Comments Posted By kreiz
Displaying 121 To 127 Of 127 Comments
WHY COOLER HEADS MUST PREVAIL ON IRAN
Ditto, Rick. The issue boils down to how far we will go to protect Israel, given that Israel is the most likely and reachable target of Iran's hostile ambitions. Israel isn't a weak sister; it's fully capable of protecting its regional interest. If this thing is couched in terms of US exposure (similar to Iraq), it doesn't comport to the most likely scenarios.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 5.04.2006 @ 10:17
I agree with you totally. I wish I would've been able to read the post to see what it was about.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 23.03.2006 @ 14:46
AN INTERVIEW WITH DAVID HACKETT FISCHER
Very nicely done, Rick. I'm not familiar with Professor Fischer's work but intend to remedy that soon.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 4.03.2006 @ 16:59
WHY I'M NOT WATCHING THE OSCARS
I don't mean to minimize your complaints about boycotting the Oscars, Rick. Hollywood is a victim of its own success- always trying to do something different. And in conjunction with the tangible leftist bias, there's a dirth of American Exceptionalism movies. So we get a steady diet of "The Constant Gardener", "Syriana", "Munich" and "Jarhead" without any corresponding pro-American films.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 6.03.2006 @ 10:08
Hawkeye: I enjoyed "Pride and Prejudice" as well- it was an excellent film that I thoroughly enjoyed. Of the nominated films, my personal choice was "Munich". I know it's been roundly criticized by the Right, and I understand the complaint. But it was challenging cinema- and the good guys won. Finally, I was glad to see the wealth was distributed last night, especially since there wasn't one monster film that outshined all others. I enjoyed "Crash". I was glad that the Academy voters didn't artifically anoit one film in the feeding frenzy that so often happens. It was refreshing.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 6.03.2006 @ 09:44
Rick- I'm a first timer here, having stumbled across your blog through Callimachus's participation with the Watcher's Council. I like your topics and thought provoking writing. I plan on showing up here more often. For what it's worth, I'm a 1952-ish Boomer. Argh, that used to sound so young.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 4.03.2006 @ 17:52
Fascinating question. A few thoughts come to mind. I thought of Katrina and the Administration's anemic initial response to it, fumbling over seemingly abstract issues of federalism while people in need suffered, reluctant to initiate strong leadership. Would Bill Clinton have done a better job? Certainly. But so would Bush the Elder, I would argue. Reagan? It's speculation- my instinct says that it depends upon which set of advisors ruled the day (James Baker? No problem; the Ed Meese/Deaver crew? Doubtful.)
Michael Reynolds of 'The Mighty Middle' has argued that Dems are better than Republicans at building things through government action, primarily as a function of their pro-gov't philosophy. I disagree with the premise because of folks like McCain, Powell, Baker- all of whom are talented at using government proactively. I'm much less certain about Bush the Younger, whose seeming distrust of government has handicapped two major projects- Katrina and the Iraq reconstruction.
If anti-government, pro market conservatives distrust government, are they likely to use it effectively? Doubtful. Should we be surprised if they prove ineffectual or even incompetent in its administration? Again, probably not. But there's substantial evidence that proactive Democrats aren't necessarily models of effective government either, often throwing mountains of tax dollars to prop up moribund or ineffectual programs.
My sense is that it's more of a function of leadership, personality and pragmatism than abstract political philosophy. Mayor Giuliani comes to mind, an incredibly effective administrator and leader, someone who altered NYC's landscape itself, taming that 'ungovernable' city. Robert Kennedy and Harry Truman come to mind- even (argh) Lyndon Johnson. I suspect McCain falls into this discussion as well. All are strong, forceful pragmatists who are unafraid to use government to to accomplish things. I wouldn't put Reagan, Bush 43 or Clinton in this category, irrespective of their political philosphies.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 4.03.2006 @ 17:38
