The Problem With Stateless Terrorism

Is that this kind of stuff will only work for so long:

"On Monday, Germany, France and Britain said they had banned cargo shipments from Yemen, following a similar move by the United States. Britain prohibited passengers from carrying printer cartridges aboard flights, and Germany halted passenger flights from Yemen as well."

Remember, we're at war in Afghanistan to keep Al Qaeda from re-establishing a foothold there. We're not invading Yemen, but it's clear we have stepped-up military operations there. And now we're going to isolate the country. Each small step, I think, makes sense on its own -- but the accumulation of steps appears to be that we''ll either be bombing or quarantining most countries where Al Qaeda decides to constitute itself for a time, with each act of defensive-minded aggression and isolation serving to isolate the Muslim world from the West. Not incidentally: That's what Osama bin Laden wants! I'm not sure how one constructs a strategy to use a fly swatter on Al Qaeda wherever it happens to be instead of clamping a lid down on the whole Middle East, but the current process doesn't seemed destined to serve our security or cultural interests over the long-term.

Afghanistan Quagmire Watch

New York Times:

"In Khogeyani, a volatile area southwest of the capital, the entire police force on duty Monday morning appears to have defected to the Taliban side. A spokesman for the Taliban said the movement’s fighters made contact with the Khogeyani’s police force, cut a deal, and then sacked and burned the station. As many as 19 officers vanished, as did their guns, trucks, uniforms and food."

We're not winning.

It's Election Day!

One of my shortcomings as a politically oriented blogger is that I find the whole horse-raciness of today rather exhausting. I'm going to go vote, but I'm going to leave the rest of it to the wisdom of the electorate. Tomorrow, we'll start to figure out what it all means for the governance of America going forward.

Fred Barnes Compares Apples and Oranges

See if you can spot the sleight of hand:

"Yes, the economy is always a factor in elections. But a wretched economy doesn't automatically doom Washington's ruling party to disaster in a midterm election. Since World War II, the average midterm loss by the president's party is 24 House and four Senate seats. In 1982, despite a deep recession and joblessness above 10%, Republicans lost only 26 House seats and none in the Senate. The difference between 1982 and today is that President Reagan's policies—cutting spending and taxes, firing striking air-traffic controllers—were popular."

Perhaps. Of course, in 1982, the president's party was already in the minority in the House -- the GOP lost 26 House seats out of 192. That was a significant blow to a party that was, frankly, already weak in the House. "Only" 26 seats is a more serious loss than Barnes portrays it. Wonder why he doesn't explain that context?

Probably because he's wrong about his central thesis, which is that voters don't really care about the economy -- they care about Obama's liberal overreach. But I'd wager my right thumb that if Obama had done everything he'd done and employment was hovering around 5 percent, we wouldn't see the Democratic losses we'll see on Tuesday. Voters care about results more than anything else.

Cliff May's Confusion About the Left

Cliff May, conservative, writes at National Review:

"Call me crazy but I like it when left-of-center editorialists agree with me."

He then goes on to cite to columns -- one by Fred Hiatt, the other by David Broder -- that make a point similar to his own. Broder, of course, is synonymous with unthinking centrism; Hiatt, of course, was one of the Iraq War's biggest cheerleaders on major mainstream op-ed pages. If these guys are "left of center," then May may not have a good idea where the center actually is.

David Carr on Jon Stewart and the Media

I agree with David Carr on this, but only a little bit:

"I enjoy Mr. Stewart in his regular seat where he is less reasonable, less interested in obvious targets and less willing to suggest that all political ideas and movements are like kindergartners, worthy of understanding and respect if only the media would get out of the way. His barrage against the news media Saturday stemmed from the fact that, on this day, attacking the message would have been bad manners, so he stuck with the messengers."

It's true the "Rally to Restore Sanity" seemed oddly lacking in a point-of-view -- something you can't usually say about "The Daily Show." But it's too easy for journalists to take the "oh he's just blaming the messengers" route in examining the state of our country's affairs. Stewart's done a first-rate job of analyzing and exposing how cable news trafficks in sensationalism and false equivalencies -- the words "breaking news" have become incredibly devalued over the last decade.

Carr knows that, but points out: "In even a good news night, about five million people take a seat on the cable wars, which is less than 2 percent of all Americans." No big deal, in other words. But: walk into any congressman or senator's office -- or hell, walk into the White House -- and you'll more-than-likely find a TV turned on to Fox or MSNBC or (less likely) CNN. In some cases you'll find all three. Bizarrely, it's cable TV that is shaping the elite's view of the public discourse, and the elite returns the favor by going on cable TV around the clock to yell and call names. Karl Rove isn't on Fox every week because it's unimportant.

Reducing the cable TV audience to its numbers also ignores the multiplier effect: the opinions that viewers form in response to their TVs are the opinions they share with their family, friends and neighbors. It's why Glenn Beck, whose audience isn't that large in relation to the national population, is such an outsized influence in Tea Party circles. Or think about Rick Santelli's famous "Tea Party" rant: Who the hell ever heard of Rick Santelli before that rant? Can you even measure CNBC's audience? And yet who would deny that rant had a catalyzing effect in propelling the creation of the Tea Party movement? And do you think, say, Mike Castle or Ron Wyden think that movement was negligible in their own election losses?

Carr's right: we shouldn't rush to blame the media for problems that exist independently of them. But we can blame the media -- and cable TV in particular -- for normalizing screaming polarization: It's what sells best! Carr lets the messengers off too easily.

Philly Makes Me Sad

There's about three things wrong with this headline:

Boy, 15, shot in 2:30 a.m. bar fight:

"A 15-year-old boy was shot and critically wounded early today during a dispute inside a bar in North Philadelphia, police said.

Police said the youth got into an argument with a young man about 2:30 a.m. inside the El Callejon II bar at North Second Street and West Indiana Avenue in the Fairhill section."