Hot Air linked to an LA Time oped entitled “Twilight of Pax Americana,” wherein the authors tell us that the United States’ economic, political, and military influence is waning:

The international order that emerged after World War II has rightly been termed the Pax Americana; it’s a Washington-led arrangement that has maintained political stability and promoted an open global economic system. Today, however, the Pax Americana is withering, thanks to what the National Intelligence Council in a recent report described as a “global shift in relative wealth and economic power without precedent in modern history” — a shift that has accelerated enormously as a result of the economic crisis of 2007-2009.

They rightly point out that this is not necessarily a good thing, even for people who aren’t fans of the United States:

The result will be profound changes in world politics. Emerging powers will seek to establish spheres of influence, control lines of communication, engage in arms races and compete for control over key natural resources.
…
Although the weakening of the Pax Americana will not cause international trade and capital flows to come to a grinding halt, in coming years we can expect states to adopt openly competitive economic policies as they are forced to jockey for power and advantage in an increasingly competitive security and economic environment.
…
The coming era of de-globalization will be defined by rising nationalism and mercantilism, geopolitical instability and great power competition. In other words, having enjoyed a long holiday from history under the Pax Americana, international politics will be headed back to the future.

I don’t find much to disagree with in this article, except for the tone of: “Wow, how did that happen? Guess it’s just the way things worked out!”

As chronicled by many Asian observers and even at this tiny little blog, this situation is a slightly accelerated version of China/SCO’s plan to challenge and eventually supplant the United States’ role as sole superpower. They started on this path back in 2001, and have been gaining momentum every year since.

We’ve had many occasions to turn this situation around, and there’s still time to catch ourselves before the end.But our current policies are accelerating our demise so quickly as to seem deliberate. What was a 7-year eventuality now has a 2-year horizon. And that’s only if we don’t pass all that pending self-destructive legislation.

Megan McArdle was full of wist yesterday:

If you’re like me (and I know many of you are), you grew up reading the science fiction of the 1940’s and 1950’s, promising a quick and rapid expansion into the solar system, and not too long thereafter, the galaxy. …

Four years before I was born, man walked on the moon for the first time, the most magnificent single feat our little tribe of East African Plains Apes has ever managed. Now we don’t even do that. What happened to the dream?

What happened to the dream? Well, I have a little theory I like to call, “It’s all the damn liberals’ fault.” It goes a little something like this:

I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what the basic difference between liberals and conservatives is, i.e., why do they think so differently? How can it be so obvious to conservatives that taking someone else’s money to mend social and economic injustice is wrong (and futile), while it is just as obvious to liberals that it’s not only right to take that money – it’s morally required to take that money? How can two groups think so differently?

My answer is: The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is a sense of destiny. Conservatives have one, liberals don’t.

Conservatives believe that man is on a journey to some greater future. That belief may be motivated by religion or by technology or simply by imagination (like Ms. McArdle’s sci fi buffs), but regardless of its origin, conservatives share the common feeling that man has a special place in the universe. They know in their guts that there is meaning to man’s existence, and that tomorrow will always be better and more significant than today.

Liberals don’t share that sense of destiny. They believe that man is just another critter, more destructive than most, whose existence is, in the end, meaningless. Since there is no particular future for man, the highest priority is to make the “now” as fair, just, and comfortable as possible, and to minimize the harm that mankind does during its (regrettable) time on the planet.

Which brings us to the United States. For conservatives, the Constitution and capitalism are the keys to having the freedom and prosperity to constantly improve one’s life. And improving one’s life will more often than not contribute to the advancement of the nation. And conservatives believe (sometimes naively) that what is good for the United States is good for mankind.

Liberals look at that advancement as something needing to be harnessed before it does any harm. Advancement is not intrinsically good, so businesses and individuals should be restricted from doing any damage at either the physical or social level.

So for conservatives, breaking some eggs along the way is just one of those things that happens when you’re taking the eggs on a trip. The point is just to get most of the eggs to your destination. For liberals, the whole point is to protect the eggs, since there’s no place to go.

Don’t buy it? Here’s the first thing MarkinNJ (my pretty dang liberal BiL) said in the comments when I pitched this idea a couple of years ago:

Why can’t “greater social and economic justice” be a valid destiny/meaning for the country? It was good enough to create the New Deal and the civil rights movement…

Yup, he wants to substitute polishing the eggs for taking the trip – he believes that they’re completely equivalent. This is not to pick on Mark – he’s a smart and nice guy. But his first reaction dramatically underscores the gulf between conservative and liberal thinking.

For conservatives, “greater social and economic justice” is nice, but it could never be the point of man’s or the United States’ existence.

Especially when there’s ice cream in the equation.

H/T: Instapundit

So head on over there if you want the latest in charty goodness.

The NYT's Lame Chart

Charles Blow cited a stat from the Southern Poverty Law Center in his poorly sourced and argued defense of Sonia Sotomayor:

Hispanics are the largest and the fastest-growing minority group in the country. And, in recent years, they have increasingly been the victims of racial discrimination. It will be hard to paint the victims, as personified by Sotomayor, as the offenders.

A report entitled “Under Siege: Life for Low-Income Latinos in the South” that was released last month by the Southern Poverty Law Center found “systemic discrimination against Latinos” that constituted “a civil rights crisis.”
…
This finding is borne out by the F.B.I.’s hate crimes data, which show that the number of anti-Hispanic hate crimes have increased by half since 2003, while all other hate crimes have increased by 6 percent.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s report blames this on the “relentless vilification” of Latinos in the media. I blame it on cherry-picking of the hate crime data.

Look at the chart at the upper right: I lopped off the top of the chart that was in the NYT article (click on the chart to see the whole thing at the NYT’s site) to zoom in on the “Anti-Hispanic” line. You can see the SPLC’s point ==> there has been a terrible increase in the number of hate crimes against Hispanics over that 5-year span.

But 5 years is too short to get a real sense of the trend. What do the hate crimes against Hispanics look like over a longer period? Well, they look like this:

(the SPLC uses the “Offenses” statistic, though I think “Incidents” is probably more useful)

Goodness, it looks like the peak in 2006-2007 is accompanied by similar peaks in 1996 and 2000. That makes it seem like this terrible recent increase in violence is neither unique nor a “civil rights crisis.” And it certainly doesn’t serve as any sort of defense for Sotomayor (not that it would have even if the trend had remained true).

But the real story is that the SPLC and the New York Times picked 2003, the all-time minimum in anti-Hispanic hate crimes, as their point of reference.

That’s cheating, plain and simple.

It’s bad enough that the SPLC and Charles Blow are proclaiming that increasing hate crimes against Hispanics are a current problem, even though they’re using 2-year old data, and even though that data shows that the hate crimes were leveling off in 2006 and 2007. And it’s bad enough that they touted a 5-year span as a trend of significance. These are both instances of sloppy statistics.

But it’s apparent that they also deliberately picked the time span that would make their point.

That’s not careless statistics, that’s outright lying.

So here we are, what with our economic woes, staffing problems in the administration, huge domestic policy changes, and Congress running rampant and often contra to the wishes of the President. And where is President Obama? Planning more trips to foreign lands.

It’s usually the Republican presidents who neglect domestic policy, but in the present case I think we can safely say that our current President has decided quite consciously to set his sights abroad. He sure does seem to like to get out of the US:

And that’s not counting his domestic travel – in particular his ill-timed fund-raising trip for Harry Reid and the like. With unemployment scheduled to break 9% this month, I think I’d prefer that he keep his fanny in Washington and start giving us some of that oversight of government spending that he promised.

On the other hand, it will be fun to watch him visit the Saudi king again. He’ll be so stiff trying to avoid looking like he’s prostrating himself that it should make for great video footage.

And maybe his time abroad will slow down his poorly considered health care reform nonsense.

Just got this from Advanta, where I have a business credit card:

Your Advanta Business Card account is funded by an independent trust which owns the balances you owe on your account and provides funding for new transactions. We expect the trust to stop funding activity on our accounts. The trust also restricts our flexibility to fund activity on your account. Unfortunately, as a result, effective May 30th all Advanta Business Credit Card accounts, including your account, will be closed.

This means that you will not be able to use your card or account for new transactions, including purchases, checks and balance transfers beginning on May 30th.

I don’t use it much anyway, but it’s a little creepy not to have the choice.

North Korea’s recent nuclear test is the result of last years’ agreement to lift sanctions on NK in exchange for NK dismantling its plutonium program. That left NK’s uranium program intact, which bugged many conservatives; among them, Dick Cheney.

Mr Cheney was so angry about the decision to remove North Korea from the terrorism blacklist and lift some sanctions that he abruptly curtailed a meeting with visiting US foreign experts when asked about it in the White House last week, according to the New York Times “I’m not going to be the one to announce this decision. You need to address your interest in this to the State Department,” he reportedly said before leaving the room.

The surprise deal was condemned by both neoconservative hardliners and mainstream Republicans who argued that it left North Korea with nuclear weapons and rewarded Pyongyang’s intransigence.

…and John Bolton:

“This is a sad, sad day,” said John R. Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations and a leading critic of the new American negotiating stance. “I think Bush believes what Condi is telling him, that they’re going to persuade the North to give up nuclear weapons, and I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think we’ve been taken to the cleaners.”

Some libs are now arguing that the Agreed Framework was the only thing stopping the weapons program in the first place. That’s ignoring a bit of history:

Even as the nations were debating implementation of the Agreed Framework, North Korea, the United States argued, was breaking the spirit, if not the letter, of the pact. Within months of signing the framework, North Korea and Pakistan reportedly cut a deal to trade missile technology for Pakistan’s uranium enrichment techniques — the Agreed Framework had banned plutonium enrichment programs.

For more than three years, the North Koreans worked quietly on their uranium project while urging the United States to fully implement the Agreed Framework. The Clinton administration apparently learned of the secret program in late 1998 or early 1999, and by March 2000, President Clinton informed Congress he could no longer certify that “North Korea is not seeking to develop or acquire the capability to enrich uranium.”

Reports claim that Condi persuaded President Bush to accept the agreement because it would improve his legacy. Bad call.

Struck by a few points which don’t seem to have made their way into the “dialogue” on enhanced interrogation.

1. There is a gap between “interrogation” and “torture” defined as “coercion.” The techniques at issue are coercive, but not torture.
2. This difference is exemplified by the use of these enhanced interrogation techniques in training our own personnel, where we stop short of actual torture when exposing them to coercive interrogation techniques. Waterboarding thus represents the upper bound of techniques that fall short of torture.
3. The Bush administration authorized the use of waterboarding in 3 special cases, but the request for authorization came from the CIA to the administration. The CIA personnel felt that they needed to use waterboarding in order to extract time-critical information from subjects who were intractable using other methods.

   So when the Obama administration makes vague claims about “other methods would have worked,” perhaps what they really mean is that they know how to do the CIA’s job better than it does; that the CIA is just a pack of morons. If that’s the case, I suggest that Intelligence Director Blair immediately begin teaching classes on proper, effective forms.

In regard to the last point, I imagine the following conversation:

CIA Liaison: Director Blair, we have 3 high-value detainees who have information regarding immediate major attacks against US population centers. Nothing we’ve tried will get them to talk, so we feel we need to try waterboarding.

Intelligence Director Blair: Other methods will work.

CIA Liaison: Other methods?

Intelligence Director Blair: Other. Methods.

CIA Liaison: Uhhh…OK….uhhhh…which ones would those be?

Intelligence Director Blair: You know, the ones that work.

CIA Liaison: But we’ve tried everything else, so I really don’t think…

Intelligence Director Blair: Idiot!! TRY THE ONES THAT AREN’T WATERBOARDING THAT WORK!!!

CIA Liaison: {backing slowly away} Ohhhh. Those techniques. Riiiigght.

The real point being: the CIA didn’t ask for permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques because they enjoyed using them, or because they thought it would be cool. They asked for permission because all of the other things they tried, including everything that every second-guessing pundit has suggested, did not work.

Now we’re finding that without the enhanced interrogation techniques, we’re getting nowhere with detainees. And the Obama administration is considering the CIA’s request to start using some of those techniques again. The fact that they’re even considering reinstating some of them obviates all of the arguments by those who are calling for Bush’s head. If coercive techniques are lawful candidates for use in the current administration, then they were lawful candidates for use under the previous administration.

There is a legitimate question as to whether the moral price of waterboarding a subject for 2 1/2 minutes outweighs the potential tragedy of a 9/11-scale attack. There is a legitimate question as to how far the protections of the Geneva Conventions extend to those who are really international mass murderers, rather than conforming members of a signatory military. But the debate has wandered into hyperbole and hypocrisy, if not outright idiocy.

The CIA and the previous administration deserve better.

Saw this screencap over at Hot Air:

All I could think was: “Now we don’t have to wonder what Olbermann would look like if he had a sex change.”

The NYT has been printing some wretched op-eds over the past few days. I wish I’d had time to hit them all, because they are truly terrible. Seems like the woes of the newspapers are inspiring their staffs to let all their inner liberal demons out to romp around in print.

Anyway, though I couldn’t get to all of them, I did have time to get to Bob Herbert’s stinker, dated yesterday. Bob was talking about Jack Kemp’s political career, lauding his attempts to bring minorities into the GOP. But then:

One of the writers who influenced Kemp’s thinking about politics, William F. Buckley, was at the opposite pole of Kemp’s progressive thinking about race. Buckley took a scurrilous stand in the aftermath of the Brown v. Board of Education decision that desegregated the nation’s public schools.

Whites, being superior, were well within their rights to discriminate against blacks, according to Buckley. “The White community is so entitled,” he wrote, “because, for the time being, it is the advanced race …”

Buckley’s appearance is supposed to represent the GOP’s resistance to Kemp’s attempt to integrate the party. Except that Buckley made that statement in 1957, and renounced it completely in the 60’s:

Buckley changed his views and by the mid-1960s renounced racism. This change was caused in part because of his reaction to the tactics used by white supremacists against the civil rights movement, and in part because of the influence of friends like Garry Wills, who confronted Buckley on the morality of his politics.

And Jack Kemp’s political career didn’t really start until 1970. Buckley’s errant and fully retracted statement had nothing to do with Kemp or the GOP during Kemp’s time in public office.

Then Herbert wanders off into economics, where he expends quite a bit of energy saying nothing substantive about supply-side economics.

We are talking about weirdness of a very high order here, and that weirdness dominated the economic policies of the United States for years.

Working people were told they should sign onto this craziness because the economic benefits of supply-side tax policies would ultimately benefit everyone. …

We’ve seen how it all worked out.

Really? That’s his interpretation of the economic situation? That it had something to do with supply-side tax policies? Are we talking about the same economy?

What an embarrassment in an already-bigoted column.