Halliburton

Seven Halliburton employees were among the those killed in the attacks in Mosul yesterday. That brings the number of Halliburton employees killed while in Iraq to 62. Presumably many of the 62 were killed before the election, but, for the life of me, I don't remember the mainstream media ever mentioning the fact that the company that they were busily ridiculing and holding up as a vicious war profiteer was losing, what, an employee a week to the terrorists?

The Halliburton smear was always an example of the media's lack of perspective on the difficulties of managing a huge enterprise under impossible circumstances 10,000 miles around the other side of the world, together with a lack of understanding of basic economics and a completely socialistic, knee-jerk aversion to the whole idea of making profits of any kind. Now, it appears, it was also a lack of basic human decency.

To the Halliburton employees lost, may the souls of the faithful departed and through the mercy of Christ rest in peace.

Washington Recount (Update)

The inevitable has apparently happened. Because King County was the last county to finalize their hand recount, the Democrats knew precisely how many votes they would need to overcome Dino Rossi's margin of victory, and they have managed to find almost precisely the right number of votes, yielding (supposedly) an 8-vote victory for Christine Gregoire. Litigation will ensue, with Democrats claiming the supposed high ground because Gregoire was in the lead after the supposedly more accurate hand recount.

I am not going to dwell on my previous posts' point that none of these recounts (or the original count, for that matter) are "accurate." Machines aren't that accurate, the people feeding the ballots into the machines aren't that accurate, and people doing hand recounts are never going to be accurate to within a handful of votes out of 2.9 million cast. As I've said before, it can't happen, and forget about the politics or "voter fraud" -- it can't happen as a matter of mathematics, physics, biology, whatever. Not on this planet, not with human beings running things.

No, the important point is... how do we fix our political system so that these types of shenannigans don't happen again? We probably can't -- again, the human factor will mean that the best laid plans of mice and men etc. etc. -- but here's one solution that will solve the specific problem that Washington faced and Republicans faced in Illinois in the 1960 election between JFK and Nixon. The specific problem is that when politicians are permitted to "hold out" precincts or counties until all the other precincts or counties have reported, they will be in a position to know how many votes they need to win, and the "moral hazard" of that situation means that interested parties who want to win will either commit fraud (find ballots, create ballots, lie about the ballots that exist), or else will unwittingly slant their judgments about what counts as a vote (hanging chads, etc.). The specific solution is that all counties should be required to report at the same time on the same day. That way, none of the counties or precincts will "know" what number of votes their side needs to win. Alternatively, it could be a requirement that the tallies for counties that report early will be kept secret (you could hire an accounting firm like the Oscars do). Still another alternative that isn't as good: you could have a random selection of the order in which counties will report.

I think the Washington governor's election is being stolen. But I also think that the result was inevitable once it became obvious that King County would be permitted to report last. Letting a Democratic County report last in a hand recount in a close election where the election officials (Democratic) know how many votes they need to win is like leaving your front door open with a neon sign flashing in your window saying "WE'RE LEAVING HOME FOR CHRISTMAS... PLEASE ROB US!" Human beings being what they are, it was all predictable.

Rumsfeld and the Auto-Pen

Full disclosure: Don Rumsfeld in the early 1950s was the college roommate and, in the 1970s, boss, of former Secretary of the Army Martin Hoffmann, who, in turn was my college girlfriend's dad (and all around great guy). Rumsfeld also was a member of my eating club at Princton, Cap and Gown, which just goes to show you that an Ivy League education can lead you to wealth, fame and accomplishment (Rumsfeld) or not (me), depending, I suspect, on things other than where you went to school -- work habits, guts, ambition, focus, etc. I also admire the way he has performed as Secretary of Defense, and think he has gotten just about everything right. Lest we forget -- stunning, quick triumphs in Afghanistan and Iraq that no one predicted. Great stuff.

I also think Rumsfeld has gotten a bad rap for his recent comments to a planted question by a trooper in Iraq about "up-armoring" Humvees. Rumsfeld was, in fact, very gentle in his remarks to the effect that the DOD and the Army were looking at the problem, and doing their best to solve it as fast as they can, but that we have to do our jobs with what we have rather than wait -- a la George McClellan -- for the perfect army at the perfect moment that never comes. I might have been tempted to use the term "candyass," and call the troops' attention to the fact that 60 years ago today the 101st Airborne had things just a wee bit tougher at Bastogne. But that's me, and that's another reason why he's SecDef, and I'm BlogDoofus.

Having said that, the current kerfuffle about the revelation that Rumsfeld uses an Autopen to sign letters of condolence to the families of American soldiers and Marines killed in action is, unfortunately, one in which I have to side with the critics. Yes, he's busy. Yes, other high level officials have done the same thing. Yes, the critics are mostly animated by a "get Rummy" urge that is purely political.

But.... there are things you don't do. There are things that are sacred. I can't quite express it, but I know Mr. Rumsfeld understands this. There are some tasks that have to done correctly, because to do them incorrectly is not to do them at all. And this is not a question of political correctness or even moral correctness, but spiritual correctness. You don't sign a letter of condolences to a grieving wife or mother who has laid the most costly sacrifice on the altar of freedom (cribbing Lincoln's famous letter) with a machine! It just isn't done.

There are still only (only!) slightly more than a thousand deaths in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq we're into our 21st month of the conflict. That means we're at 50 letters a month, or about 10-15 a week. A couple a day. If you can't write 'em, at least sign 'em. Scratch a personal note at the bottom. It's the least you can do for those who have given so much.

Rummy should have known better and, in fact, does know better.

Update on the Washington Recount

I said more than a week ago that the Washington governor's race recount was an extraordinary waste of energy -- a waste, that is, if your goal was a more "accurate" election tally. If, however, your goal is to steal the election, the Washington recount is apparently going swimmingly for the Democrats. The American Thinker has an update, as does SoundPolitics.com.

The best point is made in the American Thinker piece -- essentially, it is that the only reliable count is always the first count, because that is the only one in which no one knows what the outcome will be. Once people know how many votes they need in order to "win," moral hazard kicks in, and the votes will be miraculously "found."

The only thing standing between us and chaos is the "supreme fiction" (as the great American poet Wallace Stevens would say) of the rule of law. Given the chance, man will sin, because men are sinners. That's what they do. In Washington, we are seeing the temptation of power and the perquisites that go with it acting upon weak human flesh. There are felonies being committed in Washington right now that would constitute the predicate acts for a federal racketeering investigation, if any one chose to go that route. How do I know for sure? Come on. Better question: who doesn't know that this election is being stolen? Even better question: will the mainstream media cover it?

Battle of the Bulge (Update)

Amazingly, since I mentioned it yesterday, CNN today has a story up about Lyle Bouck, the father of a boyhood baseball teammate. He sounds like a very nice man, and typical of that "greatest generation" in that he didn't trumpet his own heroism, but just came home and went back to working and living and raising a family. What's wonderful about America is how average men do extraordinary things when called upon by their country.

It is also interesting to note how a writer can capture and frame an event through the story of one man that then becomes emblematic of that event for all time. Michael Shaara's great The Killer Angels made Joshua Chamberlain the face of Gettysburg; Stephen Ambrose's Band of Brothers has made Dick Winters the face of D-Day; now Mr. Bouck appears to be becoming the face of the Bulge through Alex Kershaw's new book.

Battle of the Bulge

Today is the sixtieth anniversary of the opening of the Germans' counterattack in the Ardennes in 1944 that became known as the "Battle of the Bulge." The battle has been chronicled (badly) in the Henry Fonda movie of the same name, and (wonderfully) in the HBO series Band of Brothers, which followed the 101st Airborne through the war and showed their heroic stand at Bastogne. I hope that the media fully recognizes and celebrates today's anniversary, and that we all take time to pray for the souls of the faithful departed who did so much and sacrificed so much in that harrowing time. A special remembrance goes out to Lyle Bouck, the father of a boyhood baseball teammate of mine, whose platoon heroically delayed the Nazis' advance, as told in Alex Kershaw's The Longest Winter.

Conservatives and Academia

Professor Bainbridge is debating Jonathan Chait of the New Republic on the question of why there are so few conservatives in academia. Essentially, they are both partially right. Bainbridge argues that there is institutional bias in the hiring process in favor of liberals. So there is. One of my favorite stories is how a very good interview I had with the Indiana University English Department came crashing down when I noted that I would include among the non-fiction books I might teach as "literature" Whittaker Chambers' autobiography Witness. I could have farted and it wouldn't have had the same jaw-dropping, how-do-we-get-this-guy-out-of-here effect.

On the other hand, one of Chait's arguments is that conservatives often self-select for occupations other than academia, often because they are higher-paying. So they do.... for instance, I opted to go back to law school after getting my Ph.D. and spending a desultory few years teaching precisely because I wanted to make a decent living, support my family, send my children to Catholic schools, etc. Chait thinks that making such a choice is a sign that conservatives are greedy or lack idealism or a willingness to sacrifice material comforts. I disagree -- supporting your family by working a hard job rather than continuing to live the "life of the mind" (which is also coincidentally a life with very nice hours) is idealistic and self-sacrificing.

The bulk of Chait's argument, however, is typical conservatives-are-stupid-and-liberals-are-smart tripe, and Bainbridge is right to rip him. That tack is the oldest and most tedious ad hominem argument in the book... no need to argue logically, since my opponent is an imbecile. Imagine if I tried that in court... "your Honor, I would be happy to argue the facts or present real legal argument based upon case law that has precedential authority in this jurisdiction, but I think we should win simply because my opponent didn't go to a high-ranking undergraduate institution like Princeton, as I did." There is no judge in the country who wouldn't laugh me out of court. Yet liberals have made it their mantra.

Kerik

Bernard Kerik, the former New York police commissioner who was nominated to be Homeland Security chief, has withdrawn from consideration. Kerik strikes me as a guy who did his job at a time (9/11 and after) when doing his job got him a lot of publicity. Fine. He deserves our thanks. But responding appropriately in a crisis does not make him any more capable of running a huge government agency than many others. It was a mistake for President Bush to nominate him for the position... it smacked of a public relations ploy.

But now it turns out that Kerik dropped out either (a) because he had a "nanny problem," i.e., an illegal immigrant working in his home without benefit of Social Security employer payments; or else (b) he had numerous extramarital affairs that were going to embarrass him and the President. Problem (a) is a disqualifier -- illegal immigration is potentially the major problem a Secretary of Homeland Security will have to deal with in the next four years. But problem (b) is the one that sticks in my craw. I'm sorry, but my gut tells me that I can't think one way about Bill Clinton and think another way about someone else who just happens to be on my President's side. Adultery is bad bad bad, capital B-A-D. If you can't trust someone not to lie to his wife, what makes you think you can trust him with anything else? (Not to mention the blackmail problem... do we really want someone at that level who could be subject to blackmail about his personal life?)

I hate to say it, but the fact that a significant number of high-profile conservative leaders, including Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Guiliani, and now Kerik, are guys who can't keep their zippers up, who have been through multiple messy divorces, etc., makes me a little squeemish about the party that otherwise has my allegiance. (Just like Bill Bennett's gambling made me question his "virtue.") Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, whether it's on our side or theirs.

Social Security Reform and National Debt

Lindsey Graham is off the reservation. The South Carolina Republican Senator appears to want to make a name for himself as a McCainiac iconoclast. He's arguing that President Bush's Social Security reform proposal to let young Americans invest part of their Social Security payroll taxes in personal retirement savings accounts to help them build real wealth should only be passed if "taxes are on the table." "We need to have everything on the table," he is quoted as saying, "and that includes taxes," Mr. Graham said in an interview on Wednesday. "If you borrow money, that creates a deficit for 50 years to come. It really is a tax on the future, and it is locking the deficit into our national economy in a way that's very unhealthy as far as I see it."

This is extraordinarily foolish. A) Social Security must be reformed. B) The power of growth must be harnessed to provide young Americans with real wealth for real retirement security. C) Politically, President Bush cannot (and will not) come out for any higher taxes. D) Higher taxes are not necessary, because E) THE NATIONAL DEBT IS NOT HIGH BY ANY REASONABLE HISTORICAL COMPARISON!

Sheeessh! I get tired of saying this. There is so much data out there that is so easy to access about the historical levels of debt (or really any other economic data you could want to make comparative points). The national debt in 2003, as we were coming out of a recession and a war, was 36.1% of GDP. The national debt in 1996, when Bill Clinton got reelected, and a time which people look back on as the fields of Elysium in terms of fiscal policy, was 48.5%. Get this straight... the national debt during the Clinton era was higher as a percentage of GDP than it is now!

Moreover, low national debt does not translate into prosperity. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was relatively low, in the mid-20% range, throughout the 1970s, hardly a time of robust economic health.

Lindsey Graham should know better. He's committing Luddite demogoguery that can only serve the entrenched Beltway mob, and does a disservice to Americans looking forward to a new 21st century future in which they can save real money and build real wealth through participation in capital markets outside the buggy-whip level ideas of the original Social Security system.

What's Wrong With Democrats.

The New York Times is featuring a symposium on how to fix the Democratic Party called "Directions for the Democrats." The symposium features entries by Donna Brazile, Gary Locke, Rahm Emanuel, Howard Wolfson, and Jamal Simmons. Brazile and Emanuel I've heard of before as insiders in the Clinton-Gore administration; Locke is the former governor (or is it the current governor until who knows when?) of Washington; the others are new to me and are described as "communications consultants," whatever that is.

What strikes me is how entirely idea-free the exercise is. They all talk about process, not purpose or principle, much less the ways in which they might put their principles into practice to fulfill their purpose. It's an entirely fact-free exercise.

Here's an example from Governor Locke:

The Democratic Party has long been the champion of working people everywhere. We are the party that fights for economic, educational and social opportunities and fairness for everyone, whether farmers, blue-collar workers, the elderly, women or minorities. We have always embraced rural values - family, community, hard work, love of country, respect and trust. Our next committee chairman must reach out and reconnect on those core values.

What does any of this mean? Or, put differently, how will any of this rhetoric reach the middle-class middle-American red-state voter they apparently want to reach? When people like me hear "champion of working people," we think you're going to raise our taxes and that you're in the pocket of the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO. When people like me hear that you fight for opportunities and fairness for everyone, we think you're talking about affirmative action. When people like me hear you talk about educational opportunities, we remember that you're against school choice and that your proxies, the teacher's unions, work tirelessly to make life difficult for home-schoolers. When you say you embrace rural values like "family, community, hard work, love of country, etc.", we remember that you are the party for abortion on demand and gay marriage, you are the party that wants the federal government intruding into how we run our communities, you are the party that fought welfare reform, and you are the party whose "love of country" extends only so far as the UN will permit us to go.

The closest anyone comes to giving a practical suggestion for what the Democrats should be for is Emanuel, who says the tax-code should be simplified and made more progressive. OK, fine. But how progressive? And whose ox gets gored and by how much?

The reality is that the these elitist Democrats think they lost because they think average middle Americans are stupid. (Brazile gives the game away when she talks about the need for Democrats to learn how to talk to people who like to fish.) But the Democrats are wrong. They lost because average middle Americans are much more informed and intelligent about politics than they used to be; they have greater access to facts about the world, including economic facts -- Bill Clinton's demogoguery about the "worst economy in fifty years" wouldn't work now that people can instantaneously access and disseminate longitudinal data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and they are thus much less likely to be taken in by fact-free "progressive" rhetoric.

Clueless in Seattle

The Seattle Times reports on the mammoth effort that will go into the hand recount of its 2.8 million ballots in the aftermath of Republican Dino Rossi's 42 vote victory over Democrat Christine Gregoire. The effort is entirely wasted. Any mild understanding of (a) large numbers and (b) human fallibility tells me that, even if you ignore (c) the potential for corruption (i.e., bribing some of the counters) or (d) the potential for bias (i.e., counters who unconsciously and therefore innocently err on the side of the candidate of their choice), there is no way that the hand count will give a result that is any more reliable than what they already have in Washington. Consider: the 42 vote margin represents .0000015 of the total number of votes cast. Put differently, if 1 vote out of every 66,666 changes to Gregoire, the result will change. Put still differently, that means that the hand recount has to be better than 99.9985% accurate, or else the error rate will be greater than the margin of victory.

Listen: think about every job you've ever had, and every co-worker you've every had, and every employee you've ever had. Now think about every repetitive, mind-numbing task you've every had to do. Is there any task remotely similar to counting the same ballots over and over and over and over again that humans have ever done that has a 99.9985% accuracy rate?

It's like the Barry Bonds records and the argument that his late-career resurgency could have happened without steroids. It takes just stopping and thinking like an adult for a minute to realize.... IT CAN'T HAPPEN.

This is why grownup politicians for much of our history accepted the "necessary fiction" that the results on election day were the real and (more importantly) the only results that mattered.

Barry Bonds and Hypocrisy

I have very mixed feelings about the revelations about Barry Bonds this week, if "revelations" are what you call what happened. What did we learn that was really new? Didn't everyone already know that Bonds was using steroids? The career arc of most players begins a decline during the years 35-40. Babe Ruth, for instance, hit 49 HRs at 35, 46 at 36, 41 at 37, 34 at 38, 22 at 39 and 6 at 40, and then he was done. But, we'll hear, Babe was a hard-living man in an era before nutrition and exercise and trainers, etc. But Hank Aaron was not a hard-living man, and, not surprisingly, his decline phase started a little later, but not much: Aaron hit 47 at age 37, 34 at 38, but then popped back up to 40 at 39, then down to 20 at 40, 12 at 41, 10 at 42. Willie Mays, meanwhile, didn't have a wild-living reputation, but his career trend path is similar to the Babe's: 52 at 34, then 37 at 35, then a series of years where he was essentially hanging on: 22 (36), 23 (37), 13 (38), 28 (39), 18 (40), 16 (41), and 6 (42). Reggie Jackson, ditto: 39 at 36, then 14 (37), 25 (38), 27 (39), 18 (40), 15 (41). Each great slugger, the same pattern... great potential in youth building to superstardom in the "power years" between 28 and 34 or so, followed by a decline phase, a petering out due to injury, age, the toll of playing the game, whatever. It happened to everyone.

Could Bonds really be that big an aberration without using something? He began what looked like a modest, slow decline in his early thirties: 42 HRs at age 31, then 40 (32), 37 (33), 34 (34). His OPS (on base plus slugging) dropped from 1.076 at age 31 to 1.006 at age 34, not a steep decline, and still the stats of a great, great player. He would have kept playing and been productive, no doubt, until he was 40 or 41 or even 42. But the normal trendline would have been 30, 30, 25, 25, 20, 20, 15, 10 and out. Instead he went off into the stratosphere... his OPS stats the last four years are the #1, #2, #4 and #8 seasons of all time!

It can't happen.

So what did we really learn? Nothing about steroids. But we learned a little bit about Bonds that we wish we didn't know... he's a perjurer, for one thing. And we learned a lot about baseball leadership and fans.... that they're hypocrites. Because everyone knew when they were cheering for him and voting him MVP that he was using steroids. But they just kept looking the other way and pretending that men in their late 30s and early 40s can just "work out a little harder" and be better than they every were, better than anyone ever has been. It's a great fantasy, but it just isn't so. Believe me.