up for intervention and Secretary Clinton making the President look like an idiot child, the U.S. will soon be joining the effort. A belated bold move will be how the President tries to save face. And I also don't doubt that the sycophants in the Make Believe Media will hail this as "leadership."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:33 AM | Comments (180)
Post contains 688 words, total size 5 kb.

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:43 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.