Simple is Smart: An Example October 19, 2008

I’ve always been drawn to simple solutions to potentially complex problems, and the Washington Post recently reported on one of my all-time favorites:

The British have been battling terrorism for years, in the form of the Irish Republican Army.  The IRA was a very contained, very secretive group who caused a lot of damage with car bombs and other explosives pretty much throughout my youth.

It was known, of course, that they were primarily located in Belfast, but that was about all the British Special Operations units had to go on.  Belfast is way too big a city for that information to be helpful — it’s over half a million people, roughly the size of Portland, OR in the U.S.  So how did they narrow it down, and eventually capture most of the bomb-makers?

It seems that one smart member of Special Ops suggested that they open a dry cleaning shop, and they did.  How did that help?  Well, because it wasn’t just a dry cleaner.

The new dry cleaning shop sent out special discount tickets, which were color-coded by neighborhood in the city.  They staffed the laundry with mostly locals, so everything would look legit, and a few agents.  Whenever laundry was brought in, it would first be tested for explosives residue (on a machine that looked exactly like a dry-cleaning machine); the local employees weren’t trained on the machine, and in fact had no idea what it was.  Clothing that tested positive for residue was matched to the color-coded discount ticket of its owner.  Before long, they had pinpointed the neighborhood where bomb-makers resided.

They then followed up, over and over, with additional color-coded discounts, only now they were being offered not by neighborhood, but by streets within that neighborhood.  Then house numbers on given streets.  Within a few months, they had the precise addresses of a whole host of IRA bomb-makers.

Authorities then swooped in on the houses, arrested occupants and confiscated bomb-making equipment.  No one was killed or injured in the entire operation.

See?  Sometimes simple is brilliant.

Okay, I’m Saying it: McCain is a Liar. October 14, 2008

That’s it.  I’m sick of it now; it’s gotten ridiculous.

Everyone, I think, puts up with a little disingenuousness during an election campaign.  Some positions will change or adjust, and a certain level of false allegation or stretched truth is endured by the populace.  It’s part of the game, I think, and we’re all big enough to handle it.

But John McCain has crossed the line.  At this point, it’s not “spin”; it’s lying.  I won’t call it anything else anymore.  It’s lying.

The final crossing of the line occurred just in the last few days, as John McCain began running ads requesting that we look into Barack Obama’s associations with the latest Republican villain, a group called ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).  Here’s the ad, just so you know I’M not lying:

Of course, the first thing that came to my mind here was the great scene from “Casablanca” in which Captain Renault, a regular at Rick’s saloon and gambling joint, indicates under duress that he is “shocked” to discover that gambling has been going on there:

The reason this comes to mind?  Well, let’s review the bidding on ACORN:

• Umm, primarily, how about the fact that John McCain gave a keynote speech at a rally sponsored by ACORN just 18 months ago?  To be completely fair, ACORN was only one of the sponsors, but it was a major sponsor, and its red-shirted members comprise a large portion of the crowd.  Put simply: John McCain could not possibly miss that ACORN was one of the sponsors of the event, and he was the keynote speaker:

See, now that just ticks me off.  He gave a supportive speech, a freakin’ goldfish’s lifetime ago, in which he knows full well that ACORN is a sponsor, and he praises them.  And now he acts like he had no idea that this nefarious, anti-American, felonious group was out there.  And oh my gosh, that notorious anti-American, Barack Obama, used to work with them somehow.  For shame!  I’m shocked!  Shocked!

• In any case ACORN, which is associated with voter registration efforts across the country, did not commit voter fraud.  They were a victim of fraud.  They hired part-time workers to register voters (for pay), and some of them simply made up names instead of doing actual work.  No one has charged ACORN with anything.
• In a classic of politics trumping truth, the implication in the ad is that Barack Obama is associated with people trying to steal an election.  Well, (a) that’s a really interesting charge to come from Republicans; and (b) there is a huge difference between vote fraud and voter registration fraud.  In simplest terms: registering a guy named Mickey Mouse in Massillon, Ohio doesn’t mean that someone named Mickey Mouse is actually going to show up and vote.

The problems actually occur on the other side of the equation, when actual people are kept from registering to vote for fraudulent reasons.  That would be a problem, and no one is accused of that.

• The notion that ACORN was some kind of key element behind the economic meltdown is utter nonsense, and just continues to show McCain’s inability to grasp the economy.  Even if ACORN encouraged people to take advantage of subprime loans, they were not the ones offering them.  This is like blaming Chinese children for drinking melamine-tainted milk.  (Doesn’t anyone, anywhere — outside of my readers, of course — grasp basic logic?)
• Barack Obama’s association, by the way?  Thirteen years ago, as an attorney, he represented ACORN in a lawsuit in support of an Illinois “motor voter” law.  He may or may not have “taught classes” in which ACORN people were in attendance.  The photo in the advertisement in which he is shown at the chalkboard, teaching, is from his time teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.  By the way: his co-counsel in the motor voter suit was the notoriously un-American United States Justice Department.

Liar.  Jerk.  Here’s why you’re behind, Senator McCain: People don’t trust you anymore because of stunts like this.

Why John McCain is Losing October 10, 2008

It probably isn’t what you think.  It isn’t any message of Barack Obama’s.  It isn’t the debates.  It isn’t the declining popularity of Sarah Palin.  It isn’t concerns about his age, or really any position he has taken.

We’re back to the Clinton era: It’s the economy, stupid.

The following chart tracks McCain’s poll numbers against the stock market:

Being a bright sort of person, you’ll no doubt note similarities.  In fact the correlation between these two data sets is a remarkable 0.77.

This suggests that McCain’s precipitous fall and Obama’s concomitant rise has a lot less to do with the candidates themselves, than it has to do with externalities (the market).

This gives rise to a prediction: whoever wins, and it looks a lot like that’s going to be Obama, is at great risk of being a one-term President.

Look what our next president inherits: the worst economy since the Great Depression, soaring gas prices, a collapsing housing market, a highly unpopular war, and a country seriously divided on social issues.  Meanwhile, neither candidate really has the slightest chance, due to the massive deficits incurred in the bailout and elsewhere, to enact the kinds of reforms they’ve been campaigning on.  You’re one of those (misguided) people who fears universal healthcare?  Don’t worry too much about it.  It won’t happen.  And the next president — no matter who it is — will inherit this mess, leave it less of a mess, but still not do enough to get re-elected.  Not because they were lousy, but because the job was too big for anyone to fix in four years.

Thanks, W.  Thanks, do-nothing Congress.  A fine mess you’ve gotten us into.

Why So Angry? October 10, 2008

I was totally stunned by this video:

Look: I want to be fair.  Undoubtedly, one can find a similarly awful video of Obama supporters.  This just happens to be the one that was forwarded to me.

What bothers me is: why is everyone so angry?

Some of it is actually hilarious: “Why aren’t you at work?”… from someone who is currently not at their own work.  “Go back to Russia!”… as though there is still a cold war.  Et cetera.

I’m liberal.  Have been for a long time, will be for a long time.  It’s my world view.  My opinion is pretty straightforward: I value some of what I view to be fundamental principles (viewing war with reticence and sadness, seeking to alleviate the suffering of the poor, thinking hard about the differences between haves and have-nots in this and other countries…it’s a long list) more highly than some others (pro-life, skepticism about gay marriage).  It’s not an easy call to make.  That’s just how I make it.  I understand if you make it differently.

I’m voting for Barack Obama primarily because of the economy and the war.  I think he’s right on both issues, and I think his leadership skills are wonderful.  And to be clear, I think that talent is a virtue on par with experience, if the talented person is also wise.  Obama is both.

But I’m not upset if you feel otherwise.  John McCain is not a terrible choice; he’s certainly not George Bush.  I have my differences with him and with Mrs. Palin, but they are not of the ilk that would cause me to think you’re a horrible person if you vote that way.  If you want to picket outside of an Obama rally, I think that’s fine.  It’s your right.  You can say you think he’s too liberal, you can say you think he’ll tax us too much.  Meanwhile, don’t get mad if I say that I think Sarah Palin isn’t that smart, or that John McCain is too hawkish for my tastes.

This whole mentality scares me.  Let’s be civil, folks.

The VP Debate October 4, 2008

Let’s just admit it: she didn’t get blown out of the water quite the way everyone expected.  I’ll give Sarah Palin this: she can memorize talking points and she can deliver the lines, if you give her enough warning.

But let’s not go overboard here: she has given a few good speeches to supporters, and she has handled one debate adequately (she did not “win the debate;” get a grip).  Meanwhile, she has appeared twice in public unscripted: once with Charles Gibson and once with Katie Couric, and in both she was an absolute disaster.

Just so we’re all reminded:

This was not “attack journalism.”  Katie Couric asked an absolute no-brainer question to a candidate for national office.  That candidate looked like an idiot in response.  Full stop.

In a similarly remarkable gaffe, Palin could not even answer directly the question, “What magazines and newspapers do you read to stay informed?”  Supporters have again suggested that this is a “blindsiding” type of question.  Is it?  Really?  You can’t answer that?  I can.

All I’m saying is: Don’t pretend that a decent debate performance gets her off the hook.  This is still the single least-prepared, least-informed, and (let’s be honest) least intelligent national candidate of my lifetime.  Barely edging out Dan Quayle for the honor.

Finally, the Explanation October 2, 2008

You’ve all been looking for a simple, straightforward explanation of what’s been going on.  Here it is, in video form:

Frankly, everything done by Bird & Fortune is equally incisive and funny.