The Art of the Blog: 03/28/2004

4/02/2004

World Anger, Oh My!

BTW - You do know that James Lileks has one of the funniest sites on the web, right? It's the Gallery of Regrettable Food. Too funny! Support great bloggers like James and buy his book.

Lileks on World Anger

I mean, there are countless numbers of things that we could be doing to enhance the world's view of us and to minimize the kind of anger and ... almost recruitment that has taken place in terrorist organizations as a result of the way the administration has behaved.

And that’s the second money quote, right there. We stopped pretending we would ratify Kyoto. We only spent $15 billion on AIDS in Africa. We did not take dictation from Paris. If we had done these things, it would minimize the world’s anger.

Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?

Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women’s rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC program?

Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?

Boortz on the Internet and the UN: a Love Story

The Internet and the UN: a Love Story

As in "the UN would LOVE to get its hands on control of the Internet." This is something everyone reading this should be concerned about.

Once control is ceded to the UN, they will be able to do things like shut down Blogger and Blogspot. Why? Because many people who use these sites promote ideas antithetical to UN principles and goals.

Do YOU truly want to leave your access to information in the hands of a group that kicked the US off the Human Rights committee while allowing Libya and Syria to sit on, and even HEAD, same? Yeah, that's a group with it's priorities straight and they would NEVER consider doing something to restrict US citizens.

These are the same folks who want to ban handguns . . . EVERYWHERE for EVERYONE. Exceptions made only for gov'ts.

Kofi's Internet

To be sure, the UN Human Rights Declaration offers lip-service to basic freedoms. Article 19 reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

So, Boortz, how in the world can you say that the UN would initiate a campaign to control Internet content when its own Human Rights Declaration guarantees the freedom to “impart information and ideas through any media and regardless to frontiers.”

Grab your handy copy of the Declaration and read on … read on to Article 29. Section 3. No … wait. I’ll just print it here for you to read: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

Well, so much for Article 19. It seems your right to freedom of opinion and expression is wholly dependent on just whatever the purposes and principles of the United Nations might be at that particular time. And this is Bill Clinton’s idea of the best document ever written promoting the idea of human freedom? Has he never read something called the Declaration of Independence?

The United Nations is no friend of freedom .. and its eyes are on your Internet. If operational control of this fantastic source of information is ever transferred to the United Nations you can rest assured that Article 29, Section 3 will be used to destroy what we enjoy so much today.

Bozell on Priorities

Brent Bozell: Terrorism, a Clinton priority?

Or she could have responded with a list of the real Clinton foreign policy priorities:

1. Maintaining Clinton's approval ratings. This would include ineffective military strikes on terrorist targets and pharmaceutical factories, transparently timed to shift the news media's attention away from inconvenient topics like impeachment and lying under oath about sexual sloppiness.

2. Building Clinton's legacy and his chances for a Nobel Peace Prize. This would include ruling out any U.S. response to the killing of Americans on the U.S.S. Cole, since it might have jeopardized Clinton's end-of-term Middle East "peace" partnership with Yasser Arafat.

3. Globe-trotting apologies for everything America has done in its history, real or imagined. This correlates to No. 2, see: Nobel Prize, pandering for.

4. Broadening "national security" to include panicked theorizing about global warming from cattle flatulence and other imminent threats. Al Gore told Clinton Earth was hanging in the balance.

5. Fighting the bad guys with that intimidating tool, the treaty designed to ban weapons and weapons testing. Let's not forget how this exercise in Realpolitik affected North Korea. They signed a treaty with Clinton to end weapons development in exchange for aid, which it began violating with impunity about two minutes later.

6. Shaping military-technology export policy to fit the demands of campaign contributors, both domestic and the illegal foreign kind.

At the very least, the National Security Advisor could have reminded Mr. Brokaw that President Clinton was so anti-anti-terrorism that he let members of the Puerto Rican terror group FALN out of prison in 1999. (This group was best known for their bombing of New York's historic Fraunces Tavern in 1975, killing four and wounding 60.) The move was so politically tin-eared that the Senate voted 95-2 to call Clinton's clemency "deplorable." Interestingly enough, Tom Brokaw didn't cover that vote.

In November of 1999, a White House memo surfaced showing Clinton counsel Charles Ruff was urged to add his support for FALN clemency to help Al Gore's political aspirations: "The VP's Puerto Rican position would be helped" by the clemency. Brokaw didn't cover that story, either. . . .

How, after punishing the Bush White House for years for supposedly squashing civil liberties and generally acting too aggressively in the War on Terror, can you turn around and completely bash their failure to pass the Patriot Act or attack Afghanistan sooner? . . .

But worse than this shooting bullets at Bushies from every direction is the annual compounding of historical ignorance on the real Clinton record. Not only did the networks avoid the dithering failures and craven political calculations as they unfolded, but now they're repainting the Clintonistas as vigilant comic-book heroes who make Bush look weak and apathetic by comparison. That's not just prevarication. That's hallucination.

Improving Iraq

Jeff Jacoby: What has gone right in Iraq

"As the dogs of war slouch towards Baghdad, we need to be reminded that as many as 2 million refugees could become a reality, as well as half a million fatalities."

Writing on the left-wing website AlterNet last March, senior editor Tai Moses dreaded the coming of a war that "could create more than a million refugees in Iraq and neighboring countries." The BBC, citing a "confidential" UN document, predicted that up to 500,000 Iraqis would be seriously injured during the first phase of an American attack, while 1 million would flee the country and 2 million more would be internally displaced -- all compounded by an "outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions." The Organization of the Islamic Conference foresaw the "displacement of hundreds of thousands of refugees," plus "total destruction and a humanitarian tragedy whose scale cannot be predicted."

Wrong, every one of them, along with all the other doomsayers, Bush-haters, "Not In Our Name" fanatics, and sundry "peace" activists who flooded the streets and the airwaves to warn of onrushing disaster. How many have had the integrity to admit that their visions of catastrophe were wildly off the mark? Or that if they had gotten their way, the foremost killer of Muslims alive today -- Saddam -- would still be torturing children before their parents' eyes? Instead they chant, "Bush lied, people died," and seize on every setback in Iraq as proof that they were right all along. . . .

Nearly a year after the fall of Baghdad, Iraq is hugely improved. Unemployment has been cut in half. Wages are climbing. The devastated southern marshlands are being restored. More Iraqis own cars and telephones than before Saddam was ousted. Some 2,500 schools have been rehabbed by the US-headed coalition. Spending on health care has soared thirtyfold, and millions of Iraqi children have been vaccinated. Iraqi athletes, no longer terrorized by Saddam's sadistic son Uday, are training for the summer Olympics in Greece.

Above all, Iraq's people are free. The horror and cruelty of the Saddam era are gone forever. In the 12 months since the American and British troops arrived, not one body has been added to a secret mass grave. Not one woman has been raped on government orders. Not one dissident has been mauled to death by trained killer dogs. Not one Kurdish village has been gassed.

Is everything rosy? Of course not. Could the transition to constitutional democracy still fail? Yes. Do innocent victims continue to die in horrific terror attacks, or at the hands of lynch mobs like the one that dragged the corpses of four Americans through the streets of Falluja this week? They do.

But none of that changes the bottom line: In the ancient land that America liberated, life is more beautiful and hopeful than it has been in many decades. Bush's foes may loudly deny it, but the refugees streaming homeward know better.

Two on Condi and the Commission

Linda Chavez: The Commission

The president's decision to send National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly, under oath, before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks is not likely to quell the furor sparked by former White House terrorism expert Richard Clarke's testimony before the panel last week. Clarke's testimony, which accused President Bush of ignoring the terrorist threat to this nation prior to the 9/11 attack, has so politicized and poisoned the commission's work, it is doubtful it can be salvaged. Thanks to Clarke, the commission has become just another forum for partisan bickering, score-settling and finger-pointing. . . .

It's easy to say that these members can put aside partisanship in the national interest -- but it is a great deal more difficult to do. This commission should not have been bipartisan but rigorously non-partisan. It is too late to fix now; the damage has already been done. The real tragedy is that we may never learn the necessary lessons from our past intelligence and policy failures to prevent future ones from occurring -- and costing American lives.

I still do not agree that Condi Rice should testify before the Commission, but Greenberg's column is worth readin anyway.

Paul Greenberg: 'Condoleeza Rice, do you swear...'

Harry Truman would understand the problem. He was once asked to testify before a congressional committee about what he knew about Communists in government and when he knew it.

In his pithy way, Mr. Truman summed up the reasons any president would have for declining a summons from Congress. The separation of powers "would be shattered, and the president, contrary to our fundamental theories of constitutional government, would become a mere arm of the legislative branch of the government if he would feel during his term of office that his every act might be subject to official inquiry and possible distortion for political purposes."

Mr. Truman was in good company. The doctrine of executive privilege is almost as old as the Constitution itself, and flows naturally from it. The privilege has been invoked by presidents going back to George Washington in 1796. Among others who've cited it were Presidents Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk, Fillmore, Buchanan, Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, Cleveland, both Roosevelts, Coolidge and Hoover. And, in more recent times, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. . . .

The commission's hearings already had taken on a partisan cast, and a bitter debate-by-sound bite was taking place between Dick Clarke, the star witness for the prosecution, and Condi Rice, who was playing defense. All this hullabaloo had obscured the commission's early findings, namely that both the Bush and Clinton administrations had failed to act effectively against the gathering danger. Not just civility but perspective was being lost. Perhaps now the air can be cleared. But only if all concerned act responsibly - and remember that there's a war on, not just a presidential election.

Three Stories on Outsourcing

Jacob Sullum: Work Ethics

In any case, a job lost because of foreign competition is no more of a misfortune than a job lost because of productivity-boosting technology. Neither is it a stronger justification for crying foul and demanding the sort of government intervention that John Kerry seems to be contemplating when he promises to review all free trade agreements and faults President Bush's "secret plan to send more American jobs overseas."

That "secret plan" is neither secret nor a plan. As N. Gregory Mankiw, Bush's chief economic adviser, noted in February, it is simply "the latest manifestation of the gains from trade that economists have talked about" since Adam Smith: "When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically."

In this light, Mankiw said, "Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. More things are tradable than were tradable in the past, and that's a good thing."

Bruce Bartlett: Fighting back on outsourcing

A new study from the respected economic forecasting firm, Global Insight, found that the total number of jobs lost to IT outsourcing last year was only 104,000. This amounts to just 2.8 percent of IT jobs in the U.S. A much larger number were lost due to unrelated factors, including the collapse of the dot-com boom in 2000, the recession, and rising productivity.

The most important finding of the Global Insight study is that the cost savings from outsourcing don't just flow into higher corporate profits. They contribute significantly to higher output in the U.S., which leads to job increases elsewhere in the economy. The study estimates that the gross domestic product was $34 billion higher last year because of outsourcing and that this created over 90,000 net new jobs. These figures will continue to rise in future years. By 2008, GDP will be $124 billion higher and the number of new jobs created by outsourcing will rise to 317,000.

It's important to recognize that these new jobs are almost entirely outside IT. According to Global Insight, the largest beneficiary is construction, which will gain 75,757 net new jobs due to outsourcing. Other industrial gainers are transportation and utilities (63,513), education and health services (47,260), and wholesale trade (43,359).

Additional benefits of outsourcing are lower inflation, lower interest rates and higher real wages, which flow to all Americans. Global Insight gets these results because it looks at the ripple effects of outsourcing throughout the entire U.S. economy and not just on IT, as other studies often do.

Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke also emphasizes the broader economic benefits of trade and outsourcing. The narrow focus on jobs tends to be misleading, he says, because much of the payoff accrues to consumers in the form of lower prices. Moreover, careful economic analysis has shown no relationship between jobs and trade in the aggregate. "There is little basis for blaming the recent poor employment performance on import competition," Bernanke concludes.

Faced with the reality that there was nothing they could do about outsourcing even if they wanted to, Republicans are slowly going on the offensive. Greg Mankiw was once again allowed to speak publicly. His colleague on the CEA, Kristin Forbes, made a forceful defense of free trade. And Treasury Secretary John Snow even spoke out in defense of outsourcing. It may not be enough to reverse the tide of public opinion, but it's a start.

The Heritage Foundation: Ten Myths about Jobs and Outsourcing

Myth #1: America is losing jobs.
Fact: More Americans are employed than ever before.

Myth #2: The low unemployment rate excludes many discouraged workers.
Fact: Unemployment is dropping, despite a surging labor force.

Myth #3: Outsourcing will cause a net loss of 3.3 million jobs.
Fact: Outsourcing has little net impact, and represents less than 1 percent of gross job turnover.

Myth #4: Free trade, free labor, and free capital harm the U.S. economy.
Fact: Economic freedom is necessary for economic growth, new jobs, and higher living standards.

Myth #5: A job outsourced is a job lost.
Fact: Outsourcing means efficiency.

Myth #6: Outsourcing is a one-way street.
Fact: Outsourcing works both ways.

Myth #7: American manufacturing jobs are moving to poor nations, especially China.
Fact: Nations are losing manufacturing jobs worldwide, even China.

Myth #8: Only greedy corporations benefit from outsourcing.
Fact: Everyone benefits from outsourcing.

Myth #9: The government can protect American workers from outsourcing.
Fact: Protectionism is isolationism and has a history of failure.

Myth #10: Unemployment benefits should be extended beyond 26 weeks.
Fact: Jobless benefits are already working

Conclusion

America's workers deserve a more informative, less partisan debate on outsourcing. The negative impact of outsourcing on the economy and American employment has been greatly exaggerated, and the benefits of outsourcing almost entirely ignored.

Two Stories of Kerry's Past and Present Selves

The first by Mona Charon.

Kerry's past

There he was, the 27-year-old John Kerry, hair spilling down over his eyes, Kennedyesque a's (as in "cahn't imagine") rolling off his tongue, and lanky legs seeking room on the cramped talk show set. C-SPAN was rebroadcasting an episode of "The Dick Cavett Show" from 1971. Opposing Kerry was a hard-charging, highly intelligent Vietnam veteran named John O'Neill, who gave the future senator no quarter.

It was just two months after Kerry's pyrotechnic performance before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, in which he had famously declared that American soldiers in Vietnam had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

I will admit to being a sorehead about Vietnam. I'm one of those people who resents the fact that Kerry's side is so often portrayed as having been right in that terrible argument, when as we know, the fundamental struggle against communism was moral and honorable, whatever may be said about the advisability of putting American troops on the ground in that place (a decision taken not by Nixon, Kerry's nemesis, but by John F. Kennedy, Kerry's hero). . . .

On this subject, O'Neill, who had served in the same unit as Kerry, though not at the same time, was loaded for bear. He noted that he had served in Vietnam for 18 months, in contrast to Kerry's four, and had seen nothing to "shock the conscience." He demanded to know if Kerry had personally committed war crimes. Kerry squirmed. O'Neill persisted.

Kerry elected to say that, well, he had participated in burning the huts of noncombatants, which qualifies as a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

The second by Daivd Limbaugh.

John Kerry 2004 = John Kerry 1971

Just imagine someone with the mindset of Jane Fonda circa 1971 leading our war on terror. Forget the allegedly doctored photographs showing Kerry and Fonda together. We don't need to know that these two may have met to discuss the evils of American "aggression" against the North Vietnamese.

We know from Kerry's own words that he possessed the same contempt for America's cause and our armed services around that time. And don't tell me that his distinguished military record immunizes him from accountability for his later despicable behavior. . . .

Kerry's congressional testimony in 1971 seemed to suggest that he had firsthand knowledge of such horrible acts and may have even participated in them. Of course, we are supposed to laud him for his "courage" in coming forward and shining the light of truth and thereby exempt him from any role he may have played in it.

But how outrageous is that! If he was privy to such crimes and didn't report them, he should be held accountable. There is nothing noble about him reporting those alleged crimes and not naming names or assuming responsibility. . . .

No, you say, John Kerry neither participated nor had firsthand knowledge of any barbarous acts; he was merely reporting what he'd been told. Well, who told him? Ho Chi Minh? Either he had reliable information or he was spewing thirdhand hearsay likely spawned by nefarious communist propagandists.

The type of testimony he so proudly gave at those hearings wouldn't be admissible in the most primitive tribunals with the most relaxed rules of evidence, unless Kerry owned up to his own specific participation or divulged his sources. He didn't do either because outlining his participation would have been incriminating, and he had no sources to divulge. . . .

We are entitled to know whether Kerry still stands by his testimony. If so, did he participate or witness these events? If so, why didn't he name names? If not, why did he rush to believe the worst about his own colleagues still in the jungles of Vietnam? . . .

And if Kerry refuses to repent -- and it's obvious he does, since he wears his protesting days as a badge of honor -- what does that tell us about his present attitude about America's enemies?

I think he still harbors an attitude that America is an ugly bully on the world stage, that we have no business acting to protect our security without playing "Mother, may I?" with France, Germany and the United Nations, and that there is little connection between international terrorists and sponsoring states. Sure, just like there was no coordination between communists worldwide during Kerry's antiwar heyday in the seventies.

Yes, I'm thoroughly convinced that the John Kerry of today is the John Kerry of 1971, who has no more business steering this ship of state than Jane Fonda. In these sobering times with our security, national sovereignty and freedom at stake, I shudder at the possibility that John Kerry could become our wartime president.

Gas Prices and Terrorism

Gary Adlritch, think-tank-head and former FBI agent, muses on the connections between gas prices, terrorists, Kerry, and Bush.

Pumping Terrorism?

Such a power shift is certainly not in this nation’s best interests. And to many common-sense Americans, this problem constitutes a national security emergency. Unfortunately, if John Kerry promises otherwise ill-informed swing-voters lower gas prices at the pump, more than a few greedy, registered ignoramuses will follow him anywhere.

Krauthammer: Definitive Clarke

Charles Krauthammer really nails it this time. He lays out the case against Clarke and his critique of the administration's actions pre-9-11 with impeccable logic.

Clarke's blabbering

Thus, doing everything demanded by the most hawkish, most prescient, most brilliant, most heroic, most swaggering antiterrorism chief in American history -- i.e. Clarke, in his own mind -- would not have prevented Sept. 11. Why then should the administration apologize?

What exactly was the failure? What was Bush supposed to do in order to prevent Sept. 11? Invade Afghanistan? Clarke has expressed outrage at Bush's pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. So: Bush deserves excoriation for pre-emptively invading Iraq based on massive, universally accepted intelligence of its weapons, to say nothing of its hostility and virulence; and simultaneously, Bush deserves excoriation for not pre-emptively attacking Afghanistan on the basis of ... what? Increased terrorist chatter in the summer of 2001?

At the hearing, Clarke was particularly brilliant in playing to the gallery, mainly to the families in the gallery. By some strange cultural transmutation, the families -- or more accurately, a small number of politically active families -- have claimed, and been ceded, special status in the war on terrorism.

Surely they deserve our sympathy and our care. And they have received an extraordinary, indeed unprecedented, outpouring of both from the public and from the government. But some families go much further, and claim the moral high ground in judging the war on terror and how it is to be waged.

On what grounds? Did the Pearl Harbor families enjoy special status in critiquing FDR's decisions in World War II? The Oklahoma City families were denied any special status at all -- they never even got compensation of the sort the Sept. 11 families received.

Just this week the widow of Daniel Pearl was denied a claim for similar government compensation, on the grounds that, while Pearl was surely a victim of the war on terror -- and, in fact, was engaged in it by pursuing the truth about those waging war against us -- he happened to die on a date other than Sept. 11.

Clarke's clever pseudo-apology -- we failed, meaning, they failed -- played perfectly to the families in the gallery, who applauded and warmly embraced the very man who for 12 years was the U.S. government official most responsible for preventing a Sept. 11. A neat trick.

4/01/2004

Malkin on the Rove Incident

As I noted the other day, "protestors" invaded the grounds of Karl Rove's home the other day - tearing up his yard, pounding on his windows, and generally "terrorizing" the people inside (including two young boys - "Won't someone please think of hte CHILDREN?")

Michelle Malkin exposes the group that did this for the left-wing extremists they are.

Michelle Malkin: A closer look at left-wing thuggery

After meeting in Washington for its annual convention this weekend, NPA members descended on the Washington, D.C., homes of Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and White House adviser Karl Rove. NPA targeted Chao after the Department of Labor refused to meet with the group and acquiesce to its demand to "form a partnership" to "improve opportunities for low-wage workers." In other words, the gang didn't get a government contract through legal channels. So it's going to bully its way into the public coffers.

An estimated mob of 800 protesters trampled on Rove's lawn to demand passage of Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch's abominable "DREAM" Act granting amnesty to illegal alien college students and allowing them to receive in-state tuition discounts. The Washington Post reported that after chanting and knocking on Rove's door, the "crowd then grew more aggressive, fanning around the three accessible sides of Rove's house, tracking him through the many windows, waving signs that read 'Say Yes to DREAM' and pounding on the glass." An angry Rove called the authorities and berated the protest leaders for driving the children inside his home to tears.

As a vocal critic of Rove's idiotic pro-illegal alien policies, I am not all that sad to see Rove come face to face with the consequences of his politically expedient ideas. (Rove is the one who declared that Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., the nation's leading advocate for secure borders and immigration enforcement, would "never darken the White House door.") Now Rove knows how millions of ordinary Americans -- who don't have Secret Service protection -- feel when illegal invaders overrun their homes and darken their doors.

That said, NPA's militant tactics cross the bounds of decent political debate. (Aren't liberals always the ones moaning about the need for civility?) Grievance-mongering belongs on the Capitol steps, not private doorsteps.

If NPA's agenda were the protection of unborn life or Second Amendment rights, the New York Times would be calling for the arrest of its leaders. Sen. Hillary Clinton would be barking again about the vast right-wing conspiracy. Civil rights leaders would be demanding that President Bush condemn NPA's extremist tactics. And crusading lawyers would be lining up to find clever ways to use federal anti-racketeering laws to shut NPA down.

Instead, the left-wing thugs get away with their lawlessness. And we are, literally, paying for it.

Flash: GW Bush Working Employment

Flash: GW Bush Employment

Did you know that Clinton's unemployment rate three years into his presidency was 5.6%? Exactly like GW's current numbers. Fancy that.

Flash: GW Bush Employment

Franken on Class Warfare

What a lovely sentiment:

Al Franken, in trying to discredit the Rep claim that the Dems approach to taxes ("Only the RICH will pay more taxes!") is class warfare, recounted the charming story of a peasant revolt in France in 1350 (according to him).

In this Grimm tale, peasants stormed a castle, cornered the knight who lived there with his wife and children, stuck the knight on a spit, roasted him, and then forced the wife to eat pieces of this "entrée" while the kids watched. "THAT'S class warfare," said Franken. (approx. 12:45 PM CST 04-041-04)

Even Franken's co-host seemed appalled by this story. I could hear it in her voice.

Immediately after this, the cut to commercial and then went on to other topics when the resumed.

Maybe that was bright production by their tech guy, maybe it just so happened before a commercial break. I am guessing the first since this show is brand new out of the box.

Robert Reich on Air America

Franken and Co. played a tape of an Ernst & Young consultant advising a company to move it's headquarters offshore so as to take advantage of tax savings.

They went on to complain that this was immoral. How dare they try to avoid the unfair tax and regulatory burden placed on corporations by the Federal gov't.

"You [companies] owe it to this country to pay what is due to this country," said Reich, displaying the Left's penchant for thinking that any monies available are gov't monies which you simply haven't handed over yet.

They decided that is was hypocritical for someone to claim to be patriotic and accept that corporations would do such a thing.

They blamed high middle class taxes on it, as well. (And here I thought that they were supporting the guy would RAISE taxes . . . hmmmmmmm.)

Overall, they made this sort of running from confiscatory taxes out to be the fruit of the devil.

Sorry, but when will the Left figure out that you CANNOT tax a corporation? ALL companies pass increased taxes and fees on to consumers in the form of higher costs for their goods or services.

Not to mention that these are the same people who complain about job loss. How many fewer people would be employed by corporations who pay too much in taxes? These same corporations who flee the US's confiscatory tax structure and thus pay less in taxes can afford to not only employ more people but also pay each employee more. YES the corporate shareholders and directors make more money via savings in tax payments . . . but much of that same savings get's funneled back into the company to pay for overhead, expansion, R&D, etc.

Franken on Rush

In gist: I hope that Rush get well and get's over his addiction. And, consistent with his deepest convictions, I hope that he asks, no demands, to be given the maximum sentence in Florida's toughest jail. And I hope that he gets a black, uh, African-American cell-mate, who remember his racist comments on ESPN.

That's almost but not a direct quote. (I can't type fast enough to get it word for word with that long of a rant.)

He also said that he did not know that radio programming earns more money when a personality does the ads instead of running a canned ad supplied on the advertiser.

Franken does a passable Limbaugh in small doses. It seems to break down when he tries to go on too long.

BTW - you can call the O'Franken Factor at 1-800-???-????.

Garafalo on Right-Wingers

"There's a lot of right-wingers who cannot stand anyone not being like them." - in a promo on the Air America "network".

Is that why I keep hearing about right-wing student groups being denied funding or the right to speak at a school sponsored event, etc., but I never hear about a pro-choice or other left-wing group being muzzled?

Franken On Lying

Al Franken, 11.18 AM CST, 04-01-04: "It's one thing for a President to lie about sex, it's another thing for a president to lie about reasons for going to war."

I suppose there's also a difference between "lying" during a speech and lying under oath? Bet Al would never admit that. . . .

John Kerry, 1/23/03, Georgetown: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Was Kerry "lying" or relying on misinterpreted/misrepresented intelligence?

Remember, whichever you attribute to Kerry (lying or being the recipient of bad intel), you must also attribute to Bush since they were relying on the same intelligence.

Coulter on Iraq et al.

In her typical firebrand fashion, Ann puts forward a timeline of terrorists and presidential responses.

How 9-11 happened

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" ? he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all ? except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.

Air America Morning Show

Oh my god this is boring.

I am listening to it on the internet on 620 AM.

They have a woman with a very pleasant British accent interviewing Sandy Berger. Pushing him relentlessly to say that Bush has screwed up and is responsible for 9-11. TO his credit, Berger seemed to keep _most_ of his comments on facts rather than left-wing attacks.

It's all very left-wing . . . which, believe it or not I could not care less about. More power to 'em. We need discourse and disagreement. Total agreement on everything leads to stagnation.

But GEEZ is this boring.

So far the only "humor" I've heard was a skit about papers found at Dunkin' Donuts (a spin of the papers found at Starbucks). I hope Franken didn't write those jokes. Ugh.

The biggest problem, IMO, is that they seem to be very uncomfortable on the air. Maybe it's a lack of material and unease about what they should do because of it.

I wonder what their experience is in radio . . . if it is extensive, I am impressed with the generosity of their former employers.

Like most shows that don't have enough material, they seem to be planning on having lots of guests on the show including Gen. Wesley Clark and Pat Buchanan. Interesting. . . . developing.

-------------------------
10:17 AM Central - current topics: jokes about Bush blaming the Civil War on Clinton, that whacky Terror Alert Level color coding system, backpacks on trains exploding (semi-serious about this one) - except for the Indiana Jones reference I guess.

Maybe their on-air uncomfortableness is because this is their second show ever. Didn't they practice this stuff in the months prior to coming on-air?

----------------------

The Wesley Clark interview included lots of questions about the bodies in Fallujah (even being compared to the LA Riots).

Q: "Do you think it's true that the US military CAN'T do something about this?" (emphasis added)
A: I think that the US military can and will do something about this. (general idea, not a quote)

-----------------------
10:39 AM Interview with Pat Buchanan

Lead-in: Buchanan is, to liberals a "Prince of Darkness" . . . no problem with this, believe it or not. It was said in a joking fashion. But is was followed up with a joke that maybe he is actually the "Prince of Whiteness" (the commentator, Mark Riley, is black).

If a white commentator said this about a famous, if fringe, liberal, he would immediately be attacked as a racist, even though it was delivered as a meant as a joke.

I think it should be left alone since it WAS a joke.

But I will be interested to see if ANY media outlet reports this. You KNOW that a white commentator would be crucified.

All in all, the were all three very respectful to Mr. Buchanan and did not interrupt him or raise their voice or anything. Well done, on that point.

3/31/2004

Catch 9-11

These same people who are complaining now that Bush and Co. did not do enough to stop the 9-11 attacks are the same people who complain every time an Arab-looking person is picked out for extra attention now, post 9-11.

Imagine what they would have been saying had the Bush administration targeted Arabs in the US prior to 9-11 in an attempt to stop the attacks. Wire taps? Can't do that. Following suspects? Not if it's because they look/act like terrorists. Keeping Arabs off of planes, trains, etc.? No way, Joseph. That's discrimination and it's illegal.

If they complain about these things now, they would NEVER have allowed them to happen before the sea change of 9-11.

Predictions 04-04

When the US pulls out of Iraq in June, the MEDIA, as part of the Dems political machine, will claim that Iraq is being left in the lurch . . . despite the decrying of "nation building" now going in the MEDIA and by Dems.
During the transition period, we will once again hear the "Arabs are not culturally ready for democracy" line from those libs who accuse Reps of being racists and then don't recognize it in themselves.
John Kerry will continue to blame outsourcing as the bugbear that is costing the nation jobs. The Reps will respond to this by passing yet another Dem bill; this one aimed at making it illegal to outsource jobs overseas. This will, in turn, cost the US consumer BILLION$ until it is repealed. It will also slow the economic recovery.
Bush will continue to portray Kerry as a flip-flopping, tax-and-spend liberal. As opposed to his straight-talking, untax-and-still-spend conservatism.
The polls will continue to show Bush gaining on, and passing, Kerry in many if not most states. The MEDIA will blame this on negative campaigning. Any Kerry resurgence will be attributed to his personal magnetism and the popularity of his message. It will certainly NOT be attributed to the one-new-attack-a-day and float-rumors-without-proof-then-call-for-an-investigation theme of the Dem's campaign apparatus.
By the end of April, Richard Clarke will on the lips of only the most partisan of Dems. Even the Kerry campaign will only mention him occassionally. Everyone else will have realized that he has made numerous contradictory statements and is a Dem supporter looking to make money on his book. Only Moveon.org, Democratic Underground.com, and other far-left folks will still think he's a big deal.
Al Qeada will step up their attacks in hopes of making the Americans run. They will mutilate a soldier's body or torture a captured soldier (and broadcast it), in an effort to turn the US citizenry against the War on Terror. It will work on those who already hate Bush, but Bush will hold his ground and step up action against those responsible.
Kerry will anounce another $100 billion or so in federal programs he wants to start when he is elected. The Reps will call him on it and the MEDIA will say this is dirty campaigning.
more to come . . . . . . . . . .

Bartlett on Outsourcing

The quote, the final paragraph of his piece, sums it up exactly. Outsourcing is NOT the CAUSE of slow employment growth.

Bruce Bartlett: Outsourcing restrictions only will hurt us in long run

Outsourcing is an issue only because employment growth is slow. But it isn't the cause. So policies directed at restricting outsourcing are unlikely to create any jobs and run the risk of actually making the situation worse.

Seller Collusion

Walter Williams, prize-winning economist, explains how minimum price laws cost you money but are unlikely to go away.

Minimum gasoline prices

A couple of weeks ago, heading down to George Mason University, I pulled into my favorite Wawa gasoline station just off the Bel Air, Md., exit on I-95 South. At each of the 20 gasoline pumps, there was a sign posted that Wawa would no longer dispense free coffee to its gasoline customers. Why? The station was warned that dispensing free coffee put it in violation of Maryland’s gasoline minimum-price law.

Here’s my no-brainer question to you: Do you suppose that Maryland enacted its gasoline minimum-price law because irate customers complained to the state legislature that gasoline prices were too low? Even if you had just 1 ounce of brains, you’d correctly answer no. Then, the next question is just whose interest is served by, and just who lobbied for, Maryland’s gasoline minimum-price law? If you answered that it was probably Maryland’s independent gas-station owners, go to the head of the class.

Let’s first establish a general economic principle. Whenever one sees statutory or quasi-statutory minimum prices, he is looking at a seller collusion against customers in general as well as against particular sellers, those who are seen as charging too low a price. This economic principle applies whether you’re talking about minimum wages, minimum dairy prices or minimum real-estate sales commissions. Members of a seller collusion call for statutory and quasi-statutory minimum prices so they can charge customers higher prices than they could otherwise in the absence of a statutory minimum.

Debate: Emotion v. Reason

A great example of someone who (I assume) means well but relies on emotion and appeal to pity to make her argument versus someone who relies on reason and appeals to objective criteria to make an argument.

Boston.com / News / Education / K-12 / MCAS / A Test of Wills

Marcella I think of MCAS as a classist, racist test. It is unfair, and it contributes to leaving behind the very students it claims it wants to help. It doesn't take a genius to see that children from affluent communities and with educated parents do very well on the test. And who doesn't do well? Special-education kids. Trade-school kids. Minorities and underprivileged kids.

Marina If you look at the actual test questions, they are not in themselves racist or classist. The test is not constructed poorly. It is very important to have standardized tests such as MCAS to ensure that all kids, no matter what their background, are striving to achieve the same level.

Marcella Many children are disadvantaged from the moment they are born. The idea that these children are to be given the same kind of test as kids who have come to school already so much more advanced is bogus.

Marina You're saying, well, kids come to school from different levels so they should be given different standards so we can say they've made enough progress. And you think that's OK? Isn't that just kind of an excuse for a teacher to say, well, this kid's parents can't read, so I have to set a lower standard? I agree that children come to school with different levels and learn at different rates. But when you graduate high school, you have to have a certain base level of skills, a base standard that everyone should have reached.

It only gets better from there. Joe Bob says check it out.

3/30/2004

Even the EU is Figuring Out that Kyoto Won't Fly

Europe's Cold Sweat Over Kyoto

The erratic weather of recent years in Europe, from devastating floods to lengthy heat waves, has convinced many on the Continent that human-induced climate change is no mere theory.
Then why are so many European Union leaders getting cold feet about doing something about global warming?

Because despite the change in weather patterns and Europe's green rhetoric, the EU faces a reality check on March 31, the day each member nation must submit a plan for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

The projected costs, as well as the likely loss of economic competitiveness with the United States, has the EU wondering if it can virtually go it alone in implementing the Kyoto Protocols on climate change. The protocol has yet to take effect as a binding treaty since the US and Russia won't sign on, and China and India were given a pass for now. . . .

But Europe's auto and electric industries recently warned of a slowdown in growth if they are forced to invest in clean energy technologies. The warnings come as the EU has acknowledged that it's falling further behind in its plan to match the US in productivity, employment, and growth.

Those kinds of warnings about slow growth are what compelled the US Senate, and President Bush, to reject Kyoto. If Europe now backpedals, the global effort to influence climate change will be driven mainly by the market, as car buyers and the auto industry choose to become less polluting. And Europe will lose its claim to global leadership in pushing Kyoto.

Got 'Em!

Of course, it's not over. From the very beginning the War On Terror was open-ended and widespread. . . but these fellows won't be causing the havoc they want to.

Terror bombs seized

An al Qaeda plot to blast London was dramatically foiled by police today.

Seven hundred police swooped in a series of 6am raids in the capital and the Home Counties. They found half a tonne of fertiliser explosives - enough for a series of terror "spectaculars".

The terrorist suspects arrested by police are believed to have chosen "soft targets" for bombings including pubs and clubs. One of the suspects being held had a job at Gatwick Airport, immediately raising concerns over airlines and passengers.

A total of eight men - all of them British citizens of Pakistani descent, three of them teenagers - were arrested in the operation, with police from five forces searching a total of 24 addresses across London and the South-East.

Just Damn: Bush Caves, Rice to Testify in Public

The Senators won. And the people lost.

Now they get to grandstand for the cameras when questioning Dr. Rice.

What do they think she will say in open testimony that she did not say in private testimony? Does that make ANY sense at all?

But what off the public's "right to know"? Well, get over it. It doesn't exist here.

The public's "right to know" was vested in the Senator's they voted for . . . and the Senators ALREADY KNOW. They have already heard EVERYTHING Condi Rice has to say.

But the White House Reps have shown once again they have NO SPINE when dealing with the Dems. Executive privilege be damned.

If you were an advisor to the President, would you know feel safe giving unadulterated advice? Saying exactly what you want to say? Knowing that someday you might be forced to testify before congress in open session? Or might you guard your words against just such an eventuality? I suppose your answer to that would depend on your intelligence . . . . . . . .

"But but but the White House made the Senators promise that this testimony doesn't hurt the separation of powers and executive privilege and that it won't mean that Congress can call on other administration officials later to testify" you sputter.

SURE it doesn't. SURE they won't. Congress NEVER takes more than they say they will, right? They NEVER take the caving in of an opponent to mean that they can do it again, right?

Just damn.

White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a reversal, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as long as the panel seeks no further public testimony from White House officials, the administration said Tuesday.

And just what will the administration say if the panel changes its mind and DOES want more testimony? Will they cry the ancient playground plaint of "No FAIR!"? Will they come back and say, "HEY! You guys said you wouldn't DO that!"

Or will they again give in to supposed "public outcry" (which doesn't actually exist - then or now) and break down the separation of powers even further?

Good idea folks - let's make the Executive branch a wholly owned subsidiary of the Legislative. Damn.

In addition, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have agreed to a single joint private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales said in a letter to the panel.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan, on Air Force One with President Bush, said the commission had unanimously agreed to the administration's conditions for the testimony.

The decision was conditioned on the Bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent and that the commission does not request "additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice," Gonzales' letter said.

Terrorism: Did Something

Top ranking Al Qaeda operator Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has told interrogators that more plans were on the horizon. We stopped them. Too bad we went into Iraq and got distracted from fighting terrorism.

Additionally, does anyone really think that terrorists have been sitting on their hands NOT trying to cause problems and attack targets in the US since 2001? Yet there haven't been any, have there? Wonder why . . . . . . . . .

Chicago, L.A. towers were next targets

LONDON -- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.
Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.

A Short Lesson in Short Loans: Don't Just Do Something, Stand There! II

For those who are knowledge impaired about things economic, here is a good explanation of why short term, high interest loans are often a good thing. And why knee-jerk political reactions are so often worse than the "crisis" they address.

Douglas Bandow: Politicians' interest in payday loans misguided

Moreover, to focus on the cost of payday loans misses the most important point. Critics of advance payday loans ignore the cost of the alternatives.

For some people it's not meeting an unexpected expense - a pressing car repair, bill, dental procedure, or medicine, perhaps. The result could be loss of work and income, increased costs, pain, and inconvenience, and more.

Another alternative is to rack up hefty late fees and interest charges by failing to pay a bill on time. Or by bouncing a check.

A Georgetown University study figured that taking out a $100 payday loan to pay a $50 credit card bill and $50 utility charge cost less than the late fees from failing to pay. The payday loan also won't damage a person's credit rating, making it more difficult to win affordable longer-term loans in the future.

People who need money also might find a more expensive alternative to raise funds. Like a pawn shop. Or a loan shark.

Given these alternatives, a National Taxpayers Union poll found that nine of 10 people considered advance payday loans a useful service.

But payday lending critics don't care about people's actual needs and don't believe that people are smart enough to decide what is in their best interest. Complains Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP: payday lending is "threatening the livelihoods of hardworking families and stripping equity from entire communities."

Actually, what threatens "the livelihoods of hardworking families" are the money emergencies that payday loans help address. Eliminating the means of meeting financial challenges without addressing the financial challenges themselves would make people worse off.

Clear, Concise, Damning

Jack Kemp: Hell hath no fury ...

In Clarke's own words, "There was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." So how could anyone in good faith possibly lay responsibility for al-Qaida's attack on America at the doorstep of the Bush administration seven months after the inauguration? The administration had begun from day one to put together a comprehensive anti-terror plan, and there is no doubt that al-Qaida managed to strike before the plan could be completed and implemented. But Clarke himself admits that even had the Bush administration not concentrated on formulating a comprehensive plan but instead adopted every one of the ad-hoc, stopgap recommendations Clarke was urging on the president, it wouldn't have stopped al-Qaida's 9-11 attack.

Nine-11 Commissioner and former U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton asked Clarke directly: "Assuming that all (your recommendations) had been adopted, say, on Jan. 26, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9-11?" Clarke's answer was emphatically, "No!"

Did this and previous administrations make mistakes in their handling of the terrorist threat prior to 9-11? Of course. They, like every administration before them, were made up of fallible human beings, and it didn't help that this administration had to devise and implement a new anti-terrorism plan on its own and on the run because its predecessor had failed to do so. The question is, were mistakes made by the Bush administration in any way responsible for 9-11?

Even the administration's chief tormentor admits not.

Will On Clarke

George Will: Clarke's book will quickly be forgotten

More On Clarke

WAR ON TERROR: Clarke's friends say he's lost credibility - Until just before 9-11 nearly all officials were Clinton holdovers

At that point the president's own defense and security team was still taking shape. His top NSC special assistant for intelligence programs, Mary K. Sturtevant, had been on the job only eight weeks before the 9-11 attacks.

For months, Levin personally had held up the confirmation hearings of Bush's appointees who were to design the U.S. antiterrorism strategy – Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Programs J.D. Crouch and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Peter W. Rodman – refusing for apparently partisan purposes to allow them to take office until late July 2001.

While Levin was holding up their appointments, the incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their vital jobs – a fact that helps explain why it took eight months for the Bush administration to draw up a strategic operational plan to destroy al-Qaida. . . .

According to NSC Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, Bush had asked for a strategy to destroy al-Qaida in the earliest days of his presidency. For whatever reason, Clarke gave no indication in his book or his recent public comments that he knew of such a plan, and indeed alleged the opposite. Vice President Richard Cheney told reporters that the failed Clarke "wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff."

Cheney's comment is consistent with previous news reports, which administration officials confirm, that the White House national-security process is unusually compartmented, so that even senior NSC officials would not necessarily know of secret strategic planning. . . .

In October 2001, Rice demoted Clarke to a staff rank on the NSC and put him in charge of cybersecurity. Bush passed him over for an appointment as deputy secretary of the newly created Department of Homeland Security, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, whereupon the bristling Clarke began to boycott regular NSC meetings that Rice chaired.

There was talk in the NSC of Clarke quitting just as his self-described "best friend," NSC Senior Director for Combating Terrorism Rand Beers, was readying to leave to become coordinator of national-security and homeland-security issues for Kerry's presidential campaign in early 2003. After leaving the NSC, Clarke and Beers became adjunct lecturers at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, coteaching a course called "Post-Cold War Security: Terrorism, Security and Failed States," according to a Harvard Website.

The White House has released Clarke's January 2003 resignation letter, which expressed no dissatisfaction or concern about the president's policies.

"I really don't know what Richard Clarke's motivations are," Rice told CNN, "but I'll tell you this: Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction, and he chose not to."

Rice went further in an op-ed for the Washington Post, noting that, contrary to what he is saying now, Clarke never presented her with a plan to go after al-Qaida.

"In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration," she emphasized. . . .

The White House says it has no record of Clarke and Bush being together at that time. Clarke produced his former deputy, Roger Cressey, as a witness, to verify that the conversation did indeed occur. But Cressey, when questioned by the New York Times, "backed off Mr. Clarke's suggestion that the president's tone was intimidating." Another unnamed witness said the same, according to the Times.

"He's a very dedicated public servant, he's very credible, but he's selling books," said John Lehman, a member of the 9-11 commission, in talking to MSNBC the day before Clarke testified. The next day during the hearing, Lehman was disturbed that Clarke, whom he says he has admired for years, was destroying his credibility.

"You've got a real credibility problem," Lehman told Clarke during the testimony. "Because of my real, genuine, long-term admiration for you," he said, "I hope you'll resolve that credibility problem, because I'd hate to see you become totally shoved to one side during a presidential campaign as an active partisan selling a book."

Oil Prices: Don't just Do Something, Stand There!

A lesson in reserve, literally.

Here's to hoping that this administration will forgo the easy (and, really, ineffective) answer to higher gas prices and think of strategic interests instead.

What's Up With Oil: A guide to why prices are so high.
Why are they high?

But current prices do raise an interesting question: What has happened over the past 10 months to ruin forecasts of oil at $22 per barrel? The short answer is plenty.

Most important, demand has skyrocketed. Not only in the U.S., where economic growth has been gangbusters, but also in China, which has leapt ahead of Japan to become the second largest oil market in the world. While there is some debate about whether China is consuming oil or using it to build a strategic stockpile, the result is the same strong demand. China's growth has also sparked an economic recovery and higher oil demand in the rest of Asia. Count India, too, as an increasingly oil-thirsty economy.

What should be done about it?

But hundreds of millions of barrels of oil is a seductive target for political manipulation, as Bill Clinton proved when he released reserves to tame gasoline prices before the 1996 election. We hope President Bush resists that temptation, because in the long term such a response would be dangerous.

If every President turned to the oil reserve when prices shoot up, companies would reduce the amount of inventory they are willing to carry and exacerbate the supply problem. In the short term, there is also no economic need to draw on the reserve. The economy is humming along and panicking would only create other dislocations. The oil reserve was not designed, nor should it be used, to relieve consumers at the pump for a few weeks.

"Soaking the Rich" also means "No Work for You"

A great line from a wonderfully explanatory article by Herbert Meyer, a former Reagan administration official, on how to increase job growth in this country.

Short on the nut's and bolts of how to do it, but long on the reasons why to look at the big picture in this way. Once perception is changed, then maybe we can change the reality.

Creating Work

There is one more reason we aren't creating jobs fast enough, but saying it out loud would be so unpopular, and so politically toxic, that none of our leaders — including those few who actually understand it — seem willing to take the risk. So, here goes: We aren't creating jobs fast enough because we have crippled the people who do the creating, and turned them from the heroes and heroines they are into villains. Read the last sentence again, then say it aloud to whoever happens to be nearby. This is the core of the problem — no, it is the problem — and until we fix it we aren't going to start creating new jobs fast enough. And yes, it really is this simple. . . .

Until we get Americans to understand that their welfare depends utterly on those few among us who create work — that "soaking the rich" also means "no work for you" — we will never create enough new jobs no matter how rapidly our economy may grow. Entrepreneurs will survive, for we are a hardy species. It's the workers who will suffer, and for their own sakes they need to understand how the world works. This means we want more than merely their tolerance. We want their understanding and even, perhaps, their gratitude. . . .

Maybe Kindling should be required reading not just for MBA students, but for politicians, union leaders, high-school seniors — and especially for ambitious prosecutors who know how easy it is to trip up an entrepreneur on some technical violation, then trick the public into thinking they have "stood up for the little guy" when all they've really done is thrown a monkey wrench into the jobs machine those little guys so desperately need to keep running.

3/29/2004

The Ban Coming

A legal product that injures those who use it voluntarily is now all but outlawed in Ireland. It will be here as well if activists and the nanny-gov't have their way.

We're from the gov't and we're here to protect you . . . from yourself.

When they come for your coffee and your sugars and your fats, well, can you say that you stood when they came for his tobacco?

And what if a neighbor reports him regularly smoking in his home office? Will you decry the "jack-booted gov't thugs" (and they always wear jack-boots) who come to stop this illegal activity? Or will you shrug and say, "No big deal. After all it was that eeeevil tobacco."

If that's is your attitude, I sincerely pray that you never have to see the effects of the slippery slope of gov't nanny-hood in your own home. But I would not bet on it no matter what odds you offered.

Ireland Launches World's Toughest Smoking Ban

DUBLIN, Ireland — Ireland (search) outlawed smoking in workplaces Monday, imposing the strictest anti-tobacco measure ever adopted by any country on earth — and one certain to change the atmosphere in the country's national institution, the pub.

"I guess I'll be staying home a lot more. It'll be the only place I can have a smoke with my drink," said Sean Hogan, a 46-year-old construction worker, who lit a final melancholy cigarette as the barman at the Brian Boru pub in north Dublin (search) called for last orders Sunday night. . . .

[Even] Home-offices, company cars and truckers' cabs are also supposed to become no-smoking zones (search), although the government has conceded that the law won't be enforceable in such private areas.

Environmental Disasters, Oh My!

According to this "news article" (which showed not the slightest bit of the famous "journalistic skepticism" seen so frequently when reading articles which disagree with enviro-wackiness), the Earth will implode in about 7 minutes.

Ok, so that's an exaggeration: 9 minutes, really. . . .

Just wait and see. Here it comes..................

Oh wait, maybe some of the numbers in my projection software were off or my studies were a bit "data challenged" . . . but I swear that the Earth is going to implode any minute now. Give me $10 billion in research funds and I'll tell you the same thing (or worse) in a couple of years.

Even better: the Earth will implode in 150 years.

(That way I don't have to worry about being right or wrong because you'll never be able to verify my prediction until long after I cash your check! Bwaaahaaahaahaaa!!!!!)

According to this ONE article, here's what the Earth will be like in a few years:

The world's oceans will be toxic to fish.
The spreading zones have doubled over the last decade and pose as big a threat to fish stocks as overfishing . . . .

The new findings tally nearly 150 dead zones around the globe, double the number in 1990, with some stretching 27,000 square miles.

Dead zones have long afflicted the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay, but are now spreading to other bodies of water, such as the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Adriatic Sea, Gulf of Thailand and Yellow Sea, as other regions develop, UNEP said.

They are also appearing off South America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
Everything presented as straight fact. Not even a hint of "this UN environmental group whose livelihood depends on there being enviro-disasters to fight says that . . . ." Or that maybe these "areas" are being discovered through better detection techniques rather than through appearances of new areas (assuming that the data is correct and the studies could survive the light of scrutiny).
The main cause is excess nitrogen run-off from farm fertilizers, sewage and industrial pollutants. The nitrogen triggers blooms of microscopic algae known as phytoplankton. As the algae die and rot, they consume oxygen, thereby suffocating everything from clams and lobsters to oysters and fish.

"Human kind is engaged in a gigantic, global, experiment as a result of inefficient and often overuse of fertilizers, the discharge of untreated sewage and the ever rising emissions from vehicles and factories," UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer said in a statement.

"Unless urgent action is taken to tackle the sources of the problem, it is likely to escalate rapidly," Toepfer said.

UNEP urged nations to cooperate in reducing the amount of nitrogen discharged into their coastal waters, in part by cutting back on fertilizer use or planting more forests and grasslands along feeder rivers to soak up the excess nitrogen.
Again, not a hint of "UNEP claims that" . . . just predetermined facts that are "proven" even if not challenged. I bet that there are scientists, respected scientists even, who might disagree with these claims. But the author did not find a single one to say that maybe this zealous enviro-group might just possibly be wrong, or exaggerating, or not entirely right, or mostly right but with such-and-such reservation . . . nothing. It's presented as if no on could possibly contradict or disagree in the slightest with the FACTS presented here.
The sun will be blotted out by dust storms.
The growing frequency of dust and sand storms is another concern, especially storms caused by land degradation and desertification in Mongolia and northern China.

Scientists have recently linked similar storms, originating in the Sahara, with damage to coral reefs in the Caribbean, UNEP said.
While not explicitly saying so, the clear impression from the article is that these bad things are caused by humanity. If they aren't, how exactly are we supposed to stop Nature from changing which areas of the world are desert and which are not? If they are, how about so supporting docs and, again, an opposing point of view or two in an effort to be fair and balanced?
Everyone will die of thirst. Ok, so a couple of people (rich people, I am sure) will still have drinking water
UNEP warns that without concerted effort to improve access to safe drinking water, a third of the world's population is likely to suffer chronic water shortages within a few decades. About 1.1 billion people lacked access to safe drinking water in 2000, while another 2.4 billion lacked access to basic sanitation, UNEP said.

That meeting will assess progress toward United Nations targets of halving the proportion of people with no access to safe drinking water or basic sanitation by 2015.

I wonder if this is the same group that was predicting global cooling in the 70's or that the polar ice caps would be reduced by 25% by 2000 . . . .

Clarke Sucks

I figure we should just cut through the bull and lay it on the line.

Clarke is a partisan who has made directly contradictory statements concerning the Bush administration and its handling of terrorists. He has also made contradictory statements on the Clinton admonistration's actions (or inactions as the case may be). He also has strong ties to the Democratic party including contributions to campaigns, voting for Al Gore, and a deep friendship and working relationship with a top Kerry advisor.

He has lots of experience in matters of national security. He should be someone with a lot to say and the credentials to back it up.

Unfortunately, he decided to go for the money and fame and change his story.

Which statement should we believe? The one made when he did not have a financial stake in it or the one made now that his book is out and sales depend on the public hearing about it and becoming interested in it?

Which Clarke should you believe?

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Clarke told CBS's Lesley Stahl. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11.

Maybe. We'll never know."

What we'll never know is how Clarke could say this. He probably assumed his 2002 background briefing would never pop up again. But not only did he reveal in this earlier briefing that there was "no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," he also said that the Clinton Al Qaeda strategy had failed to evolve since 1998, leaving "on the table" such vital questions as Pakistan policy and aid for the Northern Alliance. As a result, he said in 2002, "the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January (2001), to do two things.

One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings ... (and) initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided." By the end of the summer, Bush officials -- who, Clarke reminded the media, "didn't get into office until late March, early April" -- had "developed implementation details" and, even more important, changed the Clinton strategy of "rollback" to "a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda." As Clarke put it then, "President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve the problem."

9-11 Families Against Clarke

The Left exhibits a couple of people who think GW's use of images from 9-11 is wrong in his re-election campaign. Why aren't those same people complaining about Clarke's use of 9-11 for increased profits? Here's a different group of families and friends who hold that view.

NO THANKS, MR. CLARKE

It was very disturbing, then, to learn that Mr. Clarke would be releasing his book immediately before his scheduled public testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

We are well aware that the friends and family members of those killed in 9/11 do not speak with a single voice on all issues. Nonetheless, the notion of profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us.

We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 Commission could be used for political gain, especially now, with the presidential election less than eight months away.

Surely, Mr. Clarke knew this. Yet he decided to risk the actual and perceived impartiality of this important process to maximize book sales.

As family and friends of those killed on 9/11, we believe it inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to profit from and politicize 9/11, and further divide America, by his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

Indeed, we are now seeing some partisans more interested in somehow laying blame for 9/11 at the feet of President Bush - even though what we heard from both Bush and Clinton administration officials confirms what we already believed: that while al Qaeda was a known threat, no one could have known that 19 terrorists already in the United States would hijack domestic aircraft and fly them in to the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Had there been real evidence, "actionable" or otherwise, that this was being planned, we believe that President Bush, President Clinton - indeed, any president of the United States - would have done everything possible to prevent it.

Editorial Blasts Kerry

Kerry once claimed that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were murdered by the United States. Now he says that's not right. Read the Union Leader's take on it.

‘Murdering’ troops?

What could Kerry have meant?

BACK IN 1971, John Kerry said that 200,000 Vietnamese a year were “murdered by the United States of America.” Now he says he didn’t mean “murdered” and wasn’t referring to U.S. soldiers. Well then, what in the world did he mean?

After accessing transcripts of testimony Kerry gave to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, The Boston Globe reported Kerry’s “murdered” comment last Thursday. The paper also reported that Kerry claimed to have flown to Paris and “talked with both delegations at the peace talks,” clearly giving the impression that he was in some way involved in the Paris peace negotiations.

Now Kerry says his Paris trip was a private affair with his wife, and he only met the Vietnamese for a few minutes. But back in 1971 he wanted people to think the trip was of some significance. The claim is reminiscent of Kerry’s more recent boasts that he has talked with world leaders who want Bush out of office and that he had a close friend in Massachusetts who heard on good authority that Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped. Kerry has a habit of claiming that he is privy to inside information, then backing off when questioned about such boasts.

But back to his charge that the United States was murdering 200,000 Vietnamese a year. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan told the Globe that Kerry “never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam.” If he wasn’t referring to the United States military, then who in the world could he have meant? The USO?

Either the 1971 John Kerry was lying, or the 2004 John Kerry is lying — or both. We think both.

Ron Paul Nails It on FCC Regs

Ron Paul, outspoken representative from Texas, takes on the current "do something" attitude about "decency on TV".

Paul: Market, not U.S. should regulate the airwaves

There's nothing new about this latest congressional attack on expression. The political right wing has always embraced censorship, believing that government can foster and protect moral values through strict regulation of speech. But this curious attitude conflicts with the central tenet of conservatism, namely a healthy mistrust of government. Why do conservatives feel compelled to have a federal nanny state protect their children from indecency? Why do conservatives, who once questioned and resisted the growing involvement of government in our lives, now trust FCC bureaucrats to determine moral standards?

Conservatives should know that a decent society is rooted in strong families, churches and civic institutions, not government speech codes.

The political left is no better when it comes to free speech. The left may be more permissive toward lurid or obscene material, but it has zero tolerance for political, religious and social commentary that falls outside the bounds of rigid political correctness doctrines it created.

Liberals are happy to restrict so-called commercial speech; happy to jail those who commit phony hate crimes merely by speaking their minds; and happy to impose speech codes on college campuses.

Conservatives must understand that the powers they grant the FCC today might one day be used against them. It is not hard to imagine a future where criticism of abortion is deemed hate speech against women, or criticism of affirmative action considered an unlawful attack on minorities. It is not hard to imagine President Hillary Clinton ordering the FCC to shut down Rush Limbaugh for using the term "feminazi." Already a petition has been filed with the Justice Department to investigate The Passion of the Christ for possible hate crimes against those who dislike the film's theology! Big-government conservatives will learn that heavy-handed federal control of speech is far more likely to result in a rigidly secular, politically correct society than a moral society filled with Christian virtue.