Et Tu Bloge

Ever Hear of Our Inalienable Rights

2006-12-05T07:34:00.000-05:00

Keith Ellison is a recently elected Congressman from Minnesota who is a Muslim. Powerline examined his life closely before the election. Ellison denied it but the record shows he has been an active member of the Black Muslim headed by Louis Farrakan. It was also reported that he had close ties to major Muslim groups that may have links to terrorism funding. (Here is a Powerline link).

During the election, after Powerline exposed his background, Ellison claimed that he had discarded that facet of his life long ago. He also disavowed the blatant Anti-Semitism of the group. His message was accepted by the public as he won election.

Ellison has created a minor scandal by refusing to swear his oath of loyalty to the Constitution and this country as a Congressman upon a Bible. He claims it conflicts with his Muslim religion. He will swear upon the Koran.

Dennis Prager recently criticized Ellison for this. Wrote Prager:

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

Naturally, the multi-culti Left has pilloried Prager for insisting on our time-honored tradition. Prager today defends himself from the harsh (invective-laden) critics. While any given individual Founder may have had his own brand of religious beliefs, that is not the issue. the issue ios upon what principles this country was founded.

Writes Prager:

America derives its laws from the Constitution. It derives its values from the Bible. We don't get inalienable rights from the Constitution; we get them from God. Which is exactly what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government and not by any man-made document.

This is what the critics do not understand. This is what so many of our government-loving citizens do not understand.

We have granted the government limited powers over us. We can only offer what we personally possess. We have never been able to grant government power over the natural rights of others. We do not possess their personal rights. No matter how popular or even necessary it appears, we cannot cede the rights of others to the government.

That is why the Constitution expresses its powers so explicitly. Activist judges for over a century have denied this concept. That is how they can take people's property from them in eminent domain without the specific public purpose as stated under the Constitution. This is how they usurp legislative power to decide issues that are not theirs to decide. This is how the government secularists (their religion) are so wrong fundamentally.

Is it a right of Ellson's to not be forced to swear his oath of fealty to the country and its Constitution on a symbol of the moral principles under-pinning the subjects? No. He has a right to practice his own religion and to not have to follow a religion established by the country. But this is a traditional oath of fealty. And out of tradition he should follow it.

Unless he truly feels to loyalty to the Constitution.

Power Corrupts In Nano-Seconds

2006-12-04T12:40:00.000-05:00

The WSJ publishes a letter from liberal Congressmen John Rockerfeller, Olympia Snow and other signatories to Exxon.

Has anyone read this over the top attack on Exxon by the Senate? Considering liberals are the party of open debate and tolerance, this really makes one question their intellectual integrity. Or is this mere power used to silence opponents. It can't be since they are the tolerant party. Our fears of what life would be like should the Democrats assume power may have been a gross under-estimate.

Here is an excerpt:

In light of the adverse impacts still resulting from your corporations activities, we must request that ExxonMobil end any further financial assistance or other support to groups or individuals whose public advocacy has contributed to the small, but unfortunately effective, climate change denial myth. Further, we believe ExxonMobil should take additional steps to improve the public debate, and consequently the reputation of the United States. We would recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it. Second, ExxonMobil should repudiate its climate change denial campaign and make public its funding history. Finally, we believe that there would be a benefit to the United States if one of the world's largest carbon emitters headquartered here devoted at least some of the money it has invested in climate change denial pseudo-science to global remediation efforts. We believe this would be especially important in the developing world, where the disastrous effects of global climate change are likely to have their most immediate and calamitous impacts.

Who does not think they will abuse their power to shake down Exxon?

Who Are We Helping?

2006-11-22T07:36:00.000-05:00

Another loss with the passing of Milton Friedman is missing his “right to the heart of the matter” answers on social-economic issues in interviews. He spoke to Bill Steigerwald back in March of 2001 where he said the following on public education:

Friedman: Why should government run the schools of the country? There's no more reason for government to run the schools then there is for government to produce the automobile. And the schools are low quality on the average, just as automobiles would be of low quality if government produced them.

Q: You could probably talk for the rest of the day about what is wrong with public education. But what is most wrong about it today and how will choice fix that?

Friedman: Well, there's no doubt what's most wrong about public education, and that is that it's a monopoly. The customer has no say. Schools are financed by the government but they're actually run by the teachers unions and education bureaucracy. And the schools pick the students, the students don't pick the schools, in general. What you need is competition.

Q: I'm sure you're familiar with the home-school movement, which has arisen over the last 10 years as form of competition to schools.

Friedman: It is. And the fact that it is a form of competition shows how bad our schools are. Can you think of any other sophisticated product in which the home-made product is superior to the factory-made product?

No doubt certain someones are very nervous about competition proving Friedman’s comments were accurate.

And on social security, consider this:

I don't understand why the government should tell me how much money I should save for the future, but not tell me how much of my money I can spend for food. And I believe that the current Social Security system is in certain ways fundamentally unjust. Take the most obvious example, in the current hysteria about AIDS: Here's a young man, a man of 35 or 40 who has AIDS and is told that he has got five or 10 years to live at the most. And the government comes along and says, "You've got to put aside 13 percent or something like that of your income to save for your old age." That seems to me to be cruel and unjust.

That was in 2001. Today, government is moving towards dictating the foods we may eat. Of course, it is to assist us in living healthier lives. And if it just saves one person's life...

Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You...

2006-11-17T08:52:00.000-05:00

Here is the actual Friedman comment (from Capitalism and Freedom) on JFK's famous inaugural statement:

"President Kennedy said, 'Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.'.... Neither half of that statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society."

Me and Bobbie McGee says "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose". Maybe to a Marxist. I say it means everything worth having. Not as poetic but closer again to the truth.

Friedman Taught The Humaneness Of The Free Market

2006-11-17T07:41:00.000-05:00

While I waited for my daughter to finish her class at hebrew School, I mentioned the death of Milton Friedman to 2 other waiting parents. Both recognized the name and his occupation-economics.

I said that besides the assumed cold subject of economics, I thought Friedman’s contribution was as great in allowing us to recognize the prosperity that flows from freedom. I then told them about how floored I was upon reading Friedman’s criticism of the famous JFK bromide “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”. Friedman found that the statement failed in both sections as it relates to liberty. In essence, we are not vassals of the state to do its bidding. As well, we should not expect much from the state. I think Katrina showed us what dependence upon government is worth.

I then brought up the benefits we gain from the self-interest of the baker. We never have to worry about how or if the bread will make it to the bakery. We just know it will be there.

The woman was aghast that in a waiting room of a temple I would show such esteem for self-interest and the profit motive. She felt what I had said was not supportive of a supposed Torahic decree towards charity.

I responded that the Torah looks to ethical actions. Where, I asked, was the voluntary giving in a government forcing me through taxation to support some cause the politician found beneficial to the community. From my view, I would like to decide whether I contribute towards a bridge to some uninhabited Alaskan island rather than be forced to by a politician’s fiat.

What I also should have stated was, getting back to the baker, would she prefer to buy her daily bread from a profit-seeking baker or a government-run bakery. No doubt the breads may be as good (though even that is questionable) but which business is most likely to always be open early enough for the breakfast customers. Which business is more likely to be open at 6:00 A.M.? Which one may not always be open by 8:00 A.M.? Which business will be cleaner and have better inventory? The one with the owner who wants to please his customers and make lots of money or the one that cares not about what the revenue and profits are?

That is what I think about as I consider the economic process. And Milton Friedman taught me directly through his writings or through the writings of the generations of students (such as Thomas Sowell). Economics is not solely numbers. And the correct policy, such as having the lowest taxes so that money remains in the hands of those bakers, and clothiers and dentists and insurance agents and developers and Big Oil executives means more people are employed, fed, clothed and housed than through government’s or charity’s good graces.

Friedman showed me that the proper free market approach to trade and personal relations is the most humane. And it is more fun to learn these concepts knowing that it is the fairest system to bring about such goodness. Thank you Milton Friedman.

Friedman On The Drug War

2006-11-16T20:35:00.000-05:00

Milton Friedman's letter to Bill Bennett on the "War on Drugs" (Thanks to NRO Corner)

You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve. Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault. Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

Remember this when you are outlawing smoking cigarettes. Remember this when you are dictating what foods can be eaten. Remember this when you decide what cars we can drive. Remember this when you decide the appropriate square footage of houses we can own. Remember this when you ban anything and everything.

All The Wrong Post-Election Moves

2006-11-13T07:15:00.000-05:00

While Mark Steyn sees the US election debalce as indication of the US as a sufferer of ADHD that was correctly assessed by Al Qaeda, the solution has always been “small lean efficient government at home and muscular assertiveness abroad.”

Daniel Pipes holds that the goal should have been less ambitious (and unfortunately remains so):

Had the U.S.-led coalition pitched its ambitions lower, aspiring only to a decent government and economy while working much more slowly toward democracy, Iraq’s progress over the past four years would be more apparent. The occupying forces should have sponsored a democratically minded strongmanto secure the country and eventually move it toward an open political process…The basic coalition message to Iraqis should have been: You are adults, here is your country back, good luck.

Richard Miniter sees replacing Rumsfeld with a realpolitick steward like Robert Gtaes bodes real disaster and even worse would be the replacement of our Iraq ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad:

His rumored replacement is Ryan Crocker, a State Department lifer now serving as ambassador to Pakistan. On his watch, Pakistan made a series of peace agreements with the Taliban and al Qaeda, essentially offering them safe haven to launch attacks on American and allied forces in Afghanistan. He also stood by as Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf released some 2,500 al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners this year. Will he smile on similar deals with terrorists in Iraq?

Giving into the tired drumbeat of the Left and the MSM is not going to improve our security. Will we discover this too late?

Good For Dems, Good For Iran

2006-11-10T15:18:00.000-05:00

Reuters reports:

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.

I guess I wasn't the only one who concluded that.

Mike Responds

2006-11-10T13:27:00.000-05:00

Pray tell me, liberal friend, how will government "work" better under Democratic control?

I really need to have specifics from you on this one as my premise is that the level of government spending has no relation to the general welfare. The recent Republicans have managed to create even MORE government in these United States and it ain't "working".

Will there be some change in mechanism that suddenly makes large government expenditures beneficial to the economy and the people overall? Is there some sort of magic pixie dust that Democrats possess that makes their version of government "work"?

What I "get" is that after 50 years of Great Society spending... the proportion of people living below the poverty line hasn't changed one iota. In 1968 the official poverty level was 12.8%... in 2005 it was 12.6%. I expect a lot more for my trillions of tax dollars, don't you?

I find this to be prima facie evidence that government doesn't "work" for below average Americans. Perhaps you, my liberal friend, have a different idea of how government works. My surmise, however, is that higher government spending levels makes you feel as if something good is happening.

I am sorry, but when it comes to taking trillions of dollars from working families I need something more tangible than a feeling that government "works". The facts surrounding what government can and can't do are pretty clear to anyone willing to put aside their feelings and look at evidence. There is little that the Federal government can do efficiently, and bureaucrats prove it everyday.

As for Social Security: there is nothing that is going to make 2+2 equal 5... no matter if Franklin Delano Roosevelt himself told us that during a fireside chat. We are kidding ourselves that SS will not run out of money under the present scheme. The program was designed from the get-go as a "take from the current taxpayer and give to the elderly" and when it turns out that the elderly outnumber the taxpayers.. the system will go bust.

It will take a crisis for Congress to act, and that crisis is coming... just about the time I am set to retire. GWB was right, it's easier to fix now than later. But who in Washington will sacrifice
his/her popularity among senior voters in order to preserve future seniors? No one.

Just because a solution is politically unpopular doesn't make the problem go away.

While I am looking at history, I would remind our liberal friend that the majority party's losses on Tuesday are not far from the norm for 6th year losses for the party holding the White House. That has happened to White House occupants from either party. I believe that the Democrats were born Monday on third base... and on Wednesday they're congratulating themselves for hitting a home run. I say again, let the dog have its day.

As I made clear in my post, if we had lost 14 House seats and 5 Senate seats REPUBLICANS would be crowing... with as little reason as the Democrats are doing today. Politicians on both sides of the aisle celebrate victories and ascribe to themselves mandates they didn't earn.

The proof is in how you execute once you've won... by 500 votes in Florida or by 3,000 votes in Montana and Virginia.

However, perhaps our liberal friend is concerned that I am "name calling" with my dog and queen references. I infer this from the "polarization" reference. If you think that Republicans are polarized, I would refer you to Democrat comments from any time in their history.

(My over-riding theory about how Democrats operate remains the same. Their policies are not successful and what makes them successful is their talent for calling the opposition evil...and driving that feeling home early and repeatedly. It works for them.)

I would point out that no President since Lincoln has been called more vile names than the current President. "Incompetent", "loser", "racist" are just a few of the epithets hurled at a sitting President by Speaker Pelosi (D) and Leader Reid (D). My light joking about San Francisco queens and dogs having their day is extraordinarily mild in comparison to what Democrats have called GWB, Cheney and our uniformed troops.

To Dick Durbin (D), our troops guarding terrorists are akin to "Nazis.. Pol Pot...the Soviet gulag...". If anyone needs an historical reference, those were regimes that committed mass murder on a scale that is unimaginable to civilized societies. Where were these outlandish statements made? Not on the campaign hustings but the floor of the US Senate, that famous "cooling saucer" where calmer heads are said to prevail. And where was this speech reported and analyzed in the famous NY Times? Answer: nowhere... it didn't rate even a single line of type in that paper.

In contrast...how many of us knew what "macaca" meant before the press educated us? That obscure word generated close to a dozen front page headlines in the Washington Post. I wonder what dictionary they had to consult to define this single word uttered by a Republican. I doubt that ANYONE in the room, including George Allen (R) knew it was an insult. But according to the Washington Post, it was proof that a Republican is just another name for a throwback racist slaveowner.

And whether John Kerry (D) meant it or not, he insulted the troops. He compounded the problem by assuming a "I will not be Swift-boated" stance the next day because someone told him he needed to be tough. What he needed to do was be less insulting... to troops or the President.

So long, Johnny. We really have come to know ye, that's why your quest for the Presidency is now irretrievably lost.

I invite comments from our liberal friend. I would especially invite the introduction of even more facts that contrast or compare to the arguments I put forth.

If it were a fact that liberal policies "work" I'd be a liberal. But as it stands the facts are on the side of the free market and conservative policies. What started out with Ronald Reagan so many years ago as one thing has been perverted into another thing that conservatives won't support in elections.

I truly believe Reagan's statement on his inauguration:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price."

These words remain true today.

I will also quote from John Adams, a favorite of Think Tanker Skip March. Let it be the basis for our discussions among liberals and conservatives:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence".

I look forward to the debate. It's what has made this country great, the competition of ideas.

-- MTT

Save The Haloes For Angels

2006-11-10T13:25:00.000-05:00

Conversation with a liberal:

Liberal:

Neal, does your friend MTT on ettu still not get it? People want a govt that works - not this "queen of SF" and "let the dog have its day" stuff. That polarization was a reason why the election was lost in the first place. Sure looked like people voted centrist, ie Casey over Santorum, a two term incumbent.

Neal -
I think it is primarily the Abramoff thing coupled with the hypocrisy of claiming to be for small govt and spending like drunken sailors. When a majority of Americans poll that they are for smaller govt, they will not reward big spenders. Good to clean them out. If Dems go there, no luck in 2008.

Liberal:
Smaller govt yes, but people still want SS i.e. No congressman would touch the "reform" issue after Bush's road show on the personal/private account dialogue. People know the deficit spending that's gone on really jeopardizes the program viability. Reality is SS may be tempered, but will never truly go away. Just not enough votes out there. Tell MTT he needs to compromise a tad bit!

Neal:
Economic literates should be aware of the basic failing of the program. But maybe it continues due to an over-riding belief in the benificence of government---at least your party's.

More From Mike

2006-11-08T09:11:00.000-05:00

Neal and I certainly did get it wrong.

Bill Kristol had it right. (Damn him!) He predicted a loss of "between 20-30 seats".

Was it a landslide? No. But as someone pointed out yesterday, if the Dems had won only 14 House seats and 5 Senatorial seats then we Republicans would have declared those losses a victory. Let the dog have its day.

Democrats will naturally declare a mandate, Nancy Pelosi will be queen for a day (boy, that sure means something different in San Francisco!) and there is no doubt in my mind that Howard Dean thinks himself an even bigger genius this morning.

But, my friends, there is a silver lining among our clouds today:

A Republican administration and a Democrat Legislature means a bigger chance of gridlock. That means less government spending for all of us... a good thing.

Maybe this will serve as a wake-up call to the Republicans. The bastards have been thrown out. In the 12 years as the majority, the Republicans became more and more like the Democrats we all loathe.

The Republican strategy was to consolidate their hold on power when it should have been their strategy to re-shape government in a conservative image. The only palpable difference between big-spending Democrats and big-spending Republicans was support for the War on Terror. With the help of the MSM, the war issue has divided us.

The Bush Administration has had three glaring weaknesses that lead to yesterday's losses:

A seeming inability to articulate what has gone right... the overthrow of Afghanistan, the overthrow of Saddam, the economy, homeland security and re-shaping the Judiciary have all been outrageous success stories. It seems that President Bush needed to be jabbed with a high-voltage cattle prod before he would talk about these issues.

The lack of a veto on profligate spending bills. Immediately after taking the oath of office, Ronald Reagan went into the White House and signed a memorandum freezing the hiring of Federal Employees. He was that SERIOUS about controlling the Federal budget. Would that today's Republicans reflected that kind of commitment to changing the way Washington works. Instead, Republicans tried to buy voters' support... just like Democrats.

That whole "new tone" thing. It sounded nice, but it should have been completely abandoned at the first instance of Democrat defection. When you are the majority, ACT like the majority! Dictate terms and if the opposition howls, hit 'em harder! You don't think that's what the Democrats have in mind this morning?

Maybe being relegated to the minority will wake up the Republican party. I know that Charlie Rangel and Alcee Hastings are motivation for me to work harder for the next election.

You win some elections, you lose some elections. Let's not commit mass seppuku. The country survived Bill Clinton, it will survive Nancy Pelosi.

I will be out in San Francisco next week. I'll report from behind enemy lines.

-- MTT

The Break That Refreshens

2006-11-08T07:40:00.000-05:00

Just when you start feeling depressed over the end of a vacation that ends with your party’s trouncing in an election, we see something that places priorities in a proper perspective.

Every morning, I wake the kids up, make them breakfast, get them dressed, make their lunches, ensure their backpacks are properly packed, get them washed and dressed and wait with them at the bus stop. Any votes for Father of the Year?

So as I am thinking about what the Dem ascendancy means to our republic, and feeling a little low about it, I see what the kids are doing at the kitchen table. I fed them each a hearty and healthy breakfast of a half of a chocolate chip muffin (call DIFUS after reading the whole post, please). I see my 9-year old daughter is pulling out the chocolate chips and placing them in a pile on the side of her plate. Then she eats the muffin part, saving the chips for last. I then looked over at my 6-year old son and he is mining the chocolate chips as well. His older sister taught him that one, of course.

It’s these little things that show us why we had children. To distract us from “saving the world”.

The Election's Meaning and Cause

2006-11-08T05:49:00.000-05:00

While the election is being called "a rejection of Bush", too many Democrat winners ran and won on conservative to moderate platforms (see Shuler). As Larry Kudlow has surmised, this means that the "boll weevil" Dems will likely disallow many of the excessive policies if the Pelosi libs. The Pelosis may want tax hikes. Let's see.

In this era of terrorists plotting almost anything anywhere, a new approach that is less than diligent, means peril to our citizens. The next 2 years may provide the American public a nice test of what the new party in power in the Capitol spells if given the White House in 2008.

Hugh Hewitt's recap of why the Republican lost deserves requote:

The long and short of this bad but not horrific night was that majorities must act like majorities. The public cares little for the "traditions" of the Senate or the way the appropriations process used to work. It demands results. Handed a large majority, the GOP frittered it away. The chief fritterer was Senator McCain and his Gang of 14...

Mike Taylor and I were both very wrong. So be it.

Mike Taylor adds:

We worked the phones for Shays a few days and voted for Lieberman.

What happened to the rest of you?

-- MTT

Pay no attention to that poll behind the curtain!

2006-11-06T11:47:00.000-05:00

Mike Taylor provides this election coverage:

This morning's news about the "generic poll" may give heart to those of us who favor conservative candidates. Today's headline from USA Today is:

You know that "generic" question that news analysts constantly refer to, it goes something like this: "If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your Congressional district?"

Smart voters, such as yourself, realize that this poll question is meaningless and generally unpredictive of actual election results. (See, I respect your intelligence, whether you're in the military or not, unlike some Massachusetts Democrats I could name!)

Why is the predictive value of this question so poor and why report it at all? I don't know the answer to the second part of the question. But there is one important reason why this generic question is unpredictive: sample stratification.

There are 435 separate House races in the United States. Each one of those districts is holding a unique and mutually exclusive House election. If you live in Connecticut's 4th District, as I do, you can't vote in Missouri's 4th District nor in California's 28th. I can only vote it one house race, I can not vote in all of them. (Insert Democratic voting irregularities joke here..)

That means that each race is highly, exclusively STRATIFIED. Let's look at a simple example of stratification:

District A: 9 of 10 voters will vote for the Democrat.

District B: 6 of 10 voters will vote Republican.

District C: 6 of 10 voters will vote Republican.

TOTAL SEATS WON: 2 Republican, 1 Democrat
VOTE COUNT: 30 Total: 17 Democrat, 13 Republican

That means that there will be a majority of Republicans elected in these three races... but generically, Democrats "win" by capturing 17 of the total 30 votes (57% of total votes cast). How meaningful is that "win" to Democrats? I guess it might make their egos feel a littel less battered come Wednesday.

All this is simple statistics, yes? Because you're a very smart voter I can anticipate your follow-up question: Why don't pollsters know this and adjust their polling techniques?

The simple answer is: to correctly collect a stratified sample among 435 Districts would cost time and money. A LOT of time and money.

By now, you've all seem sample summary statistics and have probably noticed that most polls are conducted among 400 respondents or so. (I say again, you noticed because you're a smart person! Good looking, too.) A sample of 400 voters will yield a very low "expected error rate".

Generally, in the survey business a sample of 125 is considered to be fairly predictive, stable... and cheap. A sample of 400 approaches the point of diminishing returns, collecting more than 400 responses does not significantly reduce the expected error rate, but it does cost money to keep collecting responses!

If you read the sample statistics for this generic poll (Gallup) you will find:
Poll results are based on telephone interviews with 1,516 National Adults, aged 18+, conducted November 2-5, 2006.
A sample of 1,500 adults seems very large in comparison to 125... and even robust when compared to the average poll sample of 400. But since those 1,500 respondents are divided among approximately 435 House races, that makes each individual District sample about 3.5 responses per District! That is, if the sample is sufficiently stratified.
How does that sample size of 1,500 look now?
If you wanted to conduct a relatively stable generic poll taking into account all 435 House Districts you would need 125 responses X 435 Districts or 54,375 responses... that's Fifty-Four Thousand responses.
You can see how the money needed to conduct a good generic poll in an off-year election becomes an important factor.
So, although the generic poll trend looks better for Republicans this morning, it is all going to come down to individual races.

My prediction: I am with Hugh Hewitt (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/) and I predict that Republicans will hold both the House and Senate come Wednesday morning.
I can't wait for the Main Stream Media meltdown that will follow.

-- Michael Taylor

Excellent job, Mike. This, loyal readers, is from someone who actually knows about polls from a professional point of view.

I might add:

We will find out tomorrow from what I like to call an "actual election" with voters cast by "actual Republicans'. That may skew some of the results a little.

NYT: Saddam Was 1-year From A Nuke!

2006-11-03T12:42:00.000-05:00

The NYT, in trying to prove more Bush incompetence, has now published the fact that Saddam had a nuclear bomb production program. The anti-Bush dig is the internet publication of the diagrams Saddam held. Supposedly, it could be of educational value to any terrorist. As if.

But, at the same time, the NYT lends credence to the fact that Saddam was about a year away from building an atom bomb. This supports the administrations claims that he was not uninterested in becoming the first Muslim Middle East country with nuclear warheads.

NYT's Blatant "News" Defense of Kerry

2006-11-02T09:57:00.000-05:00

The NYT defends Kerry, not in an editorial but in "political memo", without providing the actual quote until the 18th para. And then they misquote it!

The NYT quote is:

“Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.”

The actual line was:

"You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

Can the "Paper of Record" provide an accurate record?

Remember, this was a news article. It's headline read: Flubbed Joke Makes Kerry a Political Punching Bag, Again.

It should have read for accuracy's sake: Kerry's Claimed Joke Makes Him A Political Punching Bag. however, the NYT reporter accepts as fact the Kerry explanation. How is that a fact?

50% Say God May Not Exist

2006-11-01T09:12:00.000-05:00

Headline: Nearly half of Americans uncertain God exists: poll.

Does that mean that half are atheists? Can one be religious and be uncertain? Is one a hypocrite to go to church while questioning one's belief?

Or is there really no contradiction with something to practicing a faith while questioning the very existence of God?

No Apology Necessary

2006-11-01T08:12:00.000-05:00

This morning's Fox and Friends show anchors thought the John Kerry "joke" or "slander" of the American military has ended his Presidential hopes.

They are wrong.

Kerry openly and candidly stated a position of the left wing of the Democrat party. They consider the miltary a career of last resort. They feel that anyone with brains would avoid the military and possibility of death during a war---any war. They feel that "war is never the answer". They also believe that Bush, Republicans and conservatives or libertarians are both simple and heartless. The simple are the fly-over voters that they cannot relate to. The heartless are people who espouse free market, small government solutions to plights of the needy.

This, Kerry's comment was nothing to apologize for in his mind as it is consistent with the liberal wing's anti-military philosophy. That will not necessarily be a political handicap within his party.

Mike Taylor adds:

... that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha are not making any campaign appearances these last two weeks. They are nowhere to be found...!

The Dems are well aware that they have to hide how far left wing the Dem leadership is... it hurts them at the polls everywhere but San Francisco, Manhattan, Portland, Seattle and Vermont.

What a great party the Dems have, such pride in their positions!

If the Dems take control of the House, Pelosi is planning on holding her press conference in DC... NOT San Francisco. (If the Republicans hold on, Hastert's press conference will be from his Illinois office.)

Maryland's Steele Is Another Step

2006-10-31T13:10:00.000-05:00

6 prominent black Democrats in Prince George's County have officially endorsed Republican Michael Steele for the Senate against Democrat Ben Cardin. The issue is their feeling that Democrats have taken the black voters for granted.

Wayne Curry said:

"The [Democratic] Party acts as though when they want our opinion, they'll give it to us. It's not going to be like that anymore."

Samuel Dean said something George Bush, Karl Rove and other Republicans should take note of:

"We were in the Democratic Party while they were lynching black folks. We were in the Democratic Party while they were segregating folks. We have been loyal Democrats, [but] when the party has an opportunity to do something to show that their base is recognized, appreciated and acknowledged, they don't."

"The issue is what we want not only from the state party but from the national party. Give us respect. We cannot continue to be in the room but not allowed to come to the table. What we are doing now is saying, 'Forget it. We are not going to wait for you to bring us to the table. We are going to not only get to the table, we are going to take it.'

Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell have been advising Republicans that they should not speak to blacks as if they are children. The condescending attitude of the liberals must be infuriating to blacks.

Sowell once wrote:

When Republicans from time to time try to reach out to blacks, they tend to do so ineptly, if not ridiculously. For reasons unknown, they seem to want to appeal to black voters in the same ways that Democrats appeal to black voters, by adopting a liberal stance.
Why would anyone who wants liberalism go for a Republican imitation when they can get the real thing from Democrats? Republicans do not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the votes of liberal blacks.

Maybe the Steele phenomenon will have a national repercussion. This would redound to benefit of all blacks if they placed their vote open to bidding.

Objectivity Dropped by NYT and ABC News

2006-10-31T09:43:00.000-05:00

The NYT has endorsed no Republican candidate! can you believe it? And they are so objective in reporting and middle ground in their editorial stance. Per the Daily News' Ben Smith, this indicates their leftward swing. Really?

Meanwhile, ABC News Reporter Bill Blakemore who reports science for them says he no longer plans to offer itme to global warming skeptics. Per Mark Morano's post at the Senate's Environment and Public Works:

Blakemore said skeptics of global warming should be ignored because some of them are being funded by industry. But he has failed to note that scientists he promotes such as James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, are both recipients of huge sums of money from environmental special interest groups.

But the latter does not count.

Mischievous Muslims and Their Wacky Stunts

2006-10-30T18:27:00.000-05:00

The Dalai Lama thinks we should not generalize about all Muslims due to the acts of "a few mischievous people you can find from all religions". He said all religions including "Christians and Jews and Buddhists. To generalize is not correct."

Don Feder says:

"A few mischievous Muslims" makes kidnapping, torture, beheadings, bomb plots, mass murder and death threats sound like schoolboy pranks. It's September 11, 2001, and some high-spirited Muslim merrymakers just crashed two planes into the World Trade Center, slaughtering 3,000 innocents. What a lark!

Perhaps it is a matter of the Lama's English no being so good. I have often thought those Nazis were like a college frat. That Kim Jung Il from North Korea is a real card himself.

Thanks to Allen Gorin for the Feder article. We'll miss you in NYC on Wednesday!

Americans Says Gov't Is The Problem

2006-10-30T18:21:00.000-05:00

For anyone depressed over the state of the electorate, here is a headline and story to make you feel a lot better about our fellow citizens:

Poll: Majority believes government doing too much

The article stated the following:

Queried about their views on the role of government, 54 percent of the 1,013 adults polled said they thought it was trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Only 37 percent said they thought the government should do more to solve the country's problems.

This is better news than who is defeating whom. Of course, it is a poll and we shall see what grade the pollsters are going to earn in a little over a week. Right, Speaker Pelosi?

Following European Policy Leads To Poverty

2006-10-27T13:07:00.000-04:00

For those of you who embrace the European economic model of direct state involvement in business and markets, here is a report by Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation to bring you back to reality.

Mitchell writes:

While the US and Europe has

"enjoyed centuries of remarkable growth thanks to property rights, the rule of law, and minimal government...Europe and the United States then began to move in opposite directions, and public policy seems to be one of the biggest reasons for the shift. Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, politicians in most European nations increased the size and scope of government. Government also expanded in America during that period, but the increase was more muted. More important, beginning in 1980, America began to liberalize its economy and curtail the growth of government."

Check out the details and graphs. There are ample reports proving how the European standard of living is slipping, including their vaunted leisure time. One report states:

EU countries would rank with the very poorest American states in terms of living standards, roughly equal to Arkansas and Montana and only slightly ahead of West Virginia and Mississippi, the two poorest states.

Remember this when you think about the public policy goals of the politicians running for office. Over the next few weeks, your vote will express your position on long-term issues that will affect you and your family's lives. Any desire for a contued high living standard in America requires you to vote for the low taxes, deregulatory, low entitlement spending candidate.

Newsweek Faces Up To No Ice Age Coming

2006-10-24T09:09:00.000-04:00

It has been 30 years but Newsweek is finally publicly recanting its 1975 headline and article touting the inevitable global "Ice Age". The predictions included a "drastic decline in food production" and political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Time Magazine had stated similar predictions. Good for them to note their predictions failed. But they are not out of the prediction game. They do state that global warming is a given for our future and it is all caused by man's actions.

Next month they plan on a major story predicting that man will have 3 heads by the year 2170. That is one prediction I agree with and look forward to.

Was That Wrong?

2006-10-20T13:18:00.000-04:00

Remember when George was fired for shtupping the office cleaning lady. He asked: "Was that wrong? Because if I had known that was frowned upon, I would not have done it."

Now, Noko's Kim says, per the Chinese that he apologizes for nuclear test. He also told the Chinese "we have no plans for additional nuclear tests".

That was enough for Clinton and Allbright and dammit that's good enough for me. Let's get right back to the Foley issue (and not the Harry Reid corruption story that never happened---ssshhhh).

They Call It Journalism?

2006-10-19T08:53:00.000-04:00

Mike Taylor adds this to the discussion below:

.. .and that this land deal didn't need to be recorded.

If I were a journalist, I would ask "How effective are ethics requirements that never require million-dollar land deals to appear on the books?... How many other land deals like this are you involved in, Senator?...How many people got money in this land deal, or was it just you? Does your son, who sits on the county land commission, know about this deal? Did your son vote on the deal, and if so, isn't that also an ethical breach? Did you, or your son, change the zoning laws for this piece of property to increase its value, and isn't that an abuse of the public trust?"

And those are just the questions that occurred to me in the last 30 secs.

Apparently, the MSM doesn't see anything of real interest here.

-- MTT

Honor And Resignations

2006-10-18T18:12:00.000-04:00

Mike Taylor provides this analysis of the punditry's demand for the resignation of House Speaker, Dennis Hastert:

The article "Whatever Happened To Honor", deftly written by Paul Greenberg, brings to mind a "Swinging Sixties" embarrassment involving a high-level British government official and a young woman of less than pure reputation. The "Profumo Affair" was a classic sex scandal involving powerful men, attractive teenage women, London sex parties, illicit drugs, secret assignations, payoffs and even international espionage. I've never read a Sidney Sheldon novel, but I imagine the Profumo Affair could serve as the plot for any of his best-sellers.

Mr. Greenberg suggests that, in light of recent Republican disgraces, someone ought to do the honorable thing and resign. He calls out Denny Hastert and Donald Rumsfeld for their failing to prevent the Foley Follies and Abu Ghuraib respectively.

I might call for the resignation of these men as well, were they to be personally involved as much as John Profumo was involved with his teen aged mistress. Profumo was British Secretary of War when he was sleeping with Christine Keeler who was also sleeping with a Soviet attache. All this was going on in London at the height of the Cold War. The opportunities for blackmail were abundant and the stakes were high.

As far as I can tell, Hastert witnessed some odd e-mails shared among congressional pages and a closeted homosexual Congressman. Hastert didn't write the e-mails, and if he is to be believed, didn't know anything about the more lurid e-mails that have since come to light. When the more damaging e-mails were revealed, Hastert forced Foley out of the Republican Caucus and out of the Congress.

Donald Rumsfeld didn't stack up those Iraqi prisoners himself. He didn't hold the chain of the dog used to intimidate detainees at that infamous facility. Upon learning of the goings on at Abu Ghuraib, Rumsfeld ordered an investigation. Courts martial have since been handed down.

I believe both men acted responsibly in both instances and I fail to see the lack of honor that Mr. Greenberg describes. Profumo, by his own actions, created a political firestorm. Profumo had full knowledge that he was doing could cause great harm to himself, his party and his country. Of course, Profumo should have resigned and he did.

Mr. Greenberg may have a romantic notion that falling on one's sword is always the right course when things go wrong. Perhaps he sees ultimate sacrifices as a way of redeeming his political party. If such were the case, there wouldn't be any politicians or generals left in this world. Responsibility means you take the correct action at the appropriate time.

Here are the three rules for resignation, as your humble correspondent sees them:

If you are directly involved, doing what you know is the wrong thing, resign.

If you are covering up something someone else has done, resign.

If you start an investigation, finish it and follow through as justice dictates.

If you start, and then stop because you don't like where the evidence is leading, resign.

Here are recent scandals and how each rule should have applied:

William Jefferson Clinton and his perjury in the Paula Jones trial.
Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton and the Whitewater affair, the Rose Law Firm papers, the Juanita Broderick rape allegation, Sandy Berger and the 9/11 Commission papers removed from the National Archives and "accidentally" shredded.

As you will recall, the Republican on this list resigned and the Democrats have been richly rewarded. Bill and Hill are treated as rock stars by the press and members of the United Nations. (Sure, it's an incomplete list. I could easily add Oliver North to either #2 or #3... he's doing well despite breaking the law.)

I could also add the staff of Newsweek under #3. They knew of Bill Clinton's cover up of his affair with Monica Lewinsky and how it would impact the Paula Jones' trial... and they "spiked" the story hoping it would just blow over. Only after it appeared on "The Drudge Report" did Newsweek run the Lewinsky story. Nawww, there's no bias in the main stream media... but that's another story.

Here's my rejoinder to Mr. Greenberg: the actions of Mr. Hastert and Mr. Rumsfeld don't rise to the level of required resignation. Their resignations would not purify the Republican Party. Their resignations would not redeem Republican reputations among the press at large.

Certainly, their resignations would fuel the fires of the Democrat re-election efforts. Rest assured, the main stream media would continue demonize both gentlemen. As a result, we'd be assured that the next Speaker of the House would be a San Francisco liberal. Those are the stakes in 2006. Resignation is not the honorable thing to do, in these cases.

-- MTT

Skip March asks:

Why isn't there an outcry from the MSM for Harry Reid to resign at least his Minority Leader post with the recent revelations regarding his real estate dealings. Geez...he hung up on the AP reporter when he called to inquire....that should raise some suspicions maybe even outrage. Possibly Dingy and his Dems threatened the AP with some form of censorship. To Mike's point, he actually failed to report the transaction (in the millions of dollars by the way)....not something you are likely to forget happened. While Hastert didn't write any of those e-mails

My comment is:

As you know, the MSM is part of the Dem machine and will do nothing to undo the momentum they have developed since Foley. We hear time and again that they will follow any story for the sake of selling papers or getting viewers and they trot out their supposed coverage of the Clinton Lewinsky affair as an example of this. Today, they are all part of the Bush Rage anti-conservative axis that will do nothing to hurt their cause. Remember it was the blogs that aired the Rather fraud. It is up to the alternative media to put the pressure on the Reid corruption story.

Bono Finds A Whole Lotta Tax Relief

2006-10-18T08:42:00.000-04:00

Bono, the famous lead singer for the rock band U-2, may practice a misguided form of economics with his renowned world aid program but at least his business management understands the subject. U2 has reacted to a repeal of an Irish tax on royalties by moving its publishing company to the Netherlands. The Netherlands tax is half the Irish tax rate on royalties. Some consider it hypocritical that he would avoid paying taxes while preaching that his country increase its foreign aid (largely to African countries) and absolve the debt of poor countries.

I do not see it that way. I consider this a step in the right direction.

What Bono now has to recognize is that all people have personal property rights in their labor (including the composition of 3 minute love songs) that should be respected by governments. Increased taxes either cause people to reduce their efforts to increase income or to migrate for better opportunities elsewhere. Bono should also recognize what Peter Bauer taught us about the failings of foreign aid. It barely gets into the hands of the needy. It instead goes into the hands of the political leaders or the government bureaucracy. It stifles local entrepreneurs who may be striving to produce a good or service in need. The hand-out from afar may wind up as indirect competition with this local farmer, retailer or manufacturer.

Meanwhile that progressive organization , the EU, is doing its best to level the playing field in Europe so there are no tax advantages among its member nations.

Thanks to American Thinker for carrying this post yesterday.

Joe Kenner adds:

It is funny that once upon a time the EU sanctioned Ireland for cutting taxes.

Tommy Can You Hear Me?

2006-10-17T13:01:00.000-04:00

Thomas Sowell in "Can We Talk" discusses the censorship instituted throughout the U.S. from enforcement of speech codes (his examples were of San Francisco and Columbia University) or re-introduction of the "fairness doctrine" for broadcasters (a liberal attempt to hinder conservative discussion on talk radio or Fox News). Speech that insults or offends is being outlawed officially on college campuses by the Left-wing intelligensia who try to control the debate under the guise of protecting feelings.

Writes Sowell:

Free speech rights exist for the whole society, not for writers and speakers. When you say that we can hear only what a growing number of censors want us to hear, you are condemning us to grope in the dark when making all sorts of decisions -- about ourselves, our families and the future of our society.

One of our contributors writes:

A woman I work with here at American Express was telling a colleague about her recent trip to India (a vacation her and her husband booked for 3 weeks with great anticipation) and how disappointed she was because it was so dirty and hot and just horrible. Couldn't drink the water let alone the food. Almost everyone on the trip got sick. Well...an Indian employee happened to over hear her and found out who her boss was and complained that the conversation made them uncomfortable. She was warned.

This woman planned and went on a trip to India - believing that she was going to have a great time and was unfortunatly greatly disappointed...and someone didn't like hearing the truth. Ugh. I guess the truth hurts and is unacceptable in a politically correct environment...

And to think they believe they are the tolerant ones.

France's Heroism Shows Itself Again

2006-10-16T15:41:00.000-04:00

France is going through an unreported civil war where policemen are being attacked and injured by armed Muslims as reported by Arnaud de Borchgrave. 2500 policement have been "injured" this year.

But France's politicos are showing their backbone. Per de Borchgrave:

Jean-Marie Le Pen's far right National Front appears to have opted for a can't-lick-'em-join-'em strategy, a rapprochement with France's large immigrant Muslim community -- with undertones of anti-Semitism. Le Pen's reasoning appears to be the recognition that Islamicization is in France to stay with 25 percent of France's under 20 population Muslim (40 percent in some cities), 2nd and 3rd generation North Africans.

This may only sound like political posturing but this pandering had consequences:

The metropolitan Paris police tabulated 10 to 12 anti-Jewish incidents per day in the past 30 days throughout the country.

Franken Goes Bust

2006-10-13T16:10:00.000-04:00

Think Tanker Mike Taylor wins the "When Will Air America Go Belly Up" contest. Mike predicted it would file bankruptcy before Halloween. It has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a network official told The AP.

I figured it could go on forever with its ever enthralling discussions about how much funnyman Al Franken and friends hate Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, Free Market Capitalists, intellectually honest climatologists, religious people, Middle-Americans, investors, issue-grasping minorities, Southerners, gun owners, married couples, The Rich, NASCAR fans, Pro-Lifers, Employers, non-union workers and straights.

I guess Mike realized that if you look down your nose at all of those people, there are few others to actually listen to your BS. Good call, Mike. I owe you a drink next week at the meeting.

Noble Savages

2006-10-12T07:35:00.000-04:00

We all know that the world-wide institution of slavery was largely eradicated by the Christian West, notably England, in the latter 19th Century due to the power it wielded over its empire. Today, slavery is practiced in the Sudan and in small tribes off the radar screen (except in National Geographics issues where the free folk show dances and costumes that are so “educational”).

John McWhorter, linguist and social commentator, in “Tribes and Westerners” discusses how Western intelligensia’s love for the “noble savage”, combined with a sneering plaint against “modern man’s” islation and greed, may be mistaken. He describes the life of women in an unnamed tribe who cannot leave their homes without their husband’s permission. Penalty? Beating. To leave the community? The penalty is death.

Western adulation of all non-Western ignores, he explains:

[T]he Jale tribe in Indonesia, [where] disputes and murder were common until foreigners encountered them in the 1960s. The same has been true of countless small groups. The Maori wiped out half of New Zealand's forests in five centuries. In the highlands of New Guinea, a boy's initiation ceremony has often consisted of having barbed grass pushed up his urethra until he bled, performing oral sex on an older man, and then being sodomized by another one…Some bar mitzvah.

And I complained about my bar mitzvah loot--- some chump change and a Don Rickles album (actually I memorized the Rickles routine and entertained friends for 40 years by repeating it and the money did purchase my first car, a Pontiac Lemans that died after 6 months and countless repairs).

While a slower pace in life is romantic and the rapacity of some of our modern brethren is appalling, Left-liberal academics who tout such opinion ignore that all men are created equal. We all have the capacity for the same negative traits regardless of our location. It is the modern world’s striving for improvement that has led to greater creature comforts, health and modern convenience. The spiritual development is a continuing lesson for us all.

Who Let A Girl Drown In A Car?

2006-10-11T15:27:00.000-04:00

Democrat candidate Diane Farrell who is running for Congress in CT has been demanding house Speaker Dennis Hastert step down over the Mark Foley-page scandal.

Republican Congressman Chris Shays said:

I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day...Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody."

I wonder what he was referring to. Who killed someone and then wound up the ideological leader of a political party?

Crash Into NYC Building

2006-10-11T15:24:00.000-04:00

When you first heard this today "Plane Crashes Into Manhattan Building", what was your first thought? Honestly. And how quickly did you think that tying the President's hands in investigating potential terrorists was a mistake?

Terrorism is not ruled out as of yet.

Sandy Burglar

2006-10-11T15:16:00.000-04:00

When I steal classified documents (and I find that my socks can hold quite a bit) and destroy some of them before appearing before a government commission, I do it in order to assist the investigators. Ummm, yeah.

Well, some people do not buy that explanation. Sandy Berger and I may be back on the hot seat real soon. He told me it was a guaranteed excuse.

Maybe OJ can help me too.

NoKo Should Wake Some Of Us Up

2006-10-11T11:51:00.000-04:00

Developments in North Korea are getting scarier every day. Kim calls new sanctions "an act of war" and SoKo prepares for nuclear attack. But for weeks we have been hearing the Dems and their MSM toadies carp about the attempted homosexual rompings of an unknown Republican Congressman. Thomas Sowell rightly calls this "frivolous politics".

That is the extent of policy from the Dems. While our and our allies' security hangs on the decisions of maniacs running countries like NoKo and Iran, we hear about changing the linoleum.

The electorate may continue with sexual distractions but as Robert Tracinski states:

This is an opportunity to remind the American people that the Axis of Evil isn't Mark Foley and Dennis Hastert. It's Iran, the Iraqi insurgents, and North Korea.

Do not expect such seriousness from the party out of power and ideas.

Putin Will Find Journalist's Killers

2006-10-11T09:00:00.000-04:00

Reuters reports: Putin vows to hunt down Russian reporter's killers.

Putin claims the murder of the journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, known for being highly critical of Putin's policies and regime, was a means to hurt Russia's standing in world opinion.

Sounds a lot like Ahmadenijad's claim that the inflation in Iran is due to media talk (see post below).

Putin has gotten a call this week from OJ who vowed to help Putin find Politkovskaya's murderers. Putin has gotten out his golf clubs for the project. My suggestion is they both just look in the mirror.

Iran's Inflation Is A Western Mirage

2006-10-10T13:22:00.000-04:00

Jimmy Carter and Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have more in common than a hatred of Israel. Iran is in the throes of stagflation. Ahmadinejad blames the press for it. Milton Friedman would put the blame on government for creating too much money. Whom do you believe?

Another Nobel To A Fan Of Capitalism

2006-10-10T08:02:00.000-04:00

The new Nobel Prize winning economist is Columbia University's Edmund "Ned" Phelps. He focuses on the idea of "dynamism"--- how the capitalist economic system unleashes creativity for the benefit of all. A modern proponent of the free market theories of Mises and Hayek, he is now studying the elements of capitalism to see in what specific respects it out-produces its trendy rivals: "market socialism" as practiced in Europe or "corporatism".

Writes the Sun:

Mr. Phelps has recognized that America's dynamism has been the key to its economic success, while many European countries have stalled for lack of it.

Congratulations and thanks to Mr. Phelps for his contributions to the knowledge we gain about how the free market capitalist framework. If only his work were not ignored by the countries and individuals who purposely avoid the historical and empirical proof of the failure of socialism, a system that stifles man's creativity to solve problems and keeps its citizens in poverty (except for the government elites and their bribers).

Citizens Flunk Civics

2006-10-06T15:34:00.000-04:00

FIRE's The Torch reprinted 2 questions that were asked of college students by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. It shows how college students do not have a grasp of their First Amendment rights (actually most Americans are in the dark on the Constitution). They state:

The following two questions from the survey and their results are a telling indictment of the state of First Amendment education in American higher education.

The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits:
a. Prayer in public school
b. Discrimination based on race, sex, and religion
c. The ownership of guns by private individuals
d. Establishing an official religion for the United States
e. The President from vetoing a line item in a spending
bill

Only 49% of seniors knew the answer was d, the establishment of an official state religion.

The idea that in America there should be a “wall of separation” between church and state appears in:
a. George Washington’s Farewell Address
b. The Mayflower Compact
c. The Constitution
d. The Declaration of Independence
e. Thomas Jefferson’s letters

Only 27.2% of seniors knew that the correct answer was e, a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.

And how many of the correct answers were just guesses?

Politics Is What Is Wrong

2006-10-06T12:51:00.000-04:00

In a short but sweet post at Chicagoboyz explaining that the War To Defend the US from Terrorism is being undermined by ourselves, they state something I have been advocating for the past few years:

The problem is not military but political. The Bush administration lacks sufficient domestic support to prosecute the war at the pace favored by those of us who think Syria and Iran should be next (and should have been next a long time ago). We lack the resources to do much more than we are doing.

The list again:

1. President's failure to adequately explain the necessary steps needed to win.
2. Democrat use of any problem as political fodder to return topower.
3. Ridiculous spending on non-essential programs.

However, with all that, we are less vulnerable to attack than Europe, intellectually and politically led by appeasers remarkably similar to the Liberal Left of the U.S.

Pass The Chitos

2006-10-06T09:47:00.000-04:00

Now I learn that I should have inhaled for 30 years! Is it too late to start?

Econ 101 Always Beats Socialism 101

2006-10-05T09:27:00.000-04:00

Disputing Joseph Stiglitz' NYT editorial that, guess what, proposed higher taxes on the rich, George Reisman explains the effect of savings by the rich. It is not "hoarding", as Stiglitz calls it, of money by the rich that hurts the economy. Such savings create capital. That capital funds new companies, expansion of old companies and ultimately pays wages of workers.

Explains Reisman:

The fact is, of course, as John Stuart Mill pointed out in the middle of the 19th Century, that what is saved, i.e., not spent in purchasing consumers’ goods, is spent. But it is spent productively, i.e., in buying capital goods and in paying the wages of workers employed by business firms. These workers, of course, then consume their wages...

Because their funds are spent in these ways, taxing the rich to reduce the government’s deficit actually means reducing the spending of business firms for capital goods and labor, the spending of business’s employees for consumers’ goods, and the spending of all consumers for expensive consumers’ goods.

The high taxes that Stiglitz and his kind propose are merely a means of income redistribution. The redistributors, ie the government, apparently know better than the unwashed masses how best to spend money for the greater good.

However, as Reisman shows Econ 101 always trumps Socialism 101.

Clouding Economic Facts

2006-10-03T10:36:00.000-04:00

Donald Luskin provides links to 12 of Reagan's yearly speeches he gave to The American Conservative Union. Luskin provides a long exerpt from the 1988 speech where Reagan points out how Democrat economists were combining the economic results of the first 5 years of his administration with the 4 years of Carter's administration. The result of was to show there was no improvement in the economy under Reagan's policies by combining the good Reagan numbers with the bad numbers from the Carter administration.

The Dems do the same things today to downplay Bush's remarkable economic performance after inheriting the Clinton recession.

Reagan concluded the speech with:

So, believe me, I welcome this approach by the opposition. And I promise you, every time they use it, I'll just tell the story of a friend of mine who was asked to a costume ball a short time ago -- he slapped some egg on his face and went as a liberal economist.

The same holds true with the critics of Bush's tax cuts. But those ignorant of economics coupled with partisan ideology (and MSM business section headlines), keep on trying.

The Korean Experiment

2006-09-30T20:54:00.000-04:00

When Korea was partitioned into North and South in 1945, the people were "the most homogenous people on earth" per a letter writer to Jay Nordlinger at NRO. The writer then explained:

At the time of partition through about 1960, I’d say, the economy of the North was more developed than that of the South. The North had a smaller population, but one that was arguably better educated than the South’s. The North had more industry, too. During the 1950s, the South was absolutely destitute, and survived on food donations from the United States.

Thus, in 1945, an “experiment of nature” was carried out.

Take a small, homogeneous country and divide it arbitrarily more or less in half. Then install one kind of government in the north and another kind in the south. Close the curtain. See what happens.The results speak for themselves, don’t they?

For you who do not know, the North has run a socialist economy with nationalized industry and no economic entrepreneurship. The South has run a relative free market economy. The South has a major growing industrial economy with while the North is an economic basket case. The South ranks 33 in per capita Gross National Product internationally. There is no ranking for North Korea though the Asian Economic News reports " it is generally thought that per-capita income in the North is about one-10th of that of the South."

So the same people were split into 2 teams and began a race with one beating out the other by miles. The comparative strengths of the 2 economic systems are proven by the Korean example. And socialism is a beneficial system? Only is you think poverty should be the norm for all.

KISFUD: Keep It Simple For Us Dummies

2006-09-29T16:05:00.000-04:00

Unlike Chomsky or Cornell West, the great economists were able to boil down complicated concepts into simple, understandable points. From modern economists like Sowell, Williams and Friedman to predecessors like Hayek and Mises to the Founding Fathers of economics like Smith, Ricardo and Bastiat, the best approaches to an efficient and rewarding social order were those that provided simple freedom to each man to do what he wants to do voluntarily. Each man can decide the subjective value of his possessions, his labor and his time. Those that intrude on the personal choice, impinge on those liberties and hinder order.

For instance on Competition, Bastiat wrote:

After all, what is competition? Is it something that exists and has a life of its own, like cholera? No. Competition is merely the absence of oppression. In things that concern me, I want to make my own choice, and I do not want another to make it for me without regard for my wishes; that is all. And if someone proposes to substitute his judgment for mine in matters that concern me, I shall demand to substitute my judgment for his in matters that concern him. What guarantee is there that this will make things go any better?

Thanks to Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek for this nugget.

The Libertarian Odyssey

2006-09-29T14:09:00.000-04:00

Arnold Kling explains his intellectual odyssey from the "Far Left to Libertarian". Kling states:

The Far Left believes that bad policies come from evil motives. In this view, villains, such as powerful corporations, oppose good policies, and political incumbents lack the strength and courage to overcome the villains.

Libertarians believe that context is more important. We believe that government power is inherently corrupting, regardless of who holds leadership positions or how they are influenced. We believe that the market does a relatively good job of channelling self-interest toward socially desirable ends.

Arnold's comment that he stopped attributing evil motives to those he disagreed with was an important realization. It is actually very childish.

As a born-liberal until my late 30's, I too described all ideological opponents with Hitlerian traits despite always being mildly charmed by Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater. I also began to see my liberal compatriots never being able to offer reasonable explanations for or against any policies. The reasons were always emotionally inspired. Upon reflecting upon many of Reagan's policies I began to admire him on many fronts as a president. I began to analyze whether the Big Government programs of the liberal government had borne fruit as intended. The opposite wound up being the empirical conclusion.

I realized that a limited government approach complied with my Jeffersonian inclination and Constitutional bearings. I found that empowering individuals was more beneficial than following the dictates of the elites. The elites are not evil people. They possess hubris and excessive self-regard.

I save the Hitler appellation for Hitler.

The Credibility of the Opinions of Carter, Bush and Stone

2006-09-29T09:33:00.000-04:00

Drudge provides the following headlines:

Carter: Bush has brought U.S. 'international disgrace'...
Clinton: 'Incalculable Damage Done'...
Stone: 'I'm ashamed for my country'...

Can there be a better advertisement for the Republicans?

Oil Prices To Drop To Below $45?

2006-09-28T13:43:00.000-04:00

Larry Kudlow and oil analyst Michael Lynch had a little discussion about the current and future oil prices. They talked about something called "market conditions" and also about "the supply and the demand", whatever those things are.

Here is some of the discussion:

KUDLOW: Did the oil inventory as it came out today have any impact? Now crude oil inventories are just about as high as they were back, seven, eight years ago in 1998. Gasoline inventories are not quite as strong but still strong. Does the inventory data affect--influence your price forecast?

Mr. LYNCH: Yes, it does. Especially--not just the US inventory but the OECD inventory data, which is showing that inventories are approaching the record levels we saw back 10 years ago in 1998 when the price collapsed to $12.

KUDLOW: Is it possible that ethanol-related gasoline, which was a big problem, we couldn't deliver the stuff when the mandate went into place last winter and spring--is that getting to the gas stations better? Is the transportation better? Is that one of the factors helping the gas price story?

Mr. LYNCH: That's definitely one of the factors. It's also--we've ended the summer driving season, and so refiners no longer have to have the ultra-clean gasoline, which requires more ethanol, so that's also helped the market. But you know, ethanol supplies--it's a lot easier to build an ethanol plant than it is to build a refinery, so that's catching up.

And I just over-paid for a hybrid! That conspiracy between Bush-Cheney and the Texas Oilmen!

Choosing Not To Fight

2006-09-28T13:32:00.000-04:00

Afghanistan Prez Hamid Karzai said this at a DC press conference yesterday:

[T]errorism was hurting us way before Iraq, or September 11th. The President mentioned some examples of it. These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery. They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan as to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor, or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it would be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them? How do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated, extremism, their allies, terrorists, and the like, of them.

Is he a Republican lackey or does just get it?

160 Democrats just voted against H.R. 6166. Do they get it?

Sliding into Anti-Semitism

2006-09-28T08:09:00.000-04:00

While most Jews over the age of 50 are locked into a world-view colored by Father Coughlin and a harsh Christianity, an opinion taught by the oldest living generation of Jews to the middle-aged children, reality is that Anti-Semitism within the US and, more prevalent without, is promoted and acted upon by people advocating Left-liberal political philosophies.

Victor Davis Hanson in the Jewish World Review captures the current version of Anti-Semitism to which Jews are largely blindered:

We're accustomed to associating hatred of Jews with the ridiculed Neanderthal Right of those in sheets and jackboots. But this new venom, at least in its Western form, is mostly a leftwing, and often an academic, enterprise. It's also far more insidious, given the left's moral pretensions and its influence in the prestigious media and universities. We see the unfortunate results in frequent anti-Israeli demonstrations on campuses that conflate Israel with Nazis, while the media have published fraudulent pictures and slanted events in southern Lebanon.

We saw throughout the recent war between Israel and Lebanon countless acts of fraudulent reporting by Reuters and AP that always favored the Lebanese side. We have seen the UN and NYC accept Iranian President Ahmadinejad for speaking engagements with little hard questioning from the media. The result of the acceptance of this Holocaust denier and imminent nuclear bomb possessor is that Israel remains a "one-bomb" country. Only one nuke will end its existence.

Writes Hanson:

The dangers of this post anti-Semitism is not just that Jews are shot in Europe and the United States — or that a drunken celebrity or demagogue mouths off. Instead, ever so insidiously, radical Islam's hatred of Jews is becoming normalized.

The liberal Jews are aligned with comrades in academia and the press (many of them also Jews) who will do nothing to protect them. After it is all over, will they say once again "Never Again"?

Something New: "Youths" Riot In Europe

2006-09-27T09:25:00.000-04:00

Found this headline: Third Night of Ramadan Rioting in Capital of Europe.

The rioters were "immigrant youths" as described by the Brussels Journal. The report states:

Youths threw stones at passing people and cars, windows of parked cars were smashed, bus shelters were demolished, cars were set ablaze, a youth club was arsoned and a shop was looted. Two molotov cocktails were thrown into St.Peter’s hospital, one of the main hospitals of central Brussels. The fire brigade was able to extinguish the fires at the hospital, but youths managed to steal the keys of the fire engine.

Apparently, during Ramadan the rule is fast during the day and eat and riot at night. I am looking forward to Europe's next few years as they passively watch the place go to pieces.

Failure Has No Children

2006-09-26T14:15:00.000-04:00

In light of the hysterical assertion that our ousting of Saddam and other actions we have taken to defeat terrorists is creating more terrorists, Hanson comments:

[J]ust as it was idle in the middle of World War II to speculate how many Germans, Japanese, or Italians really accepted the silly hatred of Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, so too it is a vain enterprise to worry over how many Muslims follow or support al Qaeda, or, in contrast, how many in the Middle East actively resist Islamists.Most people have no ideology, but simply accommodate themselves to the prevailing sense of an agenda’s success or failure. Just as there weren’t more than a dozen vocal critics of Hitler after the Wehrmacht finished off France in six weeks in June of 1940, so too there wasn’t a Nazi to be found in June 1945 when Berlin lay in rubble.

The Fascist Label Applies

2006-09-26T13:16:00.000-04:00

Read Victor Davis Hanson's brilliant essay on the accuracy of the label "Islamic Fascism" to today's terrorists. It is a loose association of disparate tribes and gangs with the open goal of institution of sharia and a caliphate through jihad. The commonality of the status of earlier fascists such as the Japanese and Nazis compares with the current crop of Islamists. They share a similar outlook of failed peoples desperately seeking their rightful superior role in the world.

Hanson explains:

Envy and false grievance, as in the past with Italian, German, or Japanese whining, are always imprinted deeply within the fascist mind. After all, it can never quite figure out why the morally pure, the politically zealous, the ever more obedient are losing out to corrupt and decadent democracies — where “mixing,” either in the racial or religious sense, should instead have enervated the people.

Read the whole thing.

Americans Are Doing Better On Less-Why?

2006-09-26T08:25:00.000-04:00

Bruce Bartlett provides his opinion on the anomaly of why Americans who have experienced wage stagnation over the past few years are not wholesale in protest against the Republican economic program. Because while wages have slightly dropped and medical benefits take up a larger slice of employer provided compensation (and do not forget the bite taken by higher gas prices):

[P]eople continue to move up out of the working class into the middle and upper classes. According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of all households with an income below $25,000 per year (in 2005 dollars) fell to 27.1 percent last year, from 27.6 percent in 2004. In 1995, 28.9 percent fell into this income class. In 1985, the percentage was 30.5 percent. In 1975m it was 33.1 percent.

At the same time, the percentage of households that are considered well-to-do -- those with an income above $75,000 (in 2005 dollars) -- rose to 28.3 percent last year, from 27.9 percent in 2004. In 1995, only 24.4 percent of households had that much income, up from 20.2 percent in 1985 and 14 percent in 1975.

In short, despite all the talk about the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor, the fact is that the percentage of households with low incomes has fallen and the percentage of those with high incomes has risen.

I would also add that people are seeing greater family wealth through the increased value of their homes and the regular increase of retirement savings through 401k plans. If you can maintain a decent lifestyle while your assets accumulate and your children grow up and out of the house (when they are 30?), your financial situation is much stronger than most of those from prior generations can claim. And you will support a low tax, high growth economic policy.

Thanks Bruce for your economic analyses sans the book sales advertisements.

Anti-Pope Rhetoric And Those Who Refuse To Face The Enemy

2006-09-26T08:05:00.000-04:00

Besides the violent Muslim reaction (is there any other kind?) against Pope Benedict's comments on Islam, is the criticism of him by people of the West. Why are so many people who have condemned the Pope's openness on the subject of violence in the name of religion (not being heard by its practitioners in any meaningful way) the same people who protest the West's attempts to defend itself from the Islamic fanaticism?

Dennis Prager discusses why those who have criticized pope Pius for his inaction against Nazi genocide in the Holocaust now criticize Benedict for facing the lead-up to a new Holocaust.

He provides 2 examples of the hypocrisy:

Take The New York Times editorial page, for example. It is written by people who condemn Pius for his alleged silence and now condemn Benedict for not being quiet. According to the Times, Benedict will only create more anti-Western Muslim violence. But that was exactly the excuse defenders of Pius XII so often offered for why Pius XII did not speak out more forcefully -- that he was afraid it would only engender more Nazi violence. Yet Pius's critics have (correctly) dismissed that excuse out of hand.

Another example is Karen Armstrong, the widely read ex-nun scholar of religion. She has written of Pius XII that his "apparent failure to condemn the Nazis has become a notorious scandal." Moral and logical consistency suggest that she would welcome a pope who did confront today's greatest evil. But she has joined those condemning Pope Benedict. She wrote (putting these arguments in the mouths of affronted Muslims with whom she sympathizes): "the Catholic Church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself . . . under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust."

The argument is so illogical that only those who attended graduate school or Catholicism-bashers could find it persuasive.

There has been a strong current of avoidance by the liberal Left in its refusal to face the Islamic terrorism of the past few decades. The acts have been regular for the past 15 years and their destructive force has been escalating. However, their efforts are pointed towards defeating our defense measures rather than defeating the intolerable. The same strategy was used by them during the latter part of the Cold War after JFK died. Maybe there is satisfaction in making the best theoretical argument but their self-congratulations will be short if the Islamists make further in-roads. Those of us in the practical world will have to work harder for our survival.

Geneva for Cut-Throats?

2006-09-21T07:49:00.000-04:00

While making horribly unclassy comments through-out her editorial today on liberal opposition to security and imprisonment weasures towards captured terrorists, Ann Coulter penned this absolute gem:

By the way, how did the Geneva Conventions work out for McCain at the Hanoi Hilton?

When our enemies sliced Daniel Pearl's head off and Al Jazeera televised it, when the enemy does not openly where uniforms and act as soldiers for a cognizable state, when citizens are directly targeted for heinous acts, when intelligence is needed without time to obtain a warrant to stop a bombing of anything, the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

The idea that our decision to utilize methods that we decide are proper will motivate our enemies to ignore the Geneva rules on prisoner treatment so that Americans will not suffer from torture ignores the events since Danny Pearl's death at captor's hands (and gleefully filmed).

Global Warming Not Man Caused

2006-09-20T13:26:00.000-04:00

Colorado State meteorology professor Bill Gray may have invited an Al Gore fatwa by stating:

“I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”

Not man caused? Kill him, I say! Ecologicalism is a faith more rabid than Islamism (see George Reisman's "Intertwined Insanities").

Gray said Earth was warmer in some medieval periods than it is today. Current weather models are good at predicting weather as far as 10 days in advance, but predicting up to 100 years into the future is “a great act of faith, and I don’t believe any of it,” he said.

That sounds like history to me. I'll take the movie instead.

Saddam's Judge Fired

2006-09-19T15:58:00.000-04:00

The Iraqi judge, Judge Abdullah al-Amiri, who told Saddam he did not consider him a tyrant was just removed from the trial. Good move. I guess he just wanted to live. In related news, Judge Abdullah al-Amiri was suggested as a nominee for a federal judge position by Patrick Leahy.

Pope: Apologize To Each And Every One Of Us

2006-09-19T13:26:00.000-04:00

Love this headline and story: Muslims Want Further Apology From Pope.

The mufti of Jerusalem said:

"So far, we consider the apology of the Vatican Pope insufficient. We firmly ask the Vatican Pope to offer a personal, public and clear apology to the 1.5 billion Muslims in this world."

I agree. I think he should apologize to each and every one of the 1.5 billion Muslims world-wide. He should tell them he does not consider them violent or misusing their religion for political dominance.

I mostly want him to make the apologies in order to avoid the rioting and mass killing that will take place by the followers of the Religion of Peace.

Queers and Quranists

2006-09-18T08:26:00.000-04:00

Bret Stephens discusses the odd alliance between the liberal Left and Islamists. While the former enjoy freedoms never allowed citizens throughout history and the latter finds such freedoms anathema, they have combined to thwart responsible methods of defense proposed and utilized by the U.S.

From the group Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism to university professors to atheistic pacifists, the anti-war coalition can feel morally superior in its opposition to any war ("war is only a last resort" and when is that last moment again?) and the government's actions to avoid "another 9-11" without facing the prospects of an Islamist victory. While the West allows gay pride parades, open discourse of ideas without imprisonment and open atheism, any of the above are deemed heretical to Muslim law and the apostate can expect sure death under Sharia law.

Those fulfilling their Constitutional mandate to protect U.S. citizens are continually hampered in that effort by the very people most benefited by those efforts. Ironic.

Economic Principles Work Again

2006-09-15T13:02:00.000-04:00

US oil demand growth for the first half of 2006 went down from 1.2 million barrels a day to 1.1 million barrels per day. In other words, with the price of gas so high, people have reduced their consumption. Do you mean to tell me that as the price of something rises, the demand decreases? That's crazy!

And as the price for oil increased, people found it profitable to seek alternative sources of oil (like in deeper waters) that were unprofitable at lower per gallon prices. Imagine that.

These Adam Smith guys may be onto something.

Muslims, the Pope and Sean Penn

2006-09-15T10:40:00.000-04:00

In reaction to the Pope's recent criticism of Muslim pronouncements of jihad and holy war, Muslim groups claim his comments are motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice.

Muhammad Umar, chairman of the [Ramadan] foundation, said: "This attack on Islam and Prophet Muhammad by Pope Benedict is recognition that he has fallen into the trap of the bigots and racists when it comes to judging Islam on the actions of a small number of extreme elements."

Demands for apology and demonstrations by Muslims burning the Pope in effigy have taken place.

In related news, Sean Penn sees Fascism coming to America. Not from jihadist Muslims like bin Laden. But from Bush, Rumsfeld and Republicans!

Housing Finance and Refinance's Bad Choices

2006-09-15T10:03:00.000-04:00

As I have read many reports on the housing market down-turn, be it hard or soft, with the expected recession, mild or severe, I am emotionally affected by what will happen to regular people. And the worry there is that people used ARMs to either purchase over-priced homes or removed equity to refinance at adjustable rates in order to buy nice cars and flat-screen TVs.

Amity Shlaes reports that it is not credit card debt that is problematic. Of the $2.3 trillion borrowed last year, $1.2 trillion of it was home-mortgage debt. $500 billion of that went to buy big ticket personal goods.

Shlaes explains that many to expect a hard road as interest rates climb are the professionals who cannot hold onto their chalets by the sea. With home values in decline, there will be many foreclosures and banks losing money if the forced sale as well. She also states:

There is even good news. “A decline will put houses within their [many Americans who cannot afford to buy homes right now] reach.”

I have a close relative who is now unable to handle the higher costs of the debt service due to dipping into her home's equity over the past few years. She is selling her condo and will likely be a renter for the rest of her years. The choice she made was not forced upon her. I wonder how all of this financial activity by individuals and institutions, smart and dumb, educated or ignorant, can be blamed on any Bush administration policy. And I fear the remedy will be a government program.

Montreal Killer Sounds Deanish

2006-09-14T13:02:00.000-04:00

The young gunman, Kimveer Gill, who killed people in the Montreal college hated Republicans, religious people, anyone who supports the American government, Catholics and many other things (see Ace Of Spades reproducing Kimveer Gill's Goth postings). He sounds like Howard Dean.

Europe Keeps Hitting The Snooze Button

2006-09-14T08:12:00.000-04:00

Bruce Bawer is an important voice reporting on the failure of Europe to face its impending disaster at the hands of internal Islamic fascists. Author of the book "While Europe Slept", this gay, liberal American living in Europe has provided eye-opening accounts and analyses in articles published in frontpage.com.

Writes Bawer:

In the wake of 9/11, European leaders felt obliged to join America in invading Afghanistan. But the initial show of solidarity by politicians and intellectuals (“we are all Americans”) quickly gave way to declarations that the U.S. – by supporting Israel, buttressing Arab dictators, fostering globalism, etc. – had asked for 9/11. But not Europe. Europe was the Muslims’ friend. Muslims knew this. Hence Europe was safe. This soon became Western European orthodoxy. Only days after 9/11, Norwegian author Gert Nygårdshaug sneered at the idea that there might soon be an attack on “Oslo or Rome or Copenhagen.” He was far from alone in his mockery.

Then came Madrid, London, Bali, Beslan, Mumbai. Van Gogh was butchered; Muslims rioted in France; their coreligionists in Denmark rampaged over newspaper cartoons of Muhammed. The Western European elite played down, even denied, any connection among these events. Yet year by year the truth has become increasingly clear: though the U.S. was the target on 9/11, the front line of the war with Islamism is Europe.

The movie "Path to 9-11" showed us the penalty for ignoring obvious acts of terrorism and evidence of escalation. Leader in the blindered view is France. The clock is ticking.

Playing The Hand After The Cards Have Been Turned Over

2006-09-14T07:31:00.000-04:00

John Kerry's WSJ editorial claims:

Former CIA case officer Jim Marcinkowski argued the Valerie Plame leak hurt "the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince an overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance." Former CIA agent Larry Johnson, a registered Republican, said it "speaks volumes" that President Bush held no one accountable for the leak of an agent's identity.

He needs to read some papers a little more closely. The leaker was Richard Armitage, a staunch opponent of the Iraq War and former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell. Armitage leaked the information about Valerie Plame being a CIA employee to Robert Novak. And as Novak states today:

But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he and not Karl Rove was the leaker was devastating news for the Left.

Manufacturing a White House controversy in the face of fact is a common tactic by the Democrats since 2000. The willing liberal press provides their talking points to obfuscate issues. And other than desk-jockey Plame's outing by Armitage and her hubby Joe Wilson, what real CIA agents have been ever been truly identified publicly by the White House?

But we have a new issue for Democrats. Today, the judge in the Saddam trial in Iraq stated he was not a dictator. The Dems can harp on Bush's invasion of a peace-loving democracy. Didn't the Michael Moore movie show us a Middle Eastern Wonderland before our invasion? That is as reality-based as most of their other pathetic but somewhat successful political attacks.

Conservatives in Hollywood

2006-09-13T14:53:00.000-04:00

Great line from Kaus:

If you put Hollywoods's entire network of right wing people in David Horowitz's living room, you wouldn't have much trouble getting to the hors d'oeuvre tray. If you tried to put Hollywood's network of left wing people in the Los Angeles Convention Center, the fire marshal would close it down.

Forced Charity Is Unlawful and Immoral

2006-09-13T08:36:00.000-04:00

Walter Williams reminds us that 9-17 is Constitution Day. He also reminds us of the intent of the Constitution: To lay out a framework of government holding very limited powers, especially regarding spending on entitlements and pork (what Madison called “objects of public benevolence”).

Williams gives examples of comments by Madison, Jefferson and subsequent presidents to deny public funding of relief to various victims and needy Americans. He quotes both Madison and Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson…[wrote] "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

James Madison explained the constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . [to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

What Americans do not grasp is that the federal spending comes from taxes. And taxes are coerced from each of us at the threat of imprisonment. Therefore, the spending should go to only limited areas proscribed by the Constitution. However, we are forced to contribute to “charity” that we may not approve (ones that work directly against our personal interests) or that we deem a low priority compared to other needs we may choose to fund. By the government taxing and spending outside of the Constitutionally limited areas of “war and peace”, the government substitutes its ideas of what we should contribute to rather than where the actual money owners choose to spend or not spend it.

Where is the greater good from allowing citizens to retain more of their property?

After paying the salaries and benefits of the government bureaucrats who dole out the proceeds, what gets to the needy is a small percentage of the gross amount. Meanwhile, charity is an individual choice. We are closer to God when we voluntarily provide for the needy. It is not God’s work to pass a law and force all taxpayers to contribute to your personal pet project. It is the opposite of God’s work.

Let people hold onto 90% of their gross income and watch the level of charitable giving increase. And what benefits flow from those citizens who merely place their extra cash in the bank? The good from that is that banks will use the money to provide capital for the financing of businesses and increase employment and wealth for all Americans. Not a bad benefit.

Refusal To See What Is In Plain Sight

2006-09-11T14:53:00.000-04:00

The multi-culti Left assign the mark of bigot to all who recognize the Islamic commonality of world terrorism. Yet, profiling is a common process as man intakes information and seeks an explanation and a conclusion through logical comparisons. Mark Steyn finds we have gone nowhere in preventing another 9-11 when so many refuse to address the commonality of the terrorist.

9-11 was no "failure of imagination" as described by NYT Thomas Friedman. Steyn explains:

Islamist terrorists had indicated their interest in U.S. landmarks, and were known to have plans to hijack planes to fly into them. But men like John O'Neill could never quite get the full attention of a somnolent federal bureaucracy. The terrorists must have banked on that: After all, they took their pilot-training classes in America, apparently confident that, even if anyone noticed the uptick in Arab enrollments at U.S. flight schools, a squeamish culture of political correctness would ensure nothing was done about it.

Is it Cop's Work or World War?

2006-09-11T12:32:00.000-04:00

Part of the difference of opinion in this national "dialogue" we have been having regarding terrorism and 9-11 is a core disagreement over the enemy. Many see 9-11 as solely an act by a distinct group going by the name of Al Qaeda. If you restrict your analysis solely to Al Qaeda as the enemy, then bringing Bin Laden to justice would be your focus. Any other forays against a Saddam, Sadr or Hezbollah are a distraction.

I believe world events before and since 9-11 show that the Islamic terrorists are more like the Mafia with a common goal to destroy the West (and specifically the US and Israel) while creating an Islamic caliphate. The view is world-wide borne of an inferiority complex. The former view makes the battle more defensive in nature and akin to police work. My view sees many fronts of interwoven alliances where differing levels of aggression or strategies are needed.

In this very long Symposium on Frontpage.com Jamie Glazov interviews Tom McInerney, Andy McCarthy, Jed Babbin and, one of my favorites, Ralph Peters on 9/11: Five Years Later.

Glazov asks:

[H]ave we, after five years, deciphered exactly who our enemy is? Surely it was not al Qaeda alone that attacked us on 9/11, but a force that can, arguably, be legitimately labelled as Islamo-Fascism. If we can agree that this ideology is our enemy, what is it that we need to do to defeat it?

Peters' answer is realistically positive:

I've been privileged to spend a good bit of time not only in the greater Middle East, but, over the past half-dozen years, on the far fringes of the Islamic world. Religions--all religions--as practiced on earth are what men and women make them. At least for now, our problem is with the stagnant, suffocating forms of Islam practiced from North Africa through Pakistan. Elsewhere, I've found Muslims remarkably tolerant and spiritually healthy--faiths change on their frontiers. We only hear about the handful of terrorists and extremists in Indonesia, for example. But, outside of Aceh and a few urban neighborhoods, Indonesian forms--plural--of Islam are humane and absorptive (if sometimes downright weird). In Senegal, Muslims have resisted Wahhabi missionary efforts and want no part of Bedouin Islam. I found the Senegalese startlingly pro-American (and increasingly disenchanted with the French). I believe, firmly, that the long-overdue liberal reformation in Islam is coming--in Michigan or Ontario.

My point: Blanket condemnations of Islam are stupid and counter-productive.

But then he is realistically pessimistic, not about the US's future but, about Israel's future:

[Israel] may not have one. Europe couldn't care less if Tel Aviv and Haifa disappear under mushroom clouds. Israel's remarkable success is as embarrassing to Europeans as it is to Arabs. Israel's only meaningful allies are in the English-speaking world.

Read the whole interview.

Equally limited and legalistic was an opinion voiced to me recently that Israel's response to Hezbollah was at least over a border intrusion versus the US war with Iraq that had no border or other seeming provocation.

First, borders today are relatively meaningless when missiles, hijacking of international flights and attacks upon embassises and US military units outside of the US territory are concerned. While we used to use the concept of "the water's edge" to denote a natural defensive border, today there are no such things.

Second, ham-stringing us to merely countering the acts of terrorist monsters means we must await some horrendous act. Then we may respond? And responses engender more second-guessing. What we have seen in the media reports about Israel's response to Hezbollah, that the defensive response must also be "proportionate", is ludicrous. That term's meaning is fraught with semantic license I choose to avoid for the sake of self-preservation. Leave the semantics to those living in the theoretical world. My family and friends live in the real world.

French Do Not Join Terror Fight-It Is Just Policing

2006-09-08T08:13:00.000-04:00

French PM Villepin on the war against terrorism (from Reuters):

"Let us not forget that these crises play into the hands of all extremists," the prime minister said in a debate on the Middle East. "We can see this with terrorism, whether it tries to strike inside or outside our frontiers," he added.

"Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners.

"But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises," he said.

Since France has not engaged in any of the wars against terrorism, they must be sitting pretty with the Islamic fascists. All that is needed is "vigilance"?

Villepin's attitude is the same as John Kerry's. To treat terrorism as criminal activity like prostitution. Accept its presence and pursue the perps.

No, we will not accept terrorism as a norm. We will fight this war whether you care to participate or not!

Wealth Is Created By Freedom

2006-09-07T13:22:00.000-04:00

Don Boudreaux explains how most American's are "Bill Gates-rich" as compared to people from the rest of the world or our predecessors from anywhere. We live longer, safer, more luxurious lives than people have ever done. And the reason? No, it is not technology. Every country in the world has access to the internet, computers, mass assembly manufacturing, electricity and fuel.

With these resources available to all, why does the US stand out from the pack?

Freedom.

Writes Boudreaux:

As shown again and again by researchers who study the relationship between prosperity and economic freedom, the greater is economic freedom, the greater and more widespread is prosperity.

Boudreauz summarizes the findings of Economic Freedom of the World: 2006 Annual Report:

Nations in the top fourth in economic freedom have an average per-capita GDP of US$24,402, compared to US$2,998 for those nations in the bottom fourth;

The top fourth of economic freedom also has an average per-capita economic growth rate of 2.1 percent, compared to 0.2 percent for the bottom fourth;

Unemployment in the top fourth of economic freedom averages 5.9 percent, compared to 12.7 percent in the bottom fourth;

Life expectancy averages 77.8 years in nations in the top fourth of economic freedom but a mere 55.0 years in the bottom fourth;

Nations in the top fourth of economic freedom have only 0.3 percent of children in the work force, while nations in the bottom forth suffer 19.3 percent of their children in the labor force;
In the top fourth, the average income of the poorest 10 percent of the population is US$6,519 compared to US$826 for those in the bottom fourth;

As this careful new study makes clear, there is no denying that more freedom means more prosperity for more people -- and that lack of freedom ensures poverty for the masses, regardless of the degree of technological sophistication.

NYers Less Concerned About Terrorism

2006-09-07T13:05:00.000-04:00

Andrew "Skip" March writes the following on poll results on NYers views on US security:

On a related note, a recent NY Times/CBS News poll revealed that two thirds of NYC resident are still "very concerned" about a terrorist attack in their city, slightly reduced from 5 years ago, while overall 22% of Americans are "very concerned", down from 39% during the same period.

What is remarkable is that these numbers are as low as they are. Democrats claim that we are less secure and that the Bush Administration has failed in protecting us. Frankly, I believe that we should all be very concerned about a terrorist attack in our respective areas because of what these terrorists are capable of doing, but not because of the Bush Administration's failures in the war on terror. In fact the Bush Administration has been remarkably successful and may be suffering politically from its successes as people get back to their normal lives. This has facilitated Democrats' efforts and apparent success to isolate the war in Iraq from the war on terror...another distortion by Dems.

If recent events regarding Lebanon, Gaza and Israel don't remind us of how important Iraq is, I'm not quite sure what will.

Neal Phenes adds: Watch the concern increase as the ACLU, "liberal judges" and a potential Dem ascendancy to Congress provide their safety measures.

1990's Golden Slumbers

2006-09-07T09:24:00.000-04:00

The Clintons are trying to halt the airing of the ABC docu-drama The Path To 9/11. From the NY Post article:

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.

I guess Clinton did pursue Al Qaeda during the 1990's and we just missed it. I guess there were no indications of this global jihad against the US until Bush became president. The Lewinsky-Paula Jones sex scandals (that should have been stayed until Clinton left office) never distracted him from the issue of US security.

As Hugh Hewitt described the film's portrayal of the Clinton administration:

National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is portrayed as indecisive, Madeleine Albright as misdirected, George Tenet as sputtering. The film does not spare the Bush Administration its shots either, but for the left in the US the most damning thing possible is a recounting of the deep slumber concerning al Qaeda that overcame not just President Clinton but all parts of the national security apparatus throughout the '90s.

Watch it on Sunday and Monday nights at 8:00 pm on ABC. For those of you who think the jihad began in late 2001, rent the Moore movie.

Conservatives and Libertarians: There's A Difference?

2006-09-06T13:01:00.000-04:00

Bruce Bartlett provides a simple, generally correct primer on the history of and current split in the coalition between libertarians and conservatives. He highlights some points from Ryan Sager's new book.

Writes Bartlett on the then and now:

By 1980, these different strands of the conservative coalition united behind Ronald Reagan, who skillfully pulled them together under the Republican tent. By 1994, the coalition was strong enough to gain control of Congress, and Republicans truly became the nation's governing party for the first time since 1932.

Sager argues that George W. Bush has effectively destroyed this extremely successful political partnership by siding with the traditionalists and ignoring the libertarians. He threw a few tax cuts at the latter, like bones to a dog, but at the same time endorsed a vast expansion of government spending that will soon lead inevitably to tax increases.

Bush's courting of the evangelicals has increased friction between them and the libertarians, who now have become deeply alienated from the Republican Party, Sager argues. They may not be ready to become Democrats, but neither can the libertarians be considered a reliable part of the Republican coalition any longer, as they were in the Reagan era.

I thought all non-liberals were just racist fat cats.

So, where is this libertarian-leaning Republican? As I have written, I am appalled at Bush's overall spending, his growth of the federal government programs in education and entitlements (No Child and Medicare, for instance), government intrusion into political contributions (McCain-Feingold) and trade barriers and tariffs. On any of these domestic issues, Democrats do not provide a more libertarian alternative. Their only grievance is the programs do not go far enough in income redistibution.

I still hold our security as the trump issue. Anyone failing to recognize the importance of defeating the global jihad against the West is ignoring the core issue of our time. On that, and in some ways, that alone, GW Bush has my support. I am still waiting for the loyal opposition's plan to combat terrorism from Islamic terrorists. I cannot endorse any plan that does not include an aggressive pursuit of terrorists worldwide (Buchanan's stay at home approach is a guaranteed failure). Until I hear something serious, I am faced with no option.

Remember 403-3

2006-09-03T07:34:00.000-04:00

Just a reminder. It was about 10 months ago that the Democrats stated that the American people wanted to pull out of Iraq. The House held a vote on November 18, 2005. The vote count was 403-3 to remain in Iraq. As the Washington Times reported:

The resolution failed 403-3, with six voting present. Those voting for it were Democrats Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York.

Republican leaders wanted to force Democrats to take a stand on whether they endorsed Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. John P. Murtha's Thursday proposal to begin a six-month withdrawal from Iraq.

How could so many Dems have voted against the American public's overwhelmimg consensus? How could Cong. Murtha have voted not to pull out after all of his speeches back then? These are the steadfast statesmen we need to defeat the enemy Islamists?

Remember Somalia.

Wealth Creating US Economy

2006-09-02T02:14:00.000-04:00

For the economy detractors, here is an eye-opening snippet from a new study:

Among households headed by prime age Americans - adults between the ages of 26 and 59 - the median household income is about $63,000. For prime age married households the median income is over $70,000, and it is nearly $80,000 for two-earner prime age households.

They have removed the "households" containing heads of 22-year olds at the beginning of their careers and 70-year olds in retirement mode. Naturally, the young and old are in a different phase of life and work that the group analyzed.

It is not "the rich" with the high incomes. It is just regular people in a particular earning phase of their life. And how about the income for such folks?

Plamegate's Silliness

2006-09-01T09:02:00.000-04:00

Another fantasy from the people suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) bites the duts. And the WaPo, a major news source for the liberals finally admits the fatuity of the Plamegate controversy. WaPo's editors write:

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago...

[I]t now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Nothing that $10 to $20 million of tax payer dollars couldn't prove.

The Toadie Show's Economic Arrogance

2006-08-31T08:19:00.000-04:00

Two of the joys of being on vacation while watching 2 young children are being able to sleep later (15 more minutes at least) and watching some of the morning TV news-type shows.

I was able to see liberal Democrat Matt Lauer discuss the political landscape with liberal Democrat Tim Russert. They never uttered a single criticism of Howard Dean and his party but we learned from Russert how the American people hate the War in Iraq and the Republicans can only maintain their political majority in Congress if they persuade Americans that The Iraq War is part of the greater war against terrorism.

These fair and balanced journalists highlighted the number of deaths in Iraq and the over-all US GI body count without mentioning what Iraqi deaths would have been like with Saddam still in office. Nor do they mention whether the activities of terrorists against the US would potentially be worse with an anti-US billionaire dictator still facilitating terrorism from his safe Baghdad lair. Remember Bastiat’s “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen”---it applies to geo-politics as well as economics.

The next story was a NYT rewrite about how the economic success since the 2001 recession only helped the businesses while worker income did not grow as well. The only economic commentators were people from the liberal research group Economic Policy Institute and some lay people who are trying to make do.

Again, I was waiting fort this balanced report to provide a comment from a supply-side economist who could explain that worker “compensation” has actually exceeded the business receipts. I guess there was no time (is there ever?) to see if there is an alternative view to this NYT cant. They could have found economist Alan Reynolds to explain the true facts.

Alan Reynolds explains in today’s Townhall that besides take-home pay, workers were given increased benefits. Reynolds explains that the NYT analysis (and the Toadie Show follow-up) is true:

[O]nly if benefits are worthless to workers and free to employers. If productivity was growing faster than total compensation, then unit labor costs would be falling. Yet unit labor costs rose 3.2 percent over the past year, and real hourly compensation rose by 1.7 percent.

Non-farm business productivity rose by 3 percent in 2004, and hourly compensation rose by 3.6 percent; productivity rose by 2.3 percent in 2005, and hourly compensation rose by 4.4 percent; productivity rose at a 2.7 percent rate in the first half of 2006, and hourly compensation rose at a 6.2 percent rate. The headline should have read, "Productivity Fails to Match Rise in Worker Compensation."

I suppose Lauer could not locate Reynolds or any of the dozen or so supply-side economists for their balanced report. Nobel Prize winning economists are very camera shy.

Thank God the kids woke up and I had to switch the TV to more accurate reporting on the Disney Channel.

All PhD's Are Created Equal?

2006-08-25T13:52:00.000-04:00

Are all PhDs equal? Are all higher education "Doctors" of similar intellectual prowess? Click on this link to ChicagoBoyz and you can find out (for you Ed PhDs I am suggesting you place your cursor over the highlighted "ChicagoBoyz" 19 words back, not including the beginning parenthesis, and push down once or twice on the right-hand side of the mouse).

Maybe Iraqis Know More Than Us

2006-08-25T10:38:00.000-04:00

Despite Ralph Peters downer discussed below, here is the report of a poll of Iraqi sentiment. Guess what? They are optimistic about their future---more so that us in the US who rely on MSM drumbeats for the Lamonts of the country. Per a post in the blog America's Majority:

In a recent poll, more Iraqis, who live in Iraq, say Iraq is headed the right direction than Americans who merely watch TV reports about Iraq or read newspaper reports about Iraq.

One part of the poll analysis from America's Majority:

Nationallly, 75% of Iraqis say the security situation in the country is poor.

But, when asked about the security of their own neighborhoods, 60% give the security in their town or neighborhood a passing grade.

This shows the power of the media to conflate a perception–even among those closest too it.

How can any Iraqi feel confident in the environment of suicide bombers, beheaders and other "freedom fighters" (to use a Michael Moore term of affection for the insurgents)?

From Iraq the Model:

I told one of my colleagues I feel safe in Baghdad despite the dangers, I may feel afraid of terrorists or random violence but I never fear the government and that's not only how I feel, Iraqis are not afraid of expressing their differences with the authority because we in Iraq have more or less became part of that authority the day we elected our representatives while terrorists and militias are nothing more than temporary phenomenon that unlike constitution and elections have no solid foundations.

Couch sitters in the US should give this heed. (Thanks to Chicago Boyz for the link).

New Reality Show From CBS- Jim Crow Survivor

2006-08-25T08:40:00.000-04:00

How's this for multiculturalism gone berserk? A "Survivor" broken up into 4 race-based teams.

The 4 teams will be: blacks, Asians, Latinos and whites.

I protest.

Not only is it racist. But anti-semitic. There should be a group of Jews there.

Imagine placing those 4 groups plus a Jewish team on an island: The Jews within a week or two would have a number of department stores, delis and, of course, a bank. They would control the food supply, financial institution and court system. They would hire substitutes for all of the sweating and running challenges. They may not win the $1 million prize but they will make a nice living.

My apologies to any of my Jewish compatriots who are offended by this use of stereo-types.

Iraq's Clock Is Ticking

2006-08-25T07:51:00.000-04:00

In a depressing, pessimistic and, I fear, utterly realitic assessment, Ralph Peters explains how Arab nations are unable to have democracies. That is not to denigrate individual Arabs who are "just as American as any other citizens- because their families escaped the Middle East".

Peters sees Iraq as the Arabic "Last Chance". Otherwise, the place should have been carved up into 3 smaller countries (as its borders were artificially created almost a century ago) and left at that.

Writes Peters:

This is a homemade failure. Through their own choices, cherished beliefs, values and norms, Arabs have condemned themselves to strategic incompetence. No society that oppresses women, denies advancement on merit even to men, indulges in fantastic hypocrisy, wallows in corruption, undervalues secular learning, reduces its god to a nasty disciplinarian and comforts itself with conspiracy theories will ever compete with us.

Some one advised me early in the Iraq War that the focus should have been to oust Saddam and leave Iraq to figure it out. I think there is a massive downside at not trying to help it develop into what Lebanon should have been, a real democracy. But we need to remember that democracy goes well beyond mere voting rights. And while the USA had nothing close to the terrorism that Iraqis have faced during its infancy, we still did not fully tune the governmental structure here until 1789. While Western America had its version of suicide bombers, the Indians, Madison, Hamilton and Company could develop government in the big cities in the East. Iraqi statesmen have no such quiet.

It still deserves more time.

Saving Some 20 Hours of My Life

2006-08-24T10:36:00.000-04:00

A funny insight into why soccer is unAmerican and so lame.

During the recent World Cup Soccer Tournament, a relative was touting it as so exciting that you could not turn your head for a second or you could miss something. I was grilling lunch on the back deck and spent about 20 minutes away from the television. When I came in with the meal, I asked what had happened. I was told the score was still tied at 0-0. I guess I could have truned my head during that game.

Mike Lupica once called ice hockey "one long series of mistakes". My decision to skip watching any of the World Cup tourney avoided one big mistake.

Cowards Matter A Lot

2006-08-24T10:10:00.000-04:00

Arnold Kling asks the following:

Hawks don't want America to look weak. The problem is, America looks a lot weaker when it fights and quits, than if it hadn't fought at all. Before calling for war, the honest hawk has to ask himself: "Keeping in mind how gutless my fellow Americans are, what are the odds that we'll actually stay the course?"

Against the War Against Terrorists

2006-08-24T07:37:00.000-04:00

With her usual "take no prisoners" (unless they are terrorists which means they receive greater rights that Americans walking the streets) approach, Ann Coulter reviews the Democrat support for the War on Terror. Apparently, it does not include taking and holding Al Qaeda and Taliban soldiers in Guantanamo, listening to tel calls to specific numbers discovered on Al Qaeda phones and computers, surveilling or killing terrorists.

Here are some of her observations of Democrats for the War against terrorists:

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have "no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been given administrative hearings or released already.)

They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.

And this:

The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You remember – the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.

Sounds pretty accurate. What aggressive plans do they have. This is no time for the "wait and see" approach that resulted in nothing being done for decades.

Half-Assed or All-Out?

2006-08-24T07:24:00.000-04:00

The following is from David Hornick's brilliant essay in Frontpage:

“We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies. We want them to be our friends, our partners, our good neighbors, and I believe that this is not impossible.”

* * *

“The best defense is a good offense, not a fence. The best way to deal with terrorists is to arrest them or kill them in their beds. . . . what we are doing is leaving a legacy for the next generation that will [have to] deal with Palestinians who believe that terrorism pays, that Israel cuts and runs under pressure. . . . we must stop getting used to these constant missile attacks as if they are rain. . . . I do not see any prospect for peace and reconciliation on the Palestinian side. I needed no sophisticated intelligence to reach this conclusion; I only had to look at their textbooks, posters and so on.”

The first quotation is, of course, from a speech by Ehud Olmert, now Israeli prime minister, to New York’s Israel Policy Forum on June 9, 2005. The second quotation is from a speech by former IDF chief of staff Moshe Yaalon to Manhattan’s Lincoln Square Synagogue on May 8, 2006.

Which one do you pick? Read the whole thing.

One Slip In Security and We Empty Our Nuke Inventory

2006-08-23T13:00:00.000-04:00

Keeping with TCS Daily, Arnold Kling discusses the "popular mood" regarding terrorists and how it deviates from the elitist views. He cites the recent mutiny of the British travelers when they refused to board the plane until the Arabs were removed.

Kling says that the bromides against profiling espoused by the elites are not persuasive anymore. Even what is "victory" is not aligned with the populist notion of the term. he writes:

A populist definition of victory would mean that governments that fund terror groups or use them as instruments of their foreign policy are brought down. A populist definition of victory might mean that Muslim clerics who urge young men to join the jihad are given the opportunity to experience the ecstasy of martyrdom themselves.

Elitists see we need to live with the terror and additional hardships of travel etc. He also makes the following observation:

President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert are both guilty of exaggerating the success of military operations.

Excess partisanship in a time of war is very frustrating to the public. How can it be that essentially all Republican officials agree with the Bush Administration policies and procedures for monitoring phone conversations and essentially all Democrats disagree? Would a Democratic President really be following policies that are very different?

My answer to the final question is "No". And that is unacceptable.

Tax It And Watch It Shrink

2006-08-23T12:55:00.000-04:00

The French, besides reneging on providing troops for the Lebanon "peace effort", have suggested a new tax to increase revenues for that bastion of progress, the European Union. Constantin Gurdgiev in TCS Daily explains how the EU is considering a tax on text messaging.

He explains how counter-productive this progressive proposal is:

The only reason that, until recently, the EU led the US in mobile telephony is the fact that landline telephone services in Europe were too expensive and poor in quality. The latter prompted strong substitution away from the landline services in favor of mobiles. Now the French are proposing to push new technologies in the direction of the old one. Just how this fits the EU's stated objective of achieving rapid growth in the R&D and knowledge-intensive sectors is unclear.

Once again the rapacious statists "kill the golden goose". And they are considered "progressives" exactly why?

Choosing Life Over A False Constitutional Interpretation

2006-08-23T07:51:00.000-04:00

The recent decision by Judge Taylor that found the Terrorist Surveillance Program unConstitutional is criticized by Jonah Goldberg. The issue of whether the executive programs breach the Constitution hinges on the flexibility of our founding document. In this case, a liberal found the Constitution inflexible and the law in breach of the 1st (Free Speech) and the 4th (Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure) Amendments.

Writes Goldberg:

Long before the concept of a living Constitution was hatched, the authors of the original version - as well as the courts interpreting it - understood that the executive branch has the authority and flexibility to conduct foreign policy and wage war. Terrorists may be criminals, but they aren't merely criminals. They're waging war against us and doing so in ways never imagined by the founders. They don't want territory or treaties, and they don't use armies and cannons. They want to make our own technology and freedoms into weapons they can use against us.

And so here is the real absurdity of the "living Constitution" school. Where the Constitution is supposed to be inert, they want it alive and mutating. But where the Constitution was intended to be flexible, intellectual rigor mortis has set in.

The "living Constitution" interpretation employed by Judge Taylor (and the SCOTUS of most of the 20th Century) treats the Constitution as akin to a book of statutes. This interpretation misses the point of the document.

It is the controlling set of principles upon which legislation or other laws must abide. The idea that as things change, develop and grow, it is archaic without massaging the words and original definitions is making it something it is not. It is a compact of the People wherein citizens ceded to government limited powers so as to protect their rights to Life, Liberty and Property. It also is a primer of the structure of government and how that government may act. It lays out over-riding principles that explain what our country is about.

That is why the mechanism to change any facet of this "etched in stone" document requires the passage of a Constitutional Amendment with approval of the states, not just a majority of Senators or a handful of Supreme Court justices.

A reasonable explanation is:

Article V of the Constitution provides two processes by which amendments can be proposed and approved:

Congress proposes amendments. As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

The states propose amendments. The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

We must also recognize that as a statement of principle it contains immutable ideas of liberty that withstand the development of iPods, wireless telephones and microwaves. Just as "Thou shall not commit murder" can never be altered by fads, neither can the Constitution until the mass of Americans (and states) follow the Amendment process. These are the original entities that ceded their God-given rights or "Natural Rights" to the government (here is something by Samuel Adams).

The President under the Constitution maintains powers to defend the country from foreign attack. The investigations and surveillance employed to thwart terrorists may be improper in a criminal investigation. That continues to hold the due process rights for its defendants. This information being sought is to stop attacks like the attempted London jet bombings. That is within the Presidents powers as Commander in Chief. Such are explicitly stated under the Constitution.

Last, President Lincoln faced a similar guerrila-type, "asymmetrical" war in 1861. He suspended the Constitutional right of habeas corpus. He explained that in order to fulfill his duty to uphold the Constitution he had to maintain the life of the Union. That was the foremost duty he held. It was necessary to impinge of some lesser rights on a temporary basis to protect the Union. One has to sever a gangrenous arm in order to save the body. (See this Powerline discussion that alludes to Professor Paulsen's view and a counter argument by Professor Farber).

While the instant government intelligence processes do not breach the Constitution in my opinion, assuming they do, I choose the waiver of these "rights" (to allow the government to know that I have been travelling to Pakistan and calling Saudi Arabia for months before purchasing a one way ticket to Greece) over the death and destruction of a 9-11.

For a more learned analysis of the legalities of the surveillance program and Taylor's decision, review Orin Kerr's posts at the Volokh Conspiracy and this book.

Journalist Still Captive

2006-08-22T14:20:00.000-04:00

Fox newsman Steve Centanni and cameraman Olaf Wiig are still hostages in Palestine. The MSM ignores it but it has been a week since they werre captured. Is this another act by those vile cowards who kidnap, torture and murder true innocents? Yes, the government says they are looking for them. Right.

Will We Be Begging For Mercy?

2006-08-22T07:32:00.000-04:00

Is Thomas Sowell exaggerating? Are we at a point of no return?

After we, or our children and grandchildren, find ourselves living at the mercy of people with no mercy, what will future generations think of us, that we let this happen because we wanted to placate "world opinion" by not acting "unilaterally"?

Being Ready For War and Using Your Advantage

2006-08-22T07:21:00.000-04:00

Mike Adams, the saucy professor from NC, writes about various times he has repsonded to threats with threats of violence of his own that exceeded the original threat by many multiples. In each case, the instigator back down cery quickly. The lesson in a strangely titled essay called "The Taming of the Jews" is:

And, so, a peace settlement was established within 48 hours. But it was not established through a process of negotiation. It was established through fear, military readiness, and an uncompromising desire to offer the most disproportionate response possible under the circumstances.

This whole discussion reminds me of a leftist student who once asked me whether it was “fair” that we should stockpile nuclear weapons and demand that Iran stop seeking even a single short-range nuclear missile. “The answer is no,” I told him. “I don’t care about fairness. I care about killing Muslim terrorists.”

Indeed, the whole point of war is to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible while losing as few of your own soldiers as possible – in other words, to be as “disproportionate” as you can. It is better to live with that understanding than to die without it.

During flag football practice, my 5-year old was semi-punched in the face by another kid. My son punched him back hard in the side and then my son's best friend also punched the kid in the same side area. The kid began crying. I saw the whole thing. The coach saw the kid crying and investigated and everyone told the truth. They each had to apologize, run laps and understand that if anyone hits someone, they immediately tell the coach.

My son and his friend's response to the first hit was "unfair" and "disproportionate". That kid will think twice before hitting someone again.

UN Force of None

2006-08-18T12:47:00.000-04:00

Great point by blogger The Dignified Rant:

So a UN Security Council ceasefire is in place for Lebanon--international test duly taken and passed!

In our so-called unilateral invasion and liberation of Iraq, we gathered close to 50,000 in our Coalition of the Willing (initially, Britain provided that vast majority, with Australia and Poland contributing smaller numbers). Yet even more than three years later, over 20,000 allied troops participate in Iraq. Only about 40% of those are British.

The UN has added none to the 2,000 UNIFIL contingent set to enforce Resolution 1701. I cannot see France finding enough willing bodied men to enforce anything.

Econ Thinking Is Lacking

2006-08-18T08:28:00.000-04:00

Economist Arnold Kling's essay on "A Preference for Ignorance" captures an often stated view of mine. Citizens, average people, sem to trust that the experts know better about the efficacy of public policy proposals than they do. However, a cost-benefit analysis is not applied to a public policy proposal, one never knows if the policy was helpful or not.

Sometimes this unexamined policy just means that money was spent with no improvement in a given problem. However, when the unimproved are school children, the downside is massive.

Kling reviews a study done in Kenya where it showed that schools that used flip charts had students doing much better than students whose schools did not use the flip charts. That would normally lead to a public policy madate that all schools use flip charts. But then the researchers did a test where flip charts were dispersed randomly among 178 schools. There were no differences in outcomes between the flip-charters and the non-flip-charters. Maybe the results had to do differences in the students.

Kling expands the analysis:

We seem to be most determined to remain ignorant in the field of education. The testing in No Child Left Behind is based on observational studies, rather than experiments. That is, we look at school quality solely in terms of outcomes. We label a school as good or bad without having any idea whether the school actually adds value.

Imagine what might happen if one were to run a controlled experiment, pooling a group of students and randomly assigning them to different schools. Would the "good" suburban school really do better than the "failing" urban school, once the population of students is similar?
I suspect that controlled experiments in education would show shockingly little value added. That is, if you were to randomly assign students to schools, the children of good parents would do well regardless of where you send them, and conversely.

I have written before about my children's school district. It is one of the top 3 in the state and averages about 1200 on SAT scores. However, I have not witnessed a discernible teacher or school quality. If anything, the good behavior of the students and the parental presence in the school on a daily basis makes the teacher's ability to teach mush easier than in an inner city. I witness intense parental involvement in their children's academic development. And that is what is the likely reason for the district's success.

Do Not Join The Game Without The Balls To Win

2006-08-17T13:08:00.000-04:00

War can be like a poker game as sheer military hardware and the number of soldiers can be overcome by tactical strategy and execution. Sad to say, it appears that Israel’s hand was misplayed by PM Olmert despite significant advantages, politically and militarily.

Jed Babbin writes that Olmert’s war strategy (apparently accepted and followed by the US) was based upon HOPE:

Olmert's indecisiveness - which achieved a level hitherto unknown outside Old Europe - mistook hope for a foundation stone of policy. Olmert hoped that Hizballah could be demolished by air power even though he hobbled it with rules of engagement that guaranteed the Hizballah forces would escape. He hoped that his military would bring him plans to win easily, without the loss of many Israeli troops and without inflicting many civilian casualties. But Olmert never had a plan to win or a clue of what it would take to do so. Olmert's bitter experience is new to him, but as old as Caesar to military historians. Hope is not a policy, and wishing doesn't win wars. Which is not to say that apocalyptic visions can't come true.

Without repeating all of the specific missteps, it is clear that Israel’s enemy was fighting a more ruthless brand of war than Olmert cared to pursue. In poker parlance, Iran through its Hezbo proxy played high stakes each hand and Olmert would never see the bet. Knowing this from the outset, Hezbo could fight as long as necessary because the opponent had no heart in the game. Talking big is no substitute for acting big. And in this war refusing to harm “innocent” citizens in order to kill the enemy was a losing strategy.

The positive is Israel has ample resources for another poker game. However, they better begin it soon. And I’ll take a representative in charge with the balls to see a high bet and raise it.

And please ignore any of the inaccurately used poker terms. I know that all I have to do is watch ESPN and I’ll learn the game from the best.

They Never Practice What They Preach

2006-08-16T15:29:00.000-04:00

Drudge reports that Senator Obama Baraka gave a speech at an Illinois Town Meeting and spoke about the need to conserve on our gas use "by switching to higher mileage hybrids. "

He then got into a GMC Envoy and drove off. That is not a hybrid.

Chemical Bombs Are In-Zain

2006-08-16T15:03:00.000-04:00

A married couple was part of the London bomb plot as reported by police to the NY Post:

The Alis planned to use 6-month-old son Zain's baby bottle as a liquid bomb, blowing themselves and their child up, along with hundreds of others aboard the flight...

No one would suspect them to kill their own baby.

This is so brilliant. These terrorists are really becoming difficult to discover. As comedian Bill Maher stated just after 9-11, they are certainly "brave".

British Muslim Attitudes

2006-08-16T09:48:00.000-04:00

Reporting on British citizens turned Muslim terrorists, Don Feder reviews recent polls where 81% of Brit Muslims:

consider themselves Muslim first and British second – or perhaps a distant third, after soccer-playing, explosives experts.

Feder recounts a recent news piece on BBC where a neighbor of one of the plotters stated he was a good lad but recently began studying the Koran. Feder writes:

When a Christian is reborn, he usually does good deeds and begins witnessing about Jesus. A newly observant Jew might keep kosher, become Sabbath-observant or start studying Torah.

Feder quotes Churchill:

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”