James R. Rummel

I am a self defense instructor who lives in Columbus, Ohio.

You Should Be Ashamed!

by

Mickey Kaus is a Liberal who will actually try to find out the facts. Kudos to him for that.

But he does occasionally descend into Left wing incoherence. A prime example is a short post entitled Ride My See-Saw. (Click on this link, and scroll down to the post at the 1:21 PM mark.)

Mr. Kaus is taken with the concept of “vertical ticket splitters”, people who don’t automatically cast all of their votes for one party. He attributes their motivation for doing this to guilt. People might vote for Obama in this election, but then carefully cast their remaining votes for Republicans because they feel guilty about…

Well, I’m not really sure why anyone feels guilt. Mr. Kaus seems to think that the bad feelings all flow from racism.

“M suggested that voters (especially white, swing voters) who don’t vote for Obama may feel guilty about it and compensate by voting for Democrats in downballot races (Senate and Congress). But the converse of this theory is equally interesting–voters who do pick Obama, may compensate or hedge for what they feel is a bold, guilt-expiating risk by picking Republicans downballot.”

(snip)

“…more people will be vertical ticket splitters because of the presence of Obama, who is not only an African American candidate–whom you might feel guilty about not picking–but a relatively unknown candidate whom you might want to hedge against, especially if you voted for him to avoid feeling guilty about not picking him (and then felt guilty about that).”

(An attempt was made to keep the original emphasis intact. The above is how Mr. Kaus wants you to see his work.)

This seems extremely odd to me. If someone is a racist, then by definition they genuinely believe that a person’s race disqualifies them in some way. Makes the minority candidate unable to do a decent job simply because of their heritage, so to speak.

Seen in this light, it becomes obvious that racists are not going to be effected in any way by guilty feelings. Why would anyone, racist or otherwise, feel guilty about voting for what they see as the more capable choice? If anything, racists would feel pride in voting for their prejudices because they would think that they are acting for the greater good. So why go on and on about how racists would feel guilt?

The constant harping on racism from the Left during this election appears to me to have two root causes.

It seems to me that one cause is pure projection from Liberals. They are going to vote for Obama not because they genuinely believe him to be the best qualified for the job, but due to some bizarre self loathing. White guilt, if you will. Since guilt is the most powerful motivator when they make their political choices, it seems obvious to them that everyone else must also have simmering pools of white hot shame bubbling just beneath the surface. If people just listened to the voice in their heads that said they must make up for being a piece of crap, then everyone would make the same choice. The correct choice!

The other is a cynical attempt to manipulate swing voters, a propaganda effort to make the Bradley Effect work for the Democrats. If swing voters can be convinced that they will be perceived as racists by voting for anyone other than Obama, maybe a significant percentage will vote for the candidate that they would otherwise feel is too inexperienced to handle the job. Pretty much force people to vote for the least qualified candidate.

I must confess, dear reader, that it makes me feel distinctly uncomfortable to climb up on my analyst’s couch and try to plumb the mental depths of complete strangers. Not only am I obviously unqualified, it also strikes me as the height of arrogance to even try. But I feel justified since the Left in general, and Mr. Kaus specifically, are not constrained to keep to their area of expertise.

To close, I would have to say that the only people who should be feeling guilty are the Liberals who scream “Racism!” at the drop of a hat. Have they no shame?

(Hat tip to Glenn.)

Opting for a Really Big Deductible

by

Our fellow Chicago Boy, Steven den Beste, has posted some thoughts about piracy on his own personal blog. He thinks that the recent plan to allow NATO warships to form an anti-pirate patrol off of Somalia is not the optimal solution to the problem. Instead he thinks that a few heavily armed squads of soldiers, placed on a civilian ship as it traverses pirate infested waters, would do the trick.

I have been writing regularly about maritime piracy for years now. Most of my previous posts were lost when my former ISP abruptly terminated service, but the idea of hiring mercenaries for short term security in dangerous waters is hardly new. The concept of having regular military troops perform the same job merely transfers the cost from the private shipping company to the taxpayer.

But the same problem which prevented the shipping companies from hiring private soldiers keeps them from allowing government troops on board. And that problem is higher insurance premiums.

Back when I first became interested in the problem in 2001, ship captains who had to navigate through areas with heavy pirate activity were given $20,000 in cash. The idea was that the money was to be kept in the ship’s safe, and paid to any group of pirates who managed to make their way on board. Danegeld on the high seas.

But we all know what happens if you pony up the Danegeld. The idea that a mere $20K would satisfy a self respecting pirate band today is ludicrous. And it will probably get worse before it gets better.

Anyone interested in maritime piracy is encouraged to read the ICC Piracy Report, a free weekly update listing attacks on shipping. One thing that becomes painfully obvious very quickly is that pirate attacks are becoming more frequent, the pirates are demanding ever increasing amounts to return control of the ships they take, and the pirates are becoming ever more violent in an effort to coerce the shipping companies to pay up.

One would assume that the huge amounts demanded by pirate bands recently is a prime motivator for shipping companies to hire some mercs, but that is only if you discount the enormous number of vessels that daily move through the major shipping lanes. Four, eight, ten, a dozen ships might be held for big money, but hundreds more manage to move through those waters every day without having any problems. The increase in money paid to the insurance companies if troops were allowed on board is still greater than the cash paid out to the pirates.

Right now we are seeing a fluid situation that is trying to reach equilibrium. The pirates won’t stop because they get some really good money for attacking maritime vessels, and there is very little risk. The shipping companies will continue to pay ransom money as long as it is cheaper than increased insurance premiums. The pirates will continue to demand ever larger payouts as long as they are ultimately handed the cash.

If things are allowed to develop as they have been, eventually the shipping companies would begin to balk at the huge amounts that the pirates would demand. Then I expect the pirates would turn into terrorists, executing the captured crews in public and highly visible ways in an attempt to get the money spigot turned back on. It would only be at this point, with insurance premiums climbing because of the increased chance of murder, that the shipping firms would begin to look to resisting piracy in an aggressive and effective way.

The decision by NATO to begin anti-piracy patrols is probably seen by the shipping companies as a possible solution, and one that they won’t have to pay for out of their own pocket. It would work if the warships tasked to hunting down the pirates would actually shoot a few of them, but I really don’t expect that to happen.

First Tobacco, Now Food

by

I was not happy with the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement for many reasons.

One of my main objections was that the entire premise behind the complaint against the tobacco industry was that they used advertising to control the minds of their customers. It seems extremely obvious that the dangers of using tobacco were well established long before my birth in 1964, yet it was claimed that tens of millions of Americans were too stupid or weak minded to pay attention. Consenting adults in this country could be trusted to choose political leaders in elections, but they were helpless to resist when confronted with a picture of the Marlboro Man.

One of the most moronic claims by the anti-tobacco crowd was that the cartoon advertising mascot Joe Camel was enslaving the youth of America. It was said that children recognized Joe more readily than they did Mickey Mouse, even though the cigarette ads only ran for 9 years and giant amusement parks featuring the anthropomorphic camel were never constructed. It looked to me to be a blatant attempt to demonize an industry in order to force them to pony up some cash.

The title of this article is “10 Things the Food Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know”, and it shows that some people figure the same methods used against Big Tobacco will work just fine when applied to the food industry.

Click on that last link and all the same tricks are on display. Food companies target little kids to advertise unhealthy food. They sponsor studies that obscure the fact that unhealthy food is bad for you. The industry puts pressure on legislators to keep them from passing laws limiting consumer access to fattening and sweet foods. They bankroll front groups which fight anti-obesity laws. And so on.

This appears to me to be exactly the same tactics used against tobacco companies. They are evil, unconcerned with the health of their customers, and all too willing to employ Jedis working on Madison Avenue to use their powers on the minds of vulnerable little children. (“Broccoli is not what you want to eat! Ice Cream would be much nummier!”)

The author of the article claims that obesity is a major health concern, and I have no problem with that. But I do object to the idea that people in this country are so stupid that they just can’t figure out that eating unhealthy foods will make you unhealthy.

How long will it take before state legislatures combine resources to blackmail the food industry into making a huge payment? I figure about ten years on the outside.

I see the campaign against the tobacco industry, and now the food industry, as an attack on the free market system. Free markets means free choice, which means that individuals have to be allowed to make bad personal choices if that is what they want to do.

I mean, isn’t that the very basis of American society?

Swimming, Soaring, and Biting Dragon

by

There are a few essays filed today at Strategypage.com that concern how China is developing into a credible future threat.

One of the most exciting developments in weapon systems over the past several years has been the emergence of sophisticated Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, robot planes that are controlled from the ground which are unfettered by the frailties that come with having a human pilot on board. This article details how the Chinese are looking to field their own version of the Global Hawk, one of the more capable UAVs in the US arsenal.

The reason why this is interesting to observers in the West is due to the fact that this new aircraft is intended to be used for maritime patrol, even though China is hardly a great naval power. The only credible justification of the expense for development and deployment of the new weapon is as yet another tool to be used in the military conquest of Taiwan, a goal the communist government of China has never been shy about expressing.

The Chinese have no real chance of landing troops on Taiwan unless they first neutralize any US aircraft carriers in the region. This article details how Chinese submarines are stalking American carriers, something that strongly reminds me of the bad old days of Soviet/American cat and mouse naval games during the Cold War.

If you should be moved to click on that last link, please note how some Chinese subs are being deployed even though they are unsuited to this kind of work because of excessive noise. This shows that the Chinese military understands that real world training is paramount if one is to have an effective military. It also indicates that they are well aware that the Americans are very unlikely to attack the Chinese vessels, and so they can gain that training at very little risk to their scarce and expensive submarine fleet.

Read more