Blame Bush.

Oh, wait. That's last month's snark.

Thank Nancy Pelosi.

She's manipulated the laws of time and space to effect changes in wages over the course of the past year.

American paychecks are rising again at a pace not seen since the 1990s.
ADVERTISEMENT

The pay increase amounts to 4 percent on average over the past 12 months, and it comes at a very helpful time for millions of households.

For three years, pay increases haven't kept pace with the rising cost of living. Then came this year's housing slowdown, which has further squeezed family finances.

Those setbacks, however, are now being offset by rising income. Four percent may not sound like much, but you have to look back to 1997 to find a calendar year with a gain that big.

Equally significant, tamer energy prices mean that the "real" wage gains, after inflation, are above 3 percent for the past 12 months. That, too, hasn't happened since the 1990s, even though the economy has been expanding over the past five years.

"The striking feature of this expansion has been that ... real wages for the typical worker haven't risen that much," says Richard Berner, US economist at the investment bank Morgan Stanley in New York. But with real incomes rising, he says, "you get a picture of an economy that can weather this housing storm."

The risk of recession hasn't disappeared, he and other economists say. But with a fairly tight job market and low unemployment, many expect that paychecks will keep rising solidly in 2007.

Doesn't this mean that Bush is currently responsible for a faster wage rise than Clinton was in the last three years of his Presidency, also known as the Crowning Halo of the Miracle Economy?

Posted by: Ace at 11:52 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Great bit from Jules Crittendon of the Boston Herald:

What we have to do to influence Iran is explain that if Iran does not begin to cooperate with the international community, we will substantially isolate Iran and destroy its means of supporting terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons. This can be done incrementally, to give the Iranians an opportunity to reconsider their policy. Our Navy, not hyper-extended in Iraq, can blockade their ports. Our Air Force, also not hyper-extended in Iraq, can begin reducing their terrorist-support infrastructure. Things like oil fields, refineries and roads leading toward Syria and suspected nuclear sites. This can continue ... pretty much as long as the Iranians want it too.

If in fact we find an actual nuclear weapon, or one explodes anywhere in the world, the Iranians -- and the North Koreans as well -- need to know that we will assume it was theirs, and act accordingly. This may encourage them to turn their intelligence agencies and terrorist networks to better use.

If we are going to sit down and talk to the Iranians as the Iraq Study Group is expected to recommend, then this is the message that needs to be signalled loud and clear.

It's a policy I call Assured Destruction, because unlike the Cold War, there doesn't have to be anything mutual about it.

At any point along this path, if it turns out that they were just kidding, and it was all a big mistake, that will be too bad. For them.

Crittendon notes that we do not need to invade Iran. (Except, perhaps, to send in a large column of rapidly-moving mechanized forces with one and only one goal: secure and destroy Iran's nuclear materials and equpment, then quickly move out and move on. NO NATION BUILDING.)

We can't invade Iran; Iraq has one-third it's population, and that's been, as Tony Blair said, a disaster (or at least disaster-ish). So that's off the table.

But an invasion -- with the attendant "stabilizing" and "nation building" -- is actually a "compassionate conservative" method of warfare. It is far less costly to us to merely smash the means of state control and let the chaos fluourish and sort itself out.

It's not that nation building isn't an admirable goal, or that, were it less costly, we would prefer to honor Colin Powell's claim that "You break it, you bought it." But Iraq has taught us this is simply too costly -- even if it would be nice to rebuild Iran as the state the Iranian people deserve, we know it's not possible, at least not possible in terms of any price we're willing (or even capable) of paying, given that so much of our military is bogged down in Iraq.

Colin Powell should go hang. The new mantra should be "You own it, so if you want to keep it in fair working condition, you ought to not provoke us into breaking it."

And we do need to be deadly serious about announcing our nuclear intentions -- that any rogue nuclear state is automatically a potential target for nuclear strikes should a bomb blow be blown up anywhere by any non-state or unknown actor. This is just common sense. We have been proactive about announcing our policy in the past; why are we now squeamish about telling these people, up-front, precisely what the costs will be should a nuke be detonated in a city of America or an American ally?

One thing that bothers me -- and this goes back to the Balkans. America has become rather childish about arming potential rebels against enemy states. The idea always seems to be that we cannot arm rebels or revolutionaries, because they might engage in terrorism themselves from time to time, or that it exacerbates the infamous "cycle of violence."

This is nonesense, and it's time to get back to an eighties/Cold War frame of mind on this. America seems to have the idea that only America, or other Western states, can be trusted to make war on tyrants; rebels and revolutionaries are prone to doing terrible, criminal things on occasion. Whereas American (and Western) troops are far more disciplined about war crimes.

But this leaves us with an unsatisfying binary choice -- either do the war yourself, or don't do it at all.

The hell with that. Sympathetic proxies served us well throughout our history. True, they will on occasion be every bit as thuggish and terroristic as the terrorist regimes we oppose. But such evils can be countennanced in order to destroy a greater evil.

At some point we may want to consider simply air-dropping in crates of guns, ammo, radios, and explosives into Iran. We hardly have to fear the government seizing such caches of weapons; they've already got all the guns they might want. But if there truly is a nascent movement that could possibly oppose the Iranian government, isn't it time we started giving them the tools to do so?

If the truism that the citizens fear a government with guns, but a government fears as citizenry with guns holds for America, why not Iran, or North Korea, or any of these other basket-case countries out there? Why should they be the exporters of destabilizing violence and chaos and not have a bit of that imported into their own countries?

Crittendon's piece, by the way, opens with a useful discussion of reporter/toadies like Seymore Hirsh "fighting the last media war" -- that is, now believing they were "duped" into thinking Saddam had WMD's (as everyone, including Saddam himself, seems to have believed), many are now determined to ignore the rather obvious evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and claim there's nothing at all to fear from Ahmadinejad.

Apparently such reporters believe that, having gotten the story wrong in Iraq, they can correct their mistake by getting it even more wrong in Iran.

Posted by: Ace at 11:47 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 991 words, total size 6 kb.

Read it yourself. It may be that it says what you imagine beforehand it ought to say, because I read it as basically validating my educated-guesswork about standard police policy on this.

But Jim Treacher says that based on his reading (which may include sources besides this one) the UCPD has a more flexible poicy on the Taser than LAPD.

To me, the main thrust of the policy is that Tasing is permitted to subdue or control a potentially violent suspect or suspect violenntly resisting arrest. I think the protestor/douchebag who was Tased was pretty obviously both "subdued" and "controlled." He also wasn't cooperating, but he definitely was subdued and controlled.

One line mentions that a Taser can be used with a "skirimish line" is formed -- presumably against rioters or a mass of protestors -- when "passive resistors" are encontered. I suppose that can be read as justifying the tasing, but it seems strained to me. That seems to cover the situation when you're facing a lot of demonstrators, and need to assert control over the situation, and may not have the time or manpower to physically carry every protestor into the paddy wagon.

When there's just one guy, you really have all the time in the world.

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

Great piece from Dr. Sanity.

The media enhance their own moral superiority by their distortions and manage to portray themselves as "brave rebels" who stand up against evil. But the truth is that it is far too risky to stand up against the real evil. Their courage only extends far enough to allow them to criticize people like Tony Blair and George Bush. Why, it would be far too dangerous for them personally to confront the real threat--those who are determined--no matter how much carnage it takes--to destroy the lives of millions in Iraq.

This psychological defense mechanism is referred to as "displacement", and it is the psycholgical basis of Bush Derangement Syndrome, as well as the tendency of many to conveniently blame America (and Britain) and Israel for every problem in the world.

One way you can usually tell that psychological displacement is being used is that the emotion being displaced (e.g., anger or fear) is all out of proportion to the reality of the situation. The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with the actual reality. Instead, by using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger, but it is directed at a less threatening target than the real cause. In this way, the individual does not have to be responsible for the consequences of his/her anger and feels more safe--even thought that is not the case.

And, in the case of the MSM, the side effect of the displacement is that they can safely denounce "evil" and be the "brave rebels" without having to risk anything! From their perspective, their courage and daring knows no bounds! Why, at any minute, the fascist, torturing, despicable regimes of Bush, Blair etc. etc. might come for them and put them in death camps! Yeah, right.

In order for them to be brave, they must, of course, play up the evil of the forces they are "speaking truth" to. Hence all the exaggeration of mistakes that Bush and Blair have made. Exaggeration all out of proportion to reality--while almost completely ignoring the real atrocities that are committed on a daily basis by those we fight against in Iraq.

This confessional by author Pat Conroy, "Confessions of an American Coward," is worth reading too:

I looked for some conclusion, a summation of this trip to my teammate's house. I wanted to come to the single right thing, a true thing that I may not like but that I could live with. After hearing Al Kroboth's story of his walk across Vietnam and his brutal imprisonment in the North, I found myself passing harrowing, remorseless judgment on myself. I had not turned out to be the man I had once envisioned myself to be. I thought I would be the kind of man that America could point to and say, "There. That's the guy. That's the one who got it right. The whole package. The one I can depend on." It had never once occurred to me that I would find myself in the position I did on that night in Al Kroboth's house in Roselle , New Jersey... an American coward spending the night with an American hero.

The points are related. Because lefties will, of course, say, "But you're a coward! How dare you accuse anyone else!"

Well, here's the thing. The left denigrates the moral and physical courage of our military men because they are too childish in their imaginations to admit of anyone who has finer qualities than they in any respect. Thus the troops' courage becomes, in their minds, at best simply the product of misguided thinking or economic desperation and at worst abject stupidity and benightedness.

On the other hand, I have little problem admitting, straight-up, these men are far more brave than I am. There's the physical courage of actually fighting, of course. But there's also the moral courage of being willing to suffer deprivation, loneliness, and physical exhaustion on a daily basis to acheive something important.

The difference between the left and the right on this isn't that those on the right who do not serve are "cowardly chickenhawks" ahile those on the left are principled "peace warriors." The fact is that those who don't serve obviously do not have the guts and intestinal fortitude of those who do -- only those on the right are willing to admit this, while those on the left prefer to flatter themselves by denigrating the troops' courage as the product of stupidity. Anyone who chooses not to serve is, by comparison with those who do, cowardly to some extent by comparison. But it's only the left which is determined to claim their own "fight" -- the brave "war" against the Bush regime -- is in fact every bit as courageous as the fight of a Marine in the al-Anbar province, if not more so.

Posted by: Ace at 10:44 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 821 words, total size 5 kb.

Note: I wrote this pre-election. I threw it into draft because it seemed too defeatist to write before the elections. Lefties who charge I withheld my true feelings -- well, I did, and the reason for that is that whatever I think about Iraq, I'm pretty sure the Democrats' various plans are worse than the Republican ones.

And, as I wrote in the beginning of this, "I waver on this." Some days I see reason for hope, other days I think, "Let them all go to hell together, hand in hand and knife on throat."

Anyway, this is what I wrote. The references to scorpions and frogs have to do with the old parable about the scorpion riding on the frog's back across a river, then stinging the frog when they're midway across. When the frog cries, "Now we'll both die! Why would you do that?," the scorpion answers, "Because it's my nature."

...

I waver on this. As much as part of me wants to say we have to win this, and that defeat will be disasterous, another part of me says there's no damn winning this at all in any clear sense, and that, at this point, I could care less if the Sunni terrorists and the Iranian-friendly Shiites and Al-Sadr simply kill each other until the country is stabilized through violent depopulation.

Win what, exactly?, I wonder at this point.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:42 PM | Comments (88)
Post contains 1282 words, total size 7 kb.

Is there any other choice?

The reality is that we cannot live safely with a nuclear-armed Iran. One reason is terrorism, of which Iran has long been the world's premier state sponsor, through groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Now, according to a report last week in London's Daily Telegraph, Iran is trying to take over Al Qaeda by positioning its own man, Saif Adel, to become the successor to the ailing Osama bin Laden. How could we possibly trust Iran not to slip nuclear material to terrorists?

Koppel says that we could prevent this by issuing a blanket warning that if a nuclear device is detonated anywhere in the United States, we will assume Iran is responsible. But would any U.S. president really order a retaliatory nuclear strike based on an assumption?

Another reason is that an Iranian bomb would constitute a dire threat to Israel's 6 million-plus citizens. Sure, Israel could strike back, but Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who was Ahmadinejad's "moderate" electoral opponent, once pointed out smugly that "the use of an atomic bomb against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while [the same] against the Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not inconceivable." If that is the voice of pragmatism in Iran, would you trust deterrence against the messianic Ahmadinejad?

The old-school realists -- and the new crop of liberal super-fans of realpolitik -- think there are other choices. Militant, expansionistic, hegemonic, violent, savage Islam is just a threat (if that) like any other. And like all other threats, they can be placated with a mix of appeasements and surrenders.

They scoff at the idea this is a wholly new threat, one that simply will not stop until it achieves its goals, which it has not been shy about declaring on a daily basis.

But they're quite sure this is a threat just like any other, because, after all, we've never, never, in all of our history, faced an enemy with an inherently racist and manichean goal of world subjugation and mass slaughter, an enemy which not shy in the least about announcing precisely these plans in daily speeches to its fanatical followers.

Since that's never happened before, obviously, it's very unlikely it could happen in the future. As physicists say, that which can happen, does happen, that which does not happen, cannot happen.

There's never been such a vile, violent, racist, mannichean enemy in our past, so it can't happen in our future.

Except... the one problem is... it did happen before. And it's not exactly a secret. There have been like five or six books written about it and everything.

And that war didn't stop until more than sixty million people were dead.

An atomic weapons were only invented at the end of that war.

By the way... For those whose hearts bleed over the death of every victim of war -- so long as they're not American and/or Jews -- a large-scale conventional bomb-strike on Iran may, possibly, obviate the well-nigh-inevitable nuclear attack on Iran.

If liberals think their fellow Americans are the sort to watch innocent countries get nuked -- perhaps even our own -- and yet abstain from some apocalyptic nuclear counter-fire themselves (so we can show them we're better than they are!!!), liberals have, as usual, badly misread their fellow Americans.

Posted by: Ace at 05:09 PM | Comments (93)
Post contains 557 words, total size 4 kb.

Michelle Malkin.

Atlas Shrugged with some very graphic (SERIOUS CONTENT WARNING) of the Religion of Beheading and/or Peace as practiced in Indonesia. She says the pictures were smuggled out of the country to her.

There are those who shriek in high dudgeon when it's suggested that, at some point, it may be necessary to kill off an awful lot of the Islamic world to secure our own lives. It's unthinkable, at least to them.

Not to me. It's not a move I yearn for us to take, but rational people have to accept the possibility that if peaceful coexistance is not possible, than the only two alternatives are unending war or a war that ends quickly because one side is so decimated by casualties they can no longer make war.

Again, I don't yearn for this. But if anyone looks at the pictures of the barbarity proudly displayed here -- barbarity which garners support from at least 20% of the Islamic world -- and tells me that we should just not even contemplate the grim choices we will have in the future, I say to them: Fuck off. I'm living in the real world. If it's too nasty for you, shriek at the world, not at me.

I think what a lot of these people mean, but won't say, is that it's actually about time to consider giving Israel to the Muslims, and let them wipe out most of the Jews. Not because they're anti-semitic, but because they figure it's better to have 10 million lives snuffed out than perhaps 100 million or more.

I'm not terribly sure about that. If eight thugs have to be shot and killed to save the life of innocent victim, we don't just crunch the raw numbers and say that fewer will die if we let the thugs murder the victim. There is the little problem of morality, and who, exactly, is bringing violence into the situation.

Furthermore, the notion that these people will stop after Israel is laughable.

Those who refuse to consider what we may have to do in the future to save our own lives are simply being childish. They don't wish to think about such a thing, therefore anyone who does is a "bloodthirsty eliminationist racist."

During the Cold War, we had nuclear strategists thinking about possible all-out nuclear war with Russia day in, day out. That didn't make them "anti-Russian bigots." It just meant that, unlike most, they were clearheaded enough to think about extremely unpleasant possibilities.

Thanks for the tip to Malkin and Atlas Shrugged to Birkel.

Posted by: Ace at 04:30 PM | Comments (124)
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

Great video.

Dean Esmay has a bit of context on the man who wrote the text-- Rabbi Meir Kahane, who himself is a terrorist.

One can be quite wrong about something and yet still manage to say something else 100% right.

Posted by: Ace at 04:15 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

I meant to do one of these for The Presige, as people kept revealing spoilers. I didn't get to it in time to stop the damage, though. So this time I'll be proactive.

If you want to discuss Casino Royale, with spoilers, do so here. One thing: What you write appears in the "New Comments" thing, at least the first hundred characters or so. So please start your comments with either spoiler-free stuff, or just write "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" to fill the first hundred characters up with gibberish.

Posted by: Ace at 12:48 PM | Comments (82)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

It all starts crackling good, then goes off the rails in an ending so anti-climactic and interminable you'll wish you were back watching nine hours of goodbyes in The Return of the King.

For about two thirds of its running length, this is one of the best Bond movies ever. Then a curious combination of over-fidelity to the book, coupled with a contradictory impulse to change the ending of the book, leads to a meandering denoument that largely makes you forget how good everything was before the ill-advised Act Four. (There's a reason movies have three, not four, acts, and Casino Royale will be cited in future sceenwriting classes as an example of what happens when you add that superfluous fourth act.)

It's only remembering the movie later you again realize, "Hey, the first two thirds were terrific!"

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:57 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 3341 words, total size 19 kb.