Akkam’s Razor

There’s a Democratic-sponsored attack ad that is somewhat unfair to Ridley Park native, University of Pennsylvania graduate, and Army veteran of both Iraq and Bosnia that makes somewhat unfair and groundless criticism of 26-year old baby-faced Miccarelli.

The ad, which I’ve only seen aired once on local (Delco) cable-TV hits Miccarelli for inaction regarding actions, both Congressional and Presidential that had effect on Delaware County.  The ad knocks Miccarelli for not taking action, either by advocating as leader of the College Republicans or as a campaign aid to intervene.  Of course, this is unfair.  In 2004, Miccarelli, although already a veteran, was merely 23, and serving on a variety of campaigns.  Although he made have had access to a handful of political decisionmakers, the influence of Miccarelli was essentially no more than that of the average Delco constituent.  Furthermore, the need to burnish his political resume and cultivate ideological bonafides means that he in no way could deviate from the company line.

In these irrational and reckless times, it’s helpful to revisit the Crazification Factor. It is well worth your time to revisit the original conversation, which picks up here as a conversation regarding the size of Bush’s base:

Tyrone: 27%.

John: … you said that immmediately, and with some authority.

Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That’s crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27%Crazification Factor in any population.

• What will the markets do?
• What will the DOW do?
• What will gold do?
• What will happen to the 800 companies on the do-not short list do?
• What will happen with the holders of US debt and currency?  Will they bail or double-down?
• How quick will the Democrats in Congress cave to the strong-daddies in suits?
• What happens when Bill Kristol and Paul Krugman agree?  Will a micro-black hole be created and destroy the earth?
• What happens with/to Goldman and Merrill?
• I called Senators Casey and Specter, and PA-7 Representative Joe Sestak to voice my opposition to the bailout as a whole, to call for a workout, and to demand accountability, transparency, and some compensation for the risk to American consumers?  What have you done?

Popularity: 5% [?]

Make no mistake, it is coming. They are clearly in panic mode [nakedcapitalism via Economist's View]:

“We have lost control,” said Hale, quoting [Federal Reserve Chairman] Bernanke. “We cannot stabilize the dollar. We cannot control commodity prices.”

(Please note that they really could never control it anyway, regardless).

The NYT says:

The head of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve began discussions on Thursday with Congressional leaders on what could become the biggest bailout in United States history. While details remain to be worked out, the plan is likely to authorize the government to buy distressed mortgages at deep discounts from banks and other institutions. The proposal could result in the most direct commitment of taxpayer funds so far in the financial crisis that Fed and Treasury officials say is the worst they have ever seen.

…and if they did, they’d probably agree with it.

Many of us are making a big deal out of Sarah Palin’s inability to articulate the paramount legacy of this White House - The Bush Doctrine [wiki]. Here is a partial transcript and video of her interview with Charlie Gibson of ABCNEWS (more at HuffPo):

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

I’d like to make an effort to formally define the Bush Doctrine, to provide context for its existence, to examine its success, and to look at future challenges.

Regardless as to your political leanings, the Bush Doctrine exists for one reason and one reason only - to reinforce the Unitary Executive Theory, weakening what, to this point, had been the sole responsibility of Congress over the Executive Branch - the ability to declare war. Similarly, it seeks to remove any external, non-domestic restrictions by foreign bodies over US actions, including international agreements and treaties. In short, the US, as the sole remaining superpower (after the fall of the Soviet Union) would have the justification for acting unilaterally against any threat. This is further quantified by allowing the ability to wage preemptive war against perceived threats both in the near- and long-terms. In short, it means never having to say you are sorry.

Popularity: 9% [?]

• Hullabaloo: Rev. McGrath Gets Religion - Asking for equal time for "alternatives" to evolution is in exactly the same category. It is asking that a point of view with nothing but questions and complaints to offer be treated as the equal of a scientific field of research that has been remarkably productive and consistently confirmed by all sorts of evidence not available when the theory was first formulated. The media makes much of being "fair" in trying to always hear another side of the story, and there is something indeed laudable about checking to see if there is an opposing viewpoint. Too many of us forget to do that, and forget too often. But not every opposing viewpoint has merit, and the reason we have education standards is to ensure that educators do not waste time on nonsense to the detriment of things that are truly important, valuable, and (ultimately) true.

• Changes in Voter Registration - Wow.
• Firedoglake » They’re Not Even Pretending Anymore - Only 36 of the 2,380 delegates seated on the convention floor are black, the lowest number since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies began tracking diversity at political conventions 40 years ago. Each night, the overwhelmingly white audience watches a series of white politicians step to the lectern — a visual reminder that no black Republican has served as a governor, U.S. senator or U.S. House member in the past six years.

Popularity: 5% [?]

• Graphic Organizer Worksheets -
• 6 things the Palin pick says about McCain - Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris - Politico.com - The risks of a backlash from choosing someone so unknown and so untested are obvious. In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama. “I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly.
• The Washington Monthly: The Right offers some Reviews -