Why Is the NRA So Powerful?

New video from Learn Liberty:  Why is the NRA so powerful?


Some things of note:

1.  The way the stick men caress the guns like luscious, curvy stick women is a little creepy.   Me gusta!  I'm not sure I would have chosen all the assault rifles, though.  Regular rifles, bolt action, or perhaps shotguns, are much more common interests for NRA members.
2.  I know that because I am an NRA member, and have been for a long time.  Card in my wallet, paid up member.  I am not happy with the recent positions on the NRA, on a variety of things.  But I am still a member.  Because the NRA is first and foremost the largest education and gun safety organization in the world.  And the magazines are awesome.  The NRA members I know, in law enforcement and gun training, are really fine people.  I am proud to be an NRA member, overall.
3.  I was so much fatter than.  I'm thinner than that now.
4.  As always, big ups to Elisabeth McCaffrey for making this all work.

All Hail R. K. Gaddie

There's a protest in his kitchen and he's telling the world:

How is the IMF managing director chosen?

DSK is down and everyone has a thought on who the next managing director should be or how the process should work.

"Europe" is demanding that the new appointment be a European.

Since the founding of the IMF and World Bank, a "gentleman's agreement" has been in place that the head of the Bank will be an American and the head of the Fund a European.

The managing director is chosen by the executive board, i.e. the 24 executive directors of the Fund. Here is a link to who they are and who they represent along with the weight that is attached to each of their votes.

Here are the official rules for choosing the managing director:

"The IMF’s Managing Director is both Chairperson of the IMF’s Executive Board and Head of IMF staff. The Managing Director is assisted by a First Deputy Managing Director and two Deputy Managing Directors. He or she is appointed by the Executive Board for a renewable term of five years. Although the Executive Board may select a Managing Director by a majority of votes cast, the Board has in the past made such appointments by consensus."

It doesn't say whether the vote, if one would ever be taken, would be simple majority or weighted majority.

In sum, there is no formal nomination process, no hearings, no debates, just the consensus of the managing directors.

No wonder there is such a rabid free for all going on over the succession.

Good Sense

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t China and Iran really far away? I realize that both pose a potential threat to American security. But don’t they also pose a threat to lots of other countries that are actually in their neighborhoods? So, if we appoint ourselves world police, and foot the bill for a correspondingly gargantuan arsenal, aren’t we suckers? You might reply that our disproportionate role in policing reflects the fact that these nations threaten the United States disproportionately. On Iran’s vitriol list, the United States ranks high. And Chinese leaders direct more coded warnings toward America than toward, say, Brazil. But this logic is circular. A big reason that some nations view us so warily is that we assume the role of global cop — or, as they see it, of global bully.

...By declaring ourselves global cop, we direct so much of the world’s lethal animus toward us that increasingly it does seem to make sense to take the lead in policing the world. So we dig ourselves into an ever deeper hole with a policy that, in a perverse and ultimately catastrophic way, renders itself ever more plausible.

... People who, like me, raise questions about the value of global military engagement are sometimes called 'isolationists.' But that term rightly applies only to people who don’t realize that there are threats to our security out there. If you perceive the threats but realize that they’re collective action problems, you realize that we do have to be involved in their solution. [Robert Wright, NYT op-ed]

(Nod to Kevin Lewis)