Congressional porker in Lockheed Martin's corner for JLTV?

Disclaimer: I have no realistic idea of how much or how little influence Congress has over specific military purchases. I do know that a plausible argument may be made that the Pentagon over-purchased MRAPs because of congressional meddling.

clipped from www.tribune-democrat.com Murtha didn’t just get to observe the vehicle in action, he drove it to and from JWF’s facilities to a testing ground the company has constructed in hills above the plant. Murtha said the heavily armored vehicle “drove like an SUV.”

Of Murtha and pork. Runnerup porker Bill Young (Republican) is my congressman.

Tracking the political animal

Ed Morrissey highlights the Obama problem with an excellent post at Hot Air. Captain Ed notes the laudably vigorous questioning Obama received from journalist Jon Ralston as well as Obama's typically vacuous response:

SEN. OBAMA: John, don’t put words in my mouth or anticipate what I am going to do. I’ve been opposed to Yucca Mountain from the start so if the suggestion is that John McCain who is in favor of Yucca right now should get a pass on that.

He was opposed to telecom immunity at the start, supported public financing at the start, thought the surge would create more violence at the start, and so on, and so on. “Don’t anticipate what I am going to do?” No one can anticipate what he will do — that’s the problem.

People are catching on, and that probably explains Obama's eroding poll numbers.

Grading PolitiFact: Obama right about tire inflation and tune-ups? (Updated)

Just moments after I read the Power Line challenge to Time Magazine's defense of Obama's underinflation blowup I ran across PolitiFact's own attempt to rehabilitate the Obama gaffe.

Alexander Lane produced the entry, with Scott Montgomery serving as editor.

Sen. Barack Obama injected a startling claim into the debate on energy, asserting in a Missouri town hall meeting that the country could save more gas from inflating its tires and tuning up its cars than would be gained from drilling more off its coasts.

"(O)ff its coasts"? I don't remember Obama saying anything about coasts. In fact, here is how PolitiFact reproduced the quotation:

"We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."

The folks at PolitiFact sometimes deal with the literal text and sometimes with the underlying argument. Apparently Lane plans to deal with the underlying argument. Obama, in Lane's eyes, meant to refer only to offshore drilling, not ANWR or oil shale deposits similarly under government moratorium.

Fine. Let's allow Lane to run with it and see where he goes.

The best estimate available, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is that at least a quarter of drivers are cruising around on under-inflated tires. In April, the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the Auto Club, the California Highway Patrol and Yokohama Tire Company used those statistics, along with Department of Transportation and Automobile Association of America data, to extrapolate that 2.8-billion gallons of gas are lost every year due to under-inflation of tires.

That’s an estimate, to be sure, and not one from a published, peer-reviewed study. But remember, Obama said we “could” save all the oil available from offshore drilling in the protected areas — not we “would” — so if the claim is merely plausible he’s on solid ground.

Lane makes a quick transition from the NHTSA estimate on tire underinflation--a reasonable estimate with some research data in support--and the supposed group effort extrapolation of the data. The fact that it isn't from a published, peer-reviewed study is the very least of its problems. Lane, if the references provided along with his analysis are any indication, drew the estimate from an automotive message board. I cannot tell how he was able to firmly identify the aforementioned organizations as the source of the estimate.

We may have been misled as to the source of the data. I found the same data here minus the attribution suggested by Lane. And here is the key statistic:

● According to the AAA Gas Watchers Guide, there could be up to a 10 percent loss of gasoline from vehicles with tires underinflated from 7-10 psi.

I can't find this information in either the 2004 or the 2007 version of the AAA Gas Watcher's Guide, and even if I could the statement is too ambiguous to be of much help. It mentions "tires" plural might lead to that 10 percent loss. How many tires? Two? Three? Four? It's relevant because the bulk of the NHTSA survey's 27 percent of cars with underinflated tires had one tire underinflated (by 8 pounds psi or more). Yet Lane presents this apples-and-oranges guessedimate as though it is not simply a load of hooey. Please note that the 10 percent figure is presented as the ceiling figure ("up to a 10 percent loss"), and then that figure is used as the basis for the extrapolation that gets us to the key estimate of "28 billion gallons of gas" per year (assuming the "per day" version near the end was simply an oversight).

Here is what the AAA Gas Watcher's Guide says in both the 2004 and 2007 versions, by the way:

Inflate tires according to manufacturer recommendations. Under-inflated tires are a safety hazard and can cut fuel economy by as much as 2 percent per pound of pressure below the recommended level.

This figure can easily get us above the 10 percent figure that Lane ends up touting, but once again it remains unclear how many tires would have to be low for the estimate to apply. The federal government figures, fortunately, shed some light on that picture:

You can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure. Under-inflated tires can lower gas mileage by 0.4 percent for every 1 psi drop in pressure of all four tires. Properly inflated tires are safer and last longer.
(fueleconomy.gov)

While the government Web site helps make clear that the fuel economy loss estimates are for low pressure in "all four tires" and varies substantially from the AAA estimate, even this information has a flaw that inhibits our ability to use it effectively. What is the baseline? Where does the 3.3 percent figure come from? If we use the government's .4 percent estimate, the figure of 3.3 percent appears to come from assuming all four tires inflated 8 psi below the recommended level (o.4*8=3.2; a close match). But the NHTSA estimate for tire underinflation absolutely will not support the extrapolation that Lane accepts on behalf of PolitiFact. Lane ends up using the government figure in this entry, but omits that it applies to underinflation of all four tires.

Click to enlarge the image below for additional analysis of Lane's poorly chosen source. Added comments have red emphasis.


Let's pick up now with Lane's argument:

So how much oil is available offshore? According to the latest assessment from the Minerals Management Service, the mean estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable crude oil in the Outer Continental Shelf areas that are currently under moratorium is about 18-billion barrels (see here.)

Without ANWR and domestic oil shale, then, in just 18 years tire inflation in our still overly optimistic scenario could save about 18 billion gallons of gas. At 19 gallons of gas per barrel of oil, that sounds pretty much like a drop in the bucket.

But it couldn’t all be extracted immediately. The agency estimates that if the moratorium were lifted production could start by 2017, and by 2030, oil companies could be producing 2.4-million barrels of oil instead of 2.2-million. That’s 200,000 more barrels per day.

After refining, a barrel of oil can produce up to 19.5 gallons of gasoline, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. So that’s 3.9-million more gallons of gasoline per day, or 1.4-billion gallons of gasoline per year.

And remember, an estimated 2.8-billion gallons of gas are lost annually due to under-inflated tires.

As Hinderaker points out, higher oil prices tend to lead to more aggressive extraction of easily accessed resources. The 2.4 million barrels figure is probably low unless oil prices drop way below present levels. And the true comparison is not to 2.8 billion gallons of gas saved but to under 1 billion. Offshore drilling minus ANWR and other sources should top maximal tire inflation saving annually by a long shot.

All of the numbers in this analysis are estimates, we should emphasize. Oil industry experts told us estimates of the amount of oil offshore and how fast it could be extracted vary widely, and the Energy Information Administration’s number is fairly optimistic. Likewise, it’s highly unlikely any public awareness effort could change behavior enough to save 2.8-billion gallons of gasoline per day.

"(P)er day." Did you catch that?

I'd like to see Lane's notes as to what exactly was optimistic about the EIA estimates.

But I'll tell you one thing that was optimistic. PolitiFact's grading of Obama's statement as "True." Lane showed himself inept by accepting the figures he found online. Editor Scott Montgomery should have buttonholed Lane until he located the supposed report that everyone from AAA to Yokohama Tire cooperatively produced. The source report should have accompanied the story, not a link to a message board page. Because the numbers fared so poorly under scrutiny, it seems likely that Lane was fooled into thinking the analysis came from people who know what they're talking about when that almost certainly was not the case.

But it’s clearly within the realm of possibility that tire inflation and tune-ups could save more than offshore drilling could produce. So we find Obama’s claim to be True.

What an embarrassment to journalism.

Correction: Made that 3.2 instead of 3.4 in the equation I used to recreate the thinking process behind the 3.3 percent loss in fuel economy. To paraphrase Xander Harris, to add makes our doing math good.

Update:
PolitiFact updated their entry, and I posted a response.

Obama on your shoulder, Part 2

I'll second the call from Power Line for the Hams to update their merry little jab at Barack Obama. Scott Johnson noted that a new scene featuring the helpful reminder to check tire pressure would fit the theme seamlessly.

Though the Hams apparently have no children at this point, I can easily imagine a tiny little elf reminding parents to teach their children Spanish.

Watch it again and just imagine all the possibilities.

Why is Obama slipping?

The other day I offered a critique of an AP news analysis story disguised as news. The writer, Stephen R. Hurst, offered that McCain's attack ads account for Obama bombing in recent polls.

Of course the polls offered no definitive evidence that was the case. For that, you questions other than which candidate is preferred. One would have to have some idea why people had stopped supporting Obama, so one would need a question aimed at getting that information.

But how many people actually saw/heard the McCain attack ads in the first place? It's easy to sit as a journalist or pundit already familiar with the ads and thus surmise "Uh-huh. The McCain ads caused Obama to tumble!"

I'd allow that the ads might have an effect even on those who did not see or hear them. We often get our political opinions from elites, media and otherwise.

I will suggest a simple theory. The poll slippage is Obama's fault (see this excellent column by Clark S. Judge and hosted by Hugh Hewitt). And McCain piled on the error with his ads. So McCain helped.

An attack ad works when it is plausible, and an idea is plausible if it is something you tend to accept before you encountered the ad. Ever since his campaign shifted into general election mode, Obama has been figuratively punching his Democratic base supporters in the stomach. He abandons public financing of his campaign. He changes his mind on telecom immunity. He won't allow the 16 month withdrawal turntable as a firm promise.

In short, Obama has behaved as a thoroughly political animal. And that behavior undercuts what was his basic appeal early in the campaign. Way back when, Obama was the new kind of politics guy. The good judgment on the Iraq War guy. The battling corrupt features of government guy. Obama's European tour, without any help from McCain, made it ever clearer that the old Obama was an illusion.

So when McCain compares Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton--popularity disproportionate to capability--it hits Obama in his most vulnerable spot. And it was Obama who put that spot on display.

Obama the postmodernist?

clipped from americanpowerblog.blogspot.com Asked to define sin, Barack Obama replied that sin is "being out of alignment with my values." Statements such as this have caused many people to wonder whether Obama has a God complex or is hopelessly arrogant. For the record, sin isn't being out of alignment with your own values (if it were, Hannibal Lecter wouldn't be a sinner because his values hold that it's OK to eat people) nor is it being out of alignment with Obama's — unless he really is our Savior.

Donald Douglas of "American Power" has posted a number of times the suggestion that Barack Obama qualifies as a postmodernist.

Today's entry builds on that idea. And I admit being hooked by the campaign poster.

Note: I initially mistook the text above for Douglas'. It turns out to be the work of the estimable Jonah Goldberg. In any case, read the whole of it.

Aswat Aliraq: Iraqis nab AQI's Diala leader

DIALA, Aug. 4 (VOI)- Iraqi security forces on Monday arrested the leader of al-Qaeda in Diala during a security operation in the province, according to the state-run al-Iraqia satellite television.

"Security forces arrested Basem al-Safaah, the leader of al-Qaeda in Diala, during a security raid waged within Bashaer al-Kheir (Promise of Good) security operation in the province," the channel quoted a security source as saying.
"The man is believed to be involved in killing civilians and displacing families from the province," he added, giving no more details.
(Aswat Aliraq)

The crackdown on insurgents and unruly militias continues to generate similar reports of success. This type of news, combined with reports of a growing streak of Iraqi nationalism bodes well for the future of the new Iraq.

AP spins poll results

In a classic display of passing off news analysis as news, Stephen R. Hurst of the Associated Press offered poll results showing a nine point slip by Barack Obama as a confirmation that character attacks launched by McCain had proved effective.

clipped from hosted.ap.org

Poll: McCain's attack strategy paying dividends

By STEVEN R. HURST

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Intensified attacks by Republican John McCain on the character of his Democratic opponent have coincided with Barack Obama losing a nine percentage point advantage in a national poll, which showed the candidates running dead even over the weekend.

Though it should be shocking that a press culture that offers objectivity as its ideal would pass this type of thing off as news reporting, unfortunately it is too often business as usual. The problem manifests itself from the beginning. The header, via use of a colon, offers Hurst's analysis as the results of a poll.

Thankfully we were spared a deck on this one.

The poll in question was Gallup's daily tracking poll. The poll typically does not reflect anything but analysis of raw numbers. It tends not to contain theories or conjectures as to why the numbers trend one way or the other, and aside from the headline of Hurst's story (probably not composed by him) he offers no suggestion that the analysis came from the poll.

That's appropriate enough, because Hurst is not really reporting on the poll. Hurst is attacking McCain for attacking Obama, portraying the attacks as a broken promise by McCain.

As noted above, Hurst accuses McCain of engaging in character attacks.

Let's have a look at the character attacks through the eyes of the objective reporter.

The four-term Arizona senator, who backed the war and claims experience with security and foreign policy issues, charged that Obama's promise to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office amounted to his having chosen to lose a war to promote his run for the presidency.

Character attack? The above is a policy issue. Plainly Obama made the Iraq War and his intent to get out of it the signature issue of his primary campaign. Obama made his superior judgment on the war one of his selling points. McCain's ad takes advantage of the present situation in Iraq to show that Obama's judgment was wrong.

He subsequently ran a television ad that accused Obama of deciding not to visit wounded U.S. troops because he could not take television cameras — a claim that appeared to be false.

Hurst is engaged in spin on this one. Annenberg Political Fact Check does the better job. It is fair to say, as does the Annenberg story, that the ad makes an insinuation that is probably false. But on the other hand an insinuation tends to be weaker than an accusation. The ad exaggerates a true observation regarding Obama: He put visiting the troops as a lower priority. Again, the attack is focused on behavior, not the person.

Next he issued a commercial that interpose images of Obama with pop culture figures Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, trying to paint Obama as a celebrity without the experience to lead the country.

Pointing out that a candidate is thin on experience is a character attack? If that's a character attack then what isn't a character attack?

Leadership experience is a substantive issue. Next.

That was followed by accusations that Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, had resorted to racial politics by asserting McCain and other Republicans would try to frighten Americans because Obama did not look like past U.S. presidents whose images are on the country's paper money.

Unbelievable. We finally get to a real example of a character attack. The attack is by Obama, and Hurst interprets McCain's slapdown of Obama's tactic as a character attack by McCain against Obama. Because McCain has not done what Obama suggests McCain will do, Obama's attack was not a substantive issue but instead nothing more than a cheap character attack. And the AP makes Obama the victim.

And most recently, in an Internet advertisement, the voiceover calls Obama "The One" and features Obama appearing to describe himself and his presidential quest in grandiose terms. It ends with Charlton Heston as Moses parting the Red Sea in the movie, "The Ten Commandments."

The ad mocks the approach of the Obama campaign, which is another substantive issue. And the point of the ad is another focus on Obama's inexperience in contrast to his grandiose claims. Oh, I'm sorry. The claims only appear grandiose.

Hurst has no examples to back up his lead. The editor draws equal blame in light of that oversight. Bad job, AP.

Those invested in Iraq defeat see fortunes tumbling

McClatchy Newspapers joins the trend toward positive reporting on Iraq:

With violence subsiding throughout Baghdad, residents said that sectarianism is becoming less pervasive. They're starting to think of themselves as Iraqis, not as hostages to hyphenated, sectarian identities.

Residents said they visit relatives in neighborhoods of opposite sects. Taxi drivers said they can travel around blast walls to neighborhoods outside their own sect. Sunnis can get medical care at Shiite-run hospitals.

Of course some of my leftward friends will think "They're only saying that because we pay them to say it!" or something similarly absurd. But the reality is that the sectarian violence came from a minority and was almost certainly fed by an Al Qaeda strategy designed to inflame sectarian mistrust.

The obvious deserves repeating until it is recognized as the truth regarding Iraq: The Iraq War has turned a corner, and the best-case scenario in the wake of the war is within our grasp. The best-case scenario? A democratic and united Iraq friendly to the United States as Europe is friendly to the United States. No more Hussein shenanigans. No more secret WMD programs along with terrorist ties.

Instead, a distant neighbor with whom we will not always see eye to eye, but one with whom we will talk and cooperate.

The delicious turn in fortunes was long in coming, no doubt. The U.S. and its allies bear the embarrassment of the poor performance of intelligence operations, and that embarrassment will enduringly embolden enemies of the West.

The coalition forces were too slow in transforming the invasion/occupation force into a counterinsurgency force.

On the political front, our enemies can take some bitter comfort in the fact that they were this close to achieving politically what they could not achieve militarily. Yes, I'm assuming that the next administration will not somehow find a way to trade a good outcome for bad.

Credit is due to President Bush, the coalition armed forces and the Iraqi people. Persistence was a key for each.

Arming Iraq: M-1A1 (Abrams) tanks

Via Strategypage:

August 3, 2008: Iraq wants to buy 140 M1A1M Abrams tanks, along with over a hundred support vehicles (for maintenance and transportation, like 35 tank transporters). The request includes training and technical support. The total contract cost would be $2.16 billion.

The announcement provides me an opportunity to remind anti-war folks who could see no benefit to the war of one of the obvious benefits: trade partnership.

The war was partly about oil because regimes like Hussein's (and the present Iranian regime) use essential commodities like oil to make others miserable. It's fine if Iraq sells its oil to Europe. Because the oil market is a global market, the U.S. still benefits from a price decrease. What Europe buys from Iraq Europe need not buy elsewhere. Iraq profits, and an Iraq with money can buy things. Countries with things to sell can then look at Iraq as a market.

Now, of course there will be the peacenik hand-wringing over the sale of weapons. The resulting security assurance Iraq receives against an Iranian attack is extremely easy to overlook if you're removed far enough to the left.