Abu Hatem أبو حاتم

The great Peter Schiff, and Congressman Ron Paul:

Share This

John McCain wrote an article in the 1998 edition of the Brown Journal for World Affairs based on his vision of American foreign policy.  McCain argued for a foreign policy based in “American values,” and not in pursuit of “narrow interests” (as in realism) or “disengagement” (i.e. non-intervention).  The arrogant myth that America could only do good in its interventions and interactions with the world is an idealist relic of the Wilsonian tradition, firmly refuted by the great Christian realist Reinhold Niebuhr.

McCain’s reliance on hard power, or military and economic might, instead of diplomacy, in achieving his objectives of utopian change in the world is the very philosophy we have had in the Bush administration.

Although most American presidents, at least post-Cold War, subscribe to some form of this basic philosophy, I think Obama would rely less on hard power to achieve his objectives.  Its the difference between a Bush and a Clinton, and although Clinton was horrible, Bush is much, much, much worse.

McCain’s foreign policy in a nutshell, quoted from his article:

The United States has always been a nation committed to values. It is not the way of the United States to pursue a foreign policy based on narrow interests regardless of these values, or to disengage from foreign affairs, or to promote our values without a realistic strategy that takes account of our interests and limitations. The foundation of a U.S. foreign policy strategy must be to stand firmly on our belief in the American idea, and then to nurture carefully the building blocks that will allow for the natural spreading of this idea over time.

Share This

Two of my favorite authors, the always insightful Patrick J. Buchanan, and economist and historian Thomas DiLorenzo debate this morning on my favorite television show Morning Joe.  While both Buchanan and DiLorenzo are men of the right, Buchanan is a Hamiltonian conservative while DiLorenzo is a Jeffersonian libertarian.  It makes for an interesting yet intellectual discussion.

Share This

As a Muslim, I concur, when societies lose virtue and devotion to God then civilization ends up with a whole lot of problems.  As a conservative, I concur, because when people rebel against tradition they open Pandora’s box.  Here are the comments:

Benedict warned that “nations once rich in faith and vocations are losing their own identity under the harmful and destructive influence of a certain modern culture.

“There are those that, having decided that ‘God is dead,’ declare themselves ‘god,’ believing themselves to be the only creator of their own fate, the absolute owner of the world,” the German-born pope said.

“When men proclaim themselves absolute owners of themselves and the only masters of creation, are they really going to be able to construct a society where freedom, justice and peace reign?

“Is it not more likely — as demonstrated by news headlines every day — that the arbitrary rule of power, selfish interests, injustice and exploitation, and violence in all its forms, will extend their grip?”

Share This

More economists come out saying the bailout is dangerous, unnecessary and detrimental:

“It’s more hype than real risk,” said James K. Galbraith, a University of Texas economist and son of the late economic historian John Kenneth Galbraith. “A nasty recession is possible, but the bailout will not cure that. So it’s mainly relevant to the financial industry.”

Share This

Some other livebloggers, with much better commentary, are Andrew Sullivan and Oliver Burkeman of the right and left respectively.

Share This

@ Abu Hatem News on the sidebar (or here).

Share This

The debate tonight is going to be a waste of three hours except for political junkies wanting to know who will win, and people wanting entertainment.  People who actually believe they will learn something in a presidential debate are crazy.  Anyhow, I will be liveblogging here at AbuHatem.com during the debate.

Some predictions:

• Obama is going to lose the debate.  Hillary beat him in almost every debate.  McCain sucks at speeches but rocks the average joe “straight talk” facade like none other.  Obama is too professorial.  No matter who says what, I think McCain’s prememorized zingers will win him the debate.
• Obama has had a huge 2 week boost.  Rasmussen polls (the gold standard of polls) this week had him winning in the red states of Virginia and North Carolina.  On intrade his odds are back up to the mid-50s and even sometimes breaking 60.  Expect the race to tighten up a bit after he loses tonight.
• FiveThirtyEight.com referenced this political scientists data on post-debate bounces here which shows that “These data suggest that the norm is for very little swing in candidate support following debates. Across all thirteen presidential debates the average absolute change in candidate support was 1 percentage point. There are a few notable exceptions, of course. Two that stand out are the second debate in 1992, following which George H.W. Bush lost 2 points, and first debate of 2004, after which George W. bush lost 2.26 points.”  So don’t expect the debates to really matter.  But then again, we said that about VP nominees and Sarah Palin gave McCain his only two-week lead in national polls all campaign (since Obama won in May).

I think that even though the race will tighten after McCain wins the debate tonight, if this Wall Street mess keeps going during October then Obama could win.

Obama’s early victory indicators - his massive fundraising advantage, dislike of the Bush administration, high chances of recession, low economic growth - are virtually all gone.  Obama still has an edge because of Bush’s unpopular incumbency, but I don’t think that an Obama blowout like I predicted earlier is still probable although it is certainly possible.

Look for the state polls on about October 22nd, a week after the third debate.  If Obama is close in Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and even Indiana then I would say an Obama victory is very probable.  Don’t look at national polls, they never matter.

Share This

Radical neocon nutjob Glenn Beck spent his entire show for the past week dissing the bailout, railing against socialism in America, talking about the budget, dissing John McCain, saying conservatism was dead…

Yet now he… yes, supports the bailout.  This is proof, for all who didn’t believe it, there are no real conservatives anymore.

Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams writes in a British newspaper that “Face it: Marx was right about capitalism.”  Hold up… say what?

David Ignatius of the Washington Post writes about how the statist interventionist work of John Manyard Keynes will help us through this crisis.  What?  After Friedman refuted Keynes, we still come back?  After Ronald Reagan deregulated, and Milton Friedman made Keynesianism history, after Jimmy Carter’s malaise was replaced by growth, we are quoting Keynes and Marx?  Oh dear.

Lew Rockwell’s blog, which has a few notable Austrian economists who post, has a very good point about socialism in America today:

Rothbard recounts Mises’s comment about a stock market being incompatible with socialism, as I note here. Rothbard wrote:

One time I asked Professor von Mises, the great expert on the economics of socialism, at what point on this spectrum of statism would he designate a country as “socialist” or not. At that time, I wasn’t sure that any definite criterion existed to make that sort of clear-cut judgment. And so I was pleasantly surprised at the clarity and decisiveness of Mises’s answer. “A stock market,” he answered promptly. “A stock market is crucial to the existence of capitalism and private property. For it means that there is a functioning market in the exchange of private titles to the means of production. There can be no genuine private ownership of capital without a stock market: there can be no true socialism if such a market is allowed to exist.

Don’t expect the anti-corporate left to agree with this, since stock implies corporations!

Share This

Come on guys!  This is right up your alley, you know.  Democrats don’t like Wall Street bailouts as much as Republicans.  Come on guys!  This is another Iraq war resolution.  If you go against it, it will fail.

Instead we have this from Madame Pelosi:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic congressional leaders have said the package is President Bush’s bill, and they do not want Democrats to be blamed if the program does not work.

Share This