The Lost-Tooth Society

Political Perspectives

2009-04-14T12:43:00.000-07:00

I have been participating in an ongoing comment thread at Harmless Sky on climate change. The thread began in late 2007 on the New Statesman website following an article by David Whitehouse wherein he discussed the fact that the Earth had stopped warming in 1998.

Lots of discussion and debate ensued on the comment thread, but eventually the New Statesman closed comments after an incredibly long and tolerant run. TonyN, a commenter on the thread, and publisher of Harmless Sky, generously offered to host the discussions at his blog, where it continues to rage every day.

In some recent exchanges, the Political Compass, a site for rating political orientation by answering questions, came up as a way of better understanding the perspectives of the thread contributors. I took the test, then posted my rankings. One of the other regular posters suggested that listing the questions and our answers for an even better perspective.

Here then, are both the questions and, in bold, my answers. You’ll have to go to the Political Compass to take the test yourself (and get your rankings). (My results are: Economic Left/Right: 4.25; Social libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.31, and are graphed in the image above)

1. If economic globalization is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

2. I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

3. No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

4. Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

5. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

6. Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

7. There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

10. People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

11. Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

12. Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

13. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

14. It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

15. Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

16. It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

17. Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

18. The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

19. The rich are too highly taxed.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

20. Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

21. Governments should penalize businesses that mislead the public.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

22. A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

23. The freer the market, the freer the people.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

24. Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

25. All authority should be questioned.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

26. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

27. Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

28. Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

29. All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

30. Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

31. It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

32. Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

33. The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

34. People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

35. The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

36. There are no savage and civilized peoples; there are only different cultures.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

37. Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

38. When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

39. First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

40. What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

41. No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

42. Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

43. A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

44. Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

45. The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

46. In a civilized society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

47. Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

48. In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

49. It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

50. The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

51. Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

52. Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

53. Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

54. Astrology accurately explains many things.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

55. You cannot be moral without being religious.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

56. Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

57. Some people are naturally unlucky.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

58. It is important that my child's school instills religious values.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

59. Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

60. A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

61. Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

62. What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

63. No one can feel naturally homosexual.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

64. These days openness about sex has gone too far.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Agree

d) Strongly Agree

The Current Crisis in the Financial Markets: What Caused it?

2008-09-18T13:04:00.000-07:00

I am personally very uncomfortable with the recent federal bailouts of investment bank Bear-Sterns and Insurance company AIG, with the quasi-independent Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac intervention the possible exception. Fannie and Freddie are only partly independent anyway, and are called Government Sponsored Enterprises. They have (had—all have been fired and replaced) their own boards and CEO’s and their stock can be purchased on the open market. They are regulated and overseen by Congress and the administration, but they are technically private corporations, or were, anyway.

Their role in the mortgage industry is to expand home ownership by buying mortgages on the secondary markets, then bundling and repackaging them into “mortgage backed securities” (MBS). The idea behind the MBS’s is to bundle higher risk mortgages (with higher rates of return) with lower risk mortgages (lower rates of return) to balance and mitigate risk to investors while maintaining a decent composite return on their investment (in the MBS’s).
In the days of the Great Depression—when Fannie was born—no other entity would or could (by law) create MBS’s. Freddie was created in the 1970s to offer some competition to Fannie.

Legislation in the late 1990’s allowed commercial banks and investment banks to merge and consolidate their operations. The objective was to introduce even more competition to the financial services industry, and to offer consumers more choice and bring innovation. This allowed the investment banks to package their own loans from their commercial banking operations into so-called ‘private label’ MBS’s, and then sell them on the open market.

Couple this new competitive landscape with other legislation in the 1990’s that required lending institutions to offer mortgages to all areas and customers they served, eliminating what was called “red lining”, and you have a recipe for disaster. The banks were required by GOVERNMENT REGULATION to offer loans to people with poor credit or no credit. To mitigate their risk, the banks came up with, and regulators allowed new sub-prime lending rules, and then could repackage these sub-prime loans with high quality loans and then sell them off as MBS’s. The profits from these MBS turned out to be incredibly lucrative.

All of a sudden more people could buy houses, then the housing bubble began to build, then it popped, sub-prime mortgages began to go into default, and now blood runs down Wall Street.

As is so often the case, (and as I fear it will be again with the “solutions” to anthropogenic global warming) the good intentions of the Clinton Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress (at the time) ended up delivering a crushing blow to many low-income people. They will feel the brunt of this crisis, not anyone on Wall Street.

As my dad always used to say, ‘the road to Hell is paved with good intentions’.

Corporate Income Taxes Not Paid Grossly Exaggerated

2008-08-12T19:48:00.000-07:00

According to the Tax Foundation, the AP stories reported today on a GAO report on corporate income taxes have grossly exaggerated the number of “large corporations” who paid no corporate income taxes. The truth is that only .28% of “large” corporations (at least $250 million in assets or at least $50 million in receipts) paid no corporate income taxes. The bulk of US corporations are small companies, or “S” corporations, and pay income taxes only as regular income, not as “corporate income”. The AP stories over estimated the amount of non-corporate tax paying large corporations by 90 times.

Barack Obama: What the Left Expects of Him as President

2008-07-30T12:36:00.000-07:00

The Nation, one of the oldest left-wing publications in the US, recently published an open letter to Barack Obama, stating what they consider to be essential policy positions that he must embrace for their continued support. I suspect that they are beginning to become concerned about his level of support for their agenda, given his recent drift to the political ‘middle’.

Below are the policies to which they expect him to commit his unwavering support, lest he risk losing theirs:

Withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable.
A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country's collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.
Universal healthcare.
An environmental policy that transforms the economy by shifting billions of dollars from the consumption of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, creating millions of green jobs.
An end to the regime of torture, abuse of civil liberties and unchecked executive power that has flourished in the Bush era.
A commitment to the rights of women, including the right to choose abortion and improved access to abortion and reproductive health services.
A commitment to improving conditions in urban communities and ending racial inequality, including disparities in education through reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and other measures.
An immigration system that treats humanely those attempting to enter the country and provides a path to citizenship for those already here.
Reform of the drug laws that incarcerate hundreds of thousands who need help, not jail.
Reform of the political process that reduces the influence of money and corporate lobbyists and amplifies the voices of ordinary people.

Are the above positions ones which you support? If not, you should not vote for Obama.

Interesting Emails

2008-07-25T12:15:00.000-07:00

I received some forwarded emails—often called “viral” emails because they get continuously forwarded—that I thought were an interesting illustration of Left vs. Right. Often these are of dubious origins, and I do not know who originally authored these.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of Nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter. The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer.

These were the foundations of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: 1. Liberals, and 2. Conservatives. Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor the aluminum can had been invented yet, so while our early ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is now known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the onservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass. Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They like their beef well done. Tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury lawyers, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get something for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off. And there you have it.

And the second message:

Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Does it Matter what the Europeans think of America?

2008-07-23T20:37:00.000-07:00

I have a good friend—a liberal—who is mortified by what he considers the sullied reputation of the United States as a result of Bush administration policies generally, and the Iraq war in particular. In his view, the USA’s ‘diminished’ status internationally makes gaining international cooperation on global issues far more difficult. It seems like many liberals feel the same way as he.

I, however, have a different view. First of all, I know of no definitive evidence that the reputation of the USA has been adversely affected. Moreover, I don’t see that it matters one way or the other anyway. To be completely honest, I really don’t care a wit what the rest of the world thinks of the USA. It’s always nice to be liked, I suppose, but I don’t define my sense of worth based on what others think of me.

In our many debates on this subject, my friend argues that it will be much more difficult to line up international support for US interests and objectives if the people from whom we seek such support don’t “like us”. My position is that France will do what is in the best interests of France first, and the world second, and the United States a distant third. (OK, so the French are a bad example; they dislike everything and everyone not French.) All countries, in fact, will do what is what they believe to be in their best interests, then the best interests of the world. How they ‘feel’ about the USA is, and should be, irrelevant.

US Open 18 Hole Playoff: A Fan's Perspective

2008-06-21T07:01:00.000-07:00

I didn’t even consider that I’d have a chance to go the playoff on Monday on my way to work, but once there found that they had plenty of playoff tickets available for employees. I thought about NOT going, since I went to the tournament on Friday, and I figured it would be really crowded. But what the heck, I thought, when would I even get to see a playoff in a major championship again?

We had a parking pass for the North Course lot, so we parked and walked a short distance to the course entrance. We had listened to the radio broadcast on the way down, so we knew to try to get to the 5th or 6th hole. As soon as we got through the main entrance and passed by the huge merchandise tent, we could see the gigantic gallery along the north side of the 6th fairway, and knew that that was a good place to start looking.

Upon arriving at the throng of people, we decided to move west along the fairway toward the 6th tee box. It was only about 9:30am, but I nearly knocked over a man carrying a beer as I walked along the cart path looking up to read the leader board. His slurred, ‘Pardon me’, suggested that his nearly spilled beer was only the latest in a long string of beers so far this morning for him.

They still had the fairway crossing open to cross over the south side of the 6th fairway, and based on my recon work from Friday’s round I suggested we cross. From the south side, we’d have easier access (I thought) to the rest of the course. Once on the south side we found a nice shady spot with good sightlines to the fairway looking west. We were surrounded by young and old, pudgy and athletic, men and women, all hoping for a good view of Tiger and Rocco’s tee-shot landing area and their subsequent approach shots. We weren’t kept waiting for long.

We heard a roar from the 5th green and knew someone made a birdie or saved par with a long putt, and that it wouldn’t be long before they teed off on #6. When we saw the spotters along the rough on the south side of the 6th fairway trot into position we knew the tee shots were on their way. Tiger’s was first, landing gently and quietly in the fairway, left side, just past the bunkers. It belied what we were certain was a controlled explosion on the tee as Tiger uncoiled like spring wound too tightly.

Rocco’s ball fell to earth next, just below the apex of a small swale, about 40 yards behind Tiger. At least he had an uphill lie. We made our way east about 60 yards to a small hill where we had a decent view of the green, and watched as the players walked up to applause and cheers.

Rocco’s approach shot was a bit long and left him just off the putting surface. Tiger, of course, was about 8 feet with what looked from where I stood to be right-to-left break for birdie. Rocco chipped to what looked like was going to be way short of the hole, but it managed to roll just close enough to the edge of the upper tier and then picked up speed as it found the slope down to the hole. He had a couple feet for par, and Tiger, of course, made the birdie putt to go to Even, while Rocco’s par kept him at +1.

After Tiger’s putt we rushed with rest of the gallery to the west side of the 7th fairway, hoping for a view of the tee shots. It was way too crowded, however, and all we saw through the heads and hats was Tiger’s ball dancing in the fairway just right of the bunkers along the left side. It rolled on toward the hole. I couldn’t see where Rocco’s ball landed, and we watched as they two players and the huge entourage of officials, security people, TV reporters and cameramen, still photographers, and other apparent hangers-on made their way down the narrow path in the rough before the beginning of the fairway past us. We, along with thousands of our fellow sweaty fans slowly inched our way across the fairway crossing, since they had the west side of the 7th closed to foot traffic.

We decided to get several holes ahead, and tried to make our way past the confluence of the 8th and 17th greens, and the 18th tee. There was a huge gallery there, and a narrow path. We pushed through the crowd only to find out that the officials had already roped-off the path from the 8th green to the 9th tee, and we were stuck. Couldn’t go back, couldn’t go forward. By that time, fortunately, the players were hitting up onto the 8th, so we had to wait only until they’d putted out and moved, along with their seemingly growing entourage, over past the 18th tee to the 9th. I finally understood how people in large crowds suffocate and die when any sort of panic ensues. It was stiflingly hot, very little wind, and very claustrophobic. I thought I was going to have a panic attack.

Finally the ‘The Entourage’ passed and the ropes opened so we could continue our excruciatingly slow, inching-along-crush-of-humanity route to hopefully more open air and open spaces.

We made our way south between the 9th and the 15th holes, and could see far to the southwest the nearly empty grandstands at the 12th green. We decided to try to get there and see one “quality” hole instead of tiny glimpses of the action between the sun-screened ears and the floppy hats and ‘US Open Torrey Pines 2008’ ball caps.

Along the way we crossed behind the 13th green and found that the grandstands for #11 still had space, so we climbed the stairs and found some good seats. Since #12 was a long walk out of the way, and we had a nice spot there at 11, we bagged the idea of going out to the 12th grandstands.

The wind was light and variable, but the sun beat down on us like a weight. I don’t know what the humidity was, but it felt very high, and the marine layer was occasionally spilling wispy clouds over our heads. The cold beers people kept bringing up the stairs looked very good and very tempting.

We waited almost 15 minutes for the players to get through #10, and the leaderboard across the fairway said Tiger had a 3 shot lead. Some of the spectators had the little hand-held TV’s that you could get by showing your American Express card, and they were keeping us all informed of what was happening. There was an exciting, tension-filled air about the whole day.

Finally, we could see Tiger’s almost neon red shirt on the elevated tee box of #11, nearly 220 yards away. I don’t know what club he used, but it sailed high and landed softly in the left green-side bunker, about 20 feet from the pin. Rocco’s ball landed just short of pin-high, 3 feet right, and rolled to about 18 feet past the hole.

The gallery cheered loudly for both Rocco and Tiger as they approached the green. The green sloped downhill and to the right from where Tiger stood in the bunker, and had a slightly right hand break. Tiger surveyed his shot from every angle then lofted a sand wedge shot high and soft that rolled about 10 feet past the hole. The sound of camera shutters clicking and whirring immediately after he swung was surprising.

Rocco putted next and had a great putt but left it s tiny bit short—but only had a tap-in for par.

I was surprised at how long Tiger took to study his par putt. He looked at it from every angle, slowly circling around the hole and ball like a shark trying to decide how attack and eat his prey. You could almost hear the gears whirring and calculations humming from across the 30 yards between us.

Despite this study, however, he missed the putt and had to settle for a bogey. We watched them walk the 30 yards or so over to the 12th tee, where Rocco hit his normal, average-Joe sounding drive, and Tiger once again exploded on the ball. It sounded like a howitzer going off. He didn’t like the shot though, as it appeared to be going right of the fairway.

After they walked west off the 12th tee, we made our way over toward the 14th hole, hoping to get ahead of the crowd and get another grandstand seat. The 14th looked interesting, because the tees were set way forward, to 277 yards, but was still a par 4. Tiger would only need a 3 wood for that, and Rocco could hit it with his driver. Unfortunately, the gallery around the 14th had grown considerably since we’d walked past earlier, so we continued on hoping for something in the stands on 18.

The 15th was not quite as crowded, and from the west side of the green we found a good spot to sit and wait. We also could see that people were still being allowed up and into the 15th grandstands, so we decided to see if we could get seats as well. We made our way left around the north end of the green and over to the staircase between the northern and central grandstands east of the 15th. The officials ushered us further south where we found seats near the very top of the grandstands. It was a bit shady, and there was a nice breeze.

From where we sat, immediately east of the 15th green nearly pin-high, we could see the 16th tee to the west, the 15th fairway to the south, and, through the trees, the western edge of the 14th green. The 15th green in front of us had a large bunker between the green and us, and across the green and slightly north of us was another. Even further away to our southwest we could see the tee box for the 13th hole, and as we sat down we could just make out Tiger’s red shirt moving around as a red dot.

The next 30 minutes or so we spent moving over and standing up to let others pass to find their own seats in the stands. Some of our fellow spectators had the American Express TV’s, and they were keeping us informed on the player’s progress. The gallery along the west side of the 15th fairway and green continued to grow as more and more people gathered.

One enterprising lady went down to the concession stand and brought back a box full of burgers, hot dogs, and beer, and sold them to anyone who wanted them. She sold them for what she paid, so I guess she wasn’t really that enterprising after all, but nice nonetheless.

People cheered when the leaderboard across the fairway changed from Rocco +3, Tiger +2 to Rocco +2, Tiger +1 through 13 holes. Cheers again and shouts of “ROCCO” as later the scores changed again to Rocco +1, Tiger +1 through 14.

A large tree along the 15th fairway blocked our view of the tee shots, but we could see Rocco’s ball land and hop a few times in the fairway just short of the tree. We waited for Tiger’s ball to fall, and looked 40 yards further up the fairway for it. When we didn’t see it, but then saw ten or twelve officials run east across the fairway toward the 9th fairway, we knew Tiger must have sliced it well right off the tee. There was a line of trees to our south that obscured our view of where his ball landed, so we had to rely on our fellow grandstanders with TV’s to tell us what exactly happened. Tiger had sliced his drive into a fairway bunker on the 9th fairway, but apparently had some sort of shot to the green. We later learned that it was about 175 yards to the pin.

Despite Tiger’s errant tee shot, Rocco was still furthest from the green and he hit first. The traveling photographers set up along the west side of the fairway and were jostling for position. Rocco’s approach shot went very high, and from my vantage point, looked like it would fall short of the green. However, it landed just on the putting surface and rolled behind the pin to about 25 feet. Raucous cheers and loud cries of “ROCCO” rose to an almost deafening level.

Now it was Tiger’s turn. We could barely make him out through the tree line down the east side of the fairway. The gallery had parted, leaving him an alley toward the green. It looked to me like he would have to fade the ball from left to right to hit the green, and after what seemed like a longer-than-usual pre-shot routine, he made his swing and we turned our heads to see where the shot would land. My buddy, after seeing Rocco’s shot, thought Tiger had no chance to even find the green, but I thought that a long bunker shot for tour pros in general and Tiger in particular aren’t much of a big deal. I had an eerie feeling that he’d not just find the green, but that he’d be inside of Rocco’s shot.
The gigantic gallery was hushed, waiting for what seemed like too long for the ball to get to wherever it was heading, ‘Where is it?’, I thought. But then down it came from high above, as if dropped by God, hitting just past pin-high then rolling to 12 feet—yes—inside Rocco’s ball. The gallery roared even louder, and people and photographers rushed up closer to the green looking for a better angle.

The roar of the crowd grew again as the players made their way up the fairway and onto the green, both men tipping their caps in acknowledgment of the enthusiastic fans. It felt more like an NBA playoff than a US Open playoff. The only thing missing was the pounding music and flashing lights.

Tiger marked his ball and Rocco started his pre-shot routine, carefully reading the breaks and judging speed. He walked around the green and looked over his putting line from both sides of the hole, and then went back and looked again from the ball to the hole. The huge gallery was hugely quiet. You could hear yourself breathe, and it was truly amazing that so many people could be so quiet.

Finally he set up, took a couple practice strokes, and then gently stroked the ball toward the hole. As soon as it left his putter face I was certain it would be short. But it must have been slightly downhill, because like the bunny in the TV ads, it just kept on going….and finally dropped gently into the hole.

Again the gallery erupted in cheers and shouts of “ROCCO!!” There were high-fives and handshakes everywhere, and it seemed like the impossible had just happened.

As the noise level slowly receded, Tiger began his pre-putt routine. He placed his ball and removed his mark, and then started to study the break of the putt. This part of his game is something you can’t really pickup on watching him play on TV, because only once in a while do they take the time to show the whole thing. As he did on every other putt, he looks down the line of the putt, then stands and very slowly walks a large circle around the ball and hole, viewing the break from every angle. His stride was actually more of a strut than walk, his eyes locked on the ball and hole, a machine focused on calculating its objective.

The huge throngs of people were rapt in their silence, no one wanting to exhale for fear of interrupting his concentration. At last he stepped up to the ball, took two quick practice strokes, then addressed the ball and putted it. It looked at first like it was in, but it just barely missed to right of the hole and slid about two feet past the hole. He had to settle for par, and Rocco had a one stroke lead.

We watched them tee of on 16 before heading over to try to find a place to watch the action on 18. Unfortunately, the grandstands were completely full, and while we circled the grandstands surrounding the 18th green looking for a place to stand and watch, we realized everyone else had the same idea. It was a crushing crowd, and since I couldn’t come close to seeing any live action, I decided to go over to the air-conditioned comfort of the merchandise tent where they had plenty of big screen TVs where I could watch in comfort.

Rocco shot par the rest of the way, and we all saw Tiger’s spectacular birdie on 18 to force a sudden death playoff on the seventh hole. The seventh—the first sudden death playoff hole— is a dog-leg right hole, which is a difficult for Rocco’s natural right to left shot shape. Tiger’s tee shot was perfect, cutting across the trees on the right and landing just inside the first cut of rough on the right.

Rocco’s tee shot, as expected, went left into a fairway bunker, and I was confident that, short of a miracle, Tiger had just won the US Open again. Rocco’s bunker shot again went left, hit the grandstands, where he got a free drop. His 3rd shot was landed near the pin, but Tiger’s 2nd was just below the hole. Tiger went on to birdie and win the tournament.

It was the most exciting golf I’d ever personally witnessed, and history was made. And knowing now the extent of Tiger’s knee injury (the rest of his season is over as he will undergo reconstructive surgery) makes his victory even more impressive. We can only hope for such excitement in future golf tournaments.

Is Anthropogenic Global Warming Real?

2008-06-12T12:17:00.000-07:00

I'm going to try to get back to some posting, at least on Thursdays...

Some of the things I am interested in these days are politics, environment (global warming), economics, taxes, and mostly, of course, LIBERTY.

I have been participating in a long string of comments on a David Whitehouse column that appeared in the December, 2007 issue of The New Statesman. In the article, Mr. Whitehouse, a former science editor for the BBC, discusses how global average temperatures since 1998 have been flat, and even have a slight downward trend. This is, of course, heresy to those who religiously cling to the theory that CO2 emissions from human activities—namely the burning of fossil fuels— are mostly responsible for a rise in average global temperatures since the industrial age began. Or so goes the theory. Mark Lynas, who is The New Statesman's current environmental editor wrote a rebuttal piece, where after the comment thread from the original David Whitehouse comment thread continued. Mr. Lynas, of course, pilloried Mr. Whitehouse's position.

But a very curios thing began to happen on these comment threads. Many of us who were skeptics of Anthropogenic (human induced) Global Warming (AGW), but fairly open minded about it began to learn a lot about the science behind both supporters and skeptics of the theory of AGW. In the end, the thread was closed after a combined 3000+ comments! However, the thread will hopefully be continued at Harmless Sky.

I wrote a rejected column for a major publication, and will reprint it here for some additional background:

Global warming caused by human activity is a fact. Or is it? If you read most mainstream media publications, human-induced, or “anthropogenic” global warming (AGW) is almost always presented as fact. The only problem is that the facts, once you really look into them, don’t support the current AGW theory.

The AGW view of global warming is that rising levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels traps heat that would otherwise escape to space, which causes the climate to warm. The fact that the climate has warmed over the last 150 years or so is not in dispute. However, when you take a good look at the mean global temperature (MGT) since the mid-1800’s—when reasonably reliable record-keeping began—the record shows that while MGT rose during that period, there were also declines. In fact, MGT rose from about 1860 to about 1880, then declined until roughly 1905, rose again from 1905 to 1940, then declined until about 1975, after which the MGT rose again until 1998. Since 1998, however, the global temperatures have remained flat and appear set to decline further.

Unfortunately for the AGW lobby, when you overlay CO₂ emissions on the above timeline you find that they don’t match. CO₂emissions didn’t really start to increase dramatically until about 1950, which was when GMT was in a decline until 1975. The two prior warming periods (1860-1880 and 1905-1940) occurred before any significant amounts of CO₂ were being emitted, so these warming periods were obviously caused by something other than CO_2,but no one knows what caused them. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), admits it doesn’t know what caused these prior warming periods. But then they go on to argue that the most recent warming (1975-98) must caused by CO₂ emissions and not the unknown warming ‘driver’ that caused the earlier warming, because, essentially, nothing else explains it. It’s also worth noting that while the MGT stopped rising in 1998, CO₂ emissions continued their rate of growth unabated, the Kyoto Treaty notwithstanding.

So to review, there were three periods of warming in the last 150 years or so, each followed by a cooling period. CO₂ emissions were insignificant until about 1950, long after the first two warming periods were over and 10 years into the second cooling period. The third warming period began in about 1975, and since no one at the UN can think of anything else that could be causing this third warming cycle, CO₂ must be the culprit.

The scary part of all this is the fact that governments around the world want us to ‘reduce our carbon footprint’, and have instituted ‘carbon taxes’ and other very economically unsound cures for a problem we likely didn’t cause, nor are likely to be able to fix. And many of the AGW ‘cures’ will cost hundreds of billions of dollars that could be much better used on problems we can fix.

But if CO₂ emissions are not the cause of global warming, what is causing it? If you’ve done any reading at all on the subject of climate change recently, you’ll have heard of other possibilities: solar activity is one. Interestingly, when you overlay solar activity onto the MGT graph, they fit very nicely, especially when compared with CO₂ output. The warming also seems to correlates with El Niño years, and something called Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which is related to El Niño-La Niña phenomenon in the eastern Pacific. The PDO is a swing from cool to warm ocean currents in the Pacific, which greatly affects global climate. Recently, scientists have discovered that the PDO has begun a swing to the cooling phase, and have predicted at least 10 years of cooling!

I am not a scientist, nor a statistician. But I can read, and I can reason. The forces behind the AGW argument are large, powerful, and deeply entrenched in their positions. Billions of dollars and many reputations are at stake. Many who support the notion of AGW are ‘green’ in many other ways, and often tend to be liberal in their politics. And many of those people have ‘just known’ that mankind has been for decades harming the planet, and the AGW theory validates—in their mind—these long-held beliefs. They see it as an opportunity to justify new taxes and regulation, bigger government, and less freedom, all in the name of ‘saving the planet’.
Sources:

[I learned very much on this subject from the many brilliant contributors to the New Statesman David Whitehouse and Marc Lynas comment threads [linked above].]

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/

http://www.climateaudit.org/

I've been busy...

2007-11-01T13:15:00.000-07:00

So I haven't been posting for a long time. I find that to post effectively and to write posts that people might want to read takes more time than I have right now.

But this blog will stay active and I will post once in a while!

Tags
[Lost-Tooth Society]

The Estate Tax Debate

2006-08-15T12:17:00.000-07:00

Nothing illuminates the differences between the left and right side of the political spectrum better than the debate over the estate tax. The Left generally argues that large estates should be significantly taxed when ownership passes from one generation to the next. Their desire for maintaining the estate tax is rooted in their deep-seeded need for equality of outcomes. They despise what they see as the inequality of the wealthy versus the poor, and seek to penalize the wealthy for their (or their ancestor’s) hard work and financial success.

The estate tax, however, is simply another collectivist tactic to redistribute wealth. The Left, of course, sees government intervention into the accumulation and concentration of capital as a noble and worthy cause. They are either unaware, or choose to ignore the alternative, and much more efficient use of that capital: Investment in the economy.

The vast fortunes of the “super rich”, as the Left likes to call them, are working in the economy. They invest in corporations, providing necessary capital to these companies who in turn provide jobs for Americans. Many of the Super Rich invest in government securities and bonds that provide the public with money for schools, and roads, and housing for the poor, etc., while providing a safe and secure income to the wealthy. In addition, the wealthy pay income tax (depending on the government security) on the income and on the income from their investments in the private sector.

The investments of the wealthy also are invested in banks and other financial institutions who in turn provide loans and financial assistance to low and middle income people (as well as to the rich themselves).

In short, keeping capital in the hands of individuals instead of government more efficiently and effectively delivers “wealth redistribution” than does the paltry estate tax, which, by the way, amounts to barely over 1% of revenues (in 2005).

Tags

estate tax

Global Warming Skeptics of the Scientific Kind

2006-06-14T12:30:00.000-07:00

Every day I scan a variety of news sources to find news on global warming. Every day I find them, but virtually all of them discuss the impact to the environment from global warming, not the cause of global warming itself. That, they argue, is settled science. Since the scientific evidence that human activity (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) is the cause of global warming is so weak, and the possible alternative causes are so many, those who are proponents of the idea that AGW causes global warming have little else to rest their argument on except to say that 'that is that' and the issue is settled. They want to quickly move on to how to the 'let's fix the problem' phase since their causation argument is so weak.

A recent post in the Canada Free Press by guest columnist Tom Harris provides further evidence that that AGW argument is weak. To wit:

'"While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts."

He goes on:

"Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest."

The above refers the Al Gore's recent movie about global warming. One of the climate scientists quoted in Mr. Harris' article, Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia, says of Gore:

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

Low post rate

2006-06-02T05:48:00.000-07:00

Apologies to my regular readers for the low post rate lately. I had a nice vacation, and have been laying low since just because I needed a break. But I am soon to begin posting again, especially with a special election looming next Tuesday here in California.

Some other potenial post subject I have been formulating in my mind are:

Why do movie and music stars think anyone care what they think about politics?
The American people's dissatisfaction with the two major political parties.
Exposing how, despite the best efforts of the Left and the MSM, the economy and tax revenues are booming as a result of the Bush tax cuts, and how the rich are paying more taxes than ever.
Lamenting the high spending rate of government (see item two above)

Those are just a few ideas. I post when I can, but try to post meaningful, researched, thinking.

Please stop by again soon!

A Perfect Machine to a Socialist

2006-05-03T12:56:00.000-07:00

Listening to news reports of Bolivia's leftist president Morales announcement that he is nationalizing his country's oil and natural gas reserves and industries got me thinking again about socialism, and why it is so unnatural to the human experience.

Leftism in general, and socialist-collectivism in particular is rooted in the desire for equality. Supporters of leftist principles have a strong drive for equality. Not equal opportunity— equal outcomes. Leftists don't care at all about equal opportunity; they only care that when all is said and done, everything and everyone is equal. That is why socialism is so appealing to the Left.

Socialism is often described by free-market supporters as inefficient, and a good metaphor of that inefficiency would be a machine. A socialist machine is extremely inefficient because no matter how much energy or effort is put into the machine, it ouputs the same amount of work. Never more, and over time, ususally less. You could fill it's tank with rocket fuel or with water, and still it would run at the same speed. Since the machine can never increase its output, which would mean inequality of outcomes, there is also no incentive to improve the machine.

It is terribly inefficient, and serves poorly the need for which it was intended, but is satisfying to a leftist because each input fuel or effort would result, in the end, in an equal outcome. The rocket fuel, despite its volatile nature, is of no more value to the machine than the water. Equal outcome. A perfect machine to a socialist.

Another metaphor of the inefficiency of socialism would be a simple vending machine. The socialist vending machine would accept any currency, in any denomination or amount, but would dispense the same product in the same amount for each transaction. Input is irrelevant; outcomes are equal. A perfect machine to a socialist.

Most humans are simply not wired for thinking like this. Like the posts below, most of us expect that better efforts should be rewarded with better results. Free-market capitalism delivers equal opportunity, but also rewards those who strive for better results. Socialism, conversely, provides incentive to provide as little effort as possible since the reward for effort will be the same with high or low effort. Over time, society suffers under socialism because no one strives for excellence, and consequently, advancements in technology, medicine, etc. are notachievedd. Capitalism, on the other hand, builds a better society because those willing to put forth more and better effort are rewarded with better results. Society gains because most people see the potential for personal and societal gain, and they therefore put more effort into their work.

You'd think that such obvious shortcomings of a political-economic system would dissuade anyone from pursuing it, especially considering the colossal failures of repeated so often in the 20th century, yet the movement is once again gaining a foothold in South America.

Socialism has never, and will never work.

[Edited for spelling and clarity—JZS]

Related posts:

Free Market Capitalism versus Socialist Collectivism
The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

Tags
Bolivia Nationalizes Petroleum
Bolivia
socialism

May 1st Immigration Protests

2006-05-02T05:57:00.000-07:00

Last night my wife, sister-in-law, and I went out to dinner. We couldn't go to our favorite restaurant because they were closed "due to lack of employees". Another favorite restaurant across the street was also closed, and we saw numerous taco shops also closed.

Driving though nearby Vista just past 5:00pm, several cars were driving around, honking horns and waving Mexican flags. No American flags could be seen, just flags of Mexico. A few other drivers would honk in apparent support.

Otherwise not much impact that I could see here in north San Diego county.

Tags
Uno de Mayo
Immigration Reform
Immigration Protests

Uno de Mayo

2006-04-30T22:20:00.000-07:00

[Sing this like a high school cheer]

I have papers
Yes, I do
I have papers
How 'bout you?

Seems like an appropriate song for the big demonstrations on Monday.

Tags
Immigration Protests May 1

Bush Tax Cuts: Soaking the Rich

2006-04-29T06:50:00.000-07:00

I heard an interesting commentary on Marketplace.org the day by Steve Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, discussing the effects of the Bush tax cuts. Contrary to what most on the Left believe, and what the MSM continually reports, the Bush tax cuts have substantially move the burden of income tax to the rich and off the poor. The rich are paying more taxes than ever before, and income tax dollars paid to the government are up over the last two years more than ever before in US history.

The Bush tax cuts have been routinely assailed as multimillion dollar giveaways to the Rolls Royce owners of America at the expense of the middle class.

But new IRS statistics on the taxes Americans pay show that George Bush's tax policies actually soak the rich.

It turns out that the income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the wealthy. The percentage of federal income taxes paid by those who make more than $200,000 a year has actually risen from 41% to 47% in recent years.

In other words, the richest 3 out of 100 Americans are now paying close to the same amount in income taxes as the other 97% of workers combined.

It's also a common myth that the rich are hording all the wealth, while the middle class stays stuck in economic quicksand.

The IRS data show that the share of all income earned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans has actually fallen since 2001. The rich are earning less of the total income but paying more of the total taxes.

During this economic expansion, the middle class is growing and becoming more prosperous. About 4 out of 10 Americans now make more than $50,000 a year -- that's up from 3 out of 10 in 1990.

There's more good news. Tax revenues over the past two years are up more than half a trillion dollars — the largest two-year increase in tax collections in history.

Bush cut the capital gains and dividend taxes, but guess what? Now those tax receipts are through the roof in the last two years.

It's called the Laffer Curve: a lower tax rate has increased economic growth and investment and thus the government gets more tax revenues.

The Bush tax cuts have pumped steroids into the US economy and created 5 million new jobs, a surge in new business investment and record worker productivity.

Those are the reasons to make the tax cuts permanent. But for those who really want to sock it to the rich, the Bush tax cuts have done that too.

Tags
Bush Tax Cuts

Leftism: Where Truth is a Fluid Concept

2006-04-21T12:53:00.000-07:00

Reading the brouhaha about the recent 'outing' of a left-wing blogger's multiple pseudonymous escapades into flogging his critics and praising himself, I remembered some of the things Dr. John Ray has so often taught us over the years about leftists: They see nothing wrong with lying or deceiving if it furthers their political agenda.

Why aren't they more (I can't actually think of ANY) conservative writers who have been caught fudging the truth for their political agenda.

Tags
Patterico
Hiltzik

Immigration Reform

2006-04-15T07:50:00.000-07:00

Living here in southern California, the impact of illegal immigration across our southern border is direct, powerful, and widespread. Each morning on my way to work I pass several 'hiring' areas for illegals were as many as 60 or 80 men wait each morning for work. I drive a pickup truck, so as I pass the men raise their hands and wave, hoping for a day's work and a day's pay. I've never stopped, but often see other trucks doing so.

The debate over immigration reform is passionate. Many people I know want all illegals deported immediately, period. But I see the situation as being much more complex. For a country built by the sweat and blood of immigrants to now want to close the door on immigration is, for me, nearly oxymoronic. As reads the plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

I grew up to understand that those words signified a country better and different than all others, a place where everyone, regardless of class, wealth, race, education, religion, or political views were welcome. That is the America I know.

Ronald Reagan spoke often of a "shining city on a hill", and said this in his farewell address:

"I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life... In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still."

I see it that way, too. "Anyone with the will and the heart to get here". Those are powerful words, with powerful meaning. I am not asserting that Ronald Reagan advocated illegal immigration, but he certainly took a more compassionate view of it than many who are opposed to it now.

We all benefit from immigration, even if it is illegal. Our food is less expensive, our hotels are cleaner and rates are lower, our lawns are mowed, our trees are pruned, our dishes washed, our food prepared, our houses cleaned, and our children are cared for by illegal aliens. Not always are they illegal, but often. Even if you don't think you've hired illegals to work on your landscaping, or to clean your house, the legitimate company you hired may well hire illegals. There is no way to tell by just looking, and let's be honest, most of us don't really want to know.

In my neighborhood, a newer up-scale tract development, I was one of only a handful of residents who hired a licenced contractor to do the work. Even then I am confident that some of the guys working for the contractor were not working legally. Illegal immigrants are everywhere—at least here in the San Diego area— and there is almost nothing you can do without encountering an illegal, hiring an illegal, benefiting directly or indirectly from the work of an illegal alien.

The recent immigrant protests that have gripped many large cities makes clear the impracticality of some of the proposals being discussed in Washington regarding immigration reform. Estimated at nearly 12 million people, how would we deport them all, let alone find them? If the Senate's version is agreed to, with provisions to treat those who've been here for longer differently, how many of those 12 million will admit that they've only been here for a year or two? They are here illegally anyway, and there are systems in place to create false documents. If their options are to go back to their home country, or to obtain new documents 'proving' their residence, I am confident that most will get new documents.

Moreover, many of these people have built lives here. They've gotten married, had children, (who are US citizens) pay taxes (maybe not income taxes), bought homes, work hard, support their communities, and help build our economy. Many of the students who protested recently did so because the US House version of immigration reform would make THEIR PARENTS felons. These are the same people we see on our roads, at the PTA meetings, in parks, at work, building our pools, and cleaning our houses.

Finally, the biggest impediment to immigration reform is the border itself. If the border is not secured, and none of the plans I've seen would further secure it, then no laws we write to address people already here will matter at all. The first thing we must do, if we want to keep people out, is to secure the border. That will take tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of troops, and far more political will than I've seen from any politician.

If you haven't figured out my position on immigration reform yet, I support a guest worker program, and amnesty for those already here. I would deport all illegals involved in criminal activity, once they've served out their sentences, but for the vast majority of people living in this country who simply seek a better life, please stay and help us build a better country.

A final footnote: To provide better security against terrorism, I do strongly support a significantly tighter border, including a border-long fence. I am very concerned about terrorists entering this country with WMD's across our very porous southern border. Only a fence and more border security will stop this kind of traffic.

Tags
Immigration Reform
Illegal Immigrants

Impeach Bush??

2006-04-01T12:34:00.000-08:00

No doubt you have heard the rising chorus from the Left to impeach George W. Bush. Impeachment is no doubt the #1 priority of the extremists now in control of the Democrat Party. Should the Democrats win control of the US House of Representatives in November, I have no doubt that Articles of Impeachment against the Bush administration will the first item on their agenda. If the Democrats should also win control of the US Senate in November, then Bush's conviction and removal from office is a real possibility.

But on what legal grounds could articles of impeachment be presented? Those advocating impeachment usually cite four arguments that form the legal basis of the pro-impeachment lobby:

That Bush violated international and domestic law by invading Iraq;
That Bush lied about prewar intelligence, and lied about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda;
That Bush violated international laws and treaties, as well as the US Constitution, by holding "enemy combatants" indefinitely without hearings;
That Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 with "warrantless" wiretapping of American citizens;

On the one hand, I am shocked that the MSM isn't more carefully dismantling these positions, but on the other, not. At least not with the MSM's clear anti-Bush agenda. But let's take these one by one.

First, that Bush violated internation and domestic law by invading Iraq. This is the easiest one to debunk. The United Nations Security Council issued 17 resolutions on Iraq, virtually all of which were repeatedly violated by the former government of Iraq. Article 33 of UN Resolution 687 (April, 1991) states that only through Iraq's acceptance of the terms of UNR687 will a "formal cease-fire" exist. Iraq continually violated this and virtually all subsequent UN resolutions. Therefore, the cease-fire, by definition, and in accordance with UNR 687 ceased to exist when Iraq violated the terms of 687 and the subsequent resolutions.

Despite a decade of 'second chances', UNR 1441 (November, 2002) threatened further "serious consequences" should Iraq not comply with all UN resolutions. Debate ensued over whether further UN action specifically calling for war was legally required prior to any military action, but after ten years and 17 ineffective UN resolutions, and with France, Germany, and Russia virtually guaranteeing a veto over such a resolution, the US, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and numerous other countries concluded that no further UN authorization was required to forcably disarm Iraq.

House Joint Resolution 114 (October, 2002), passing overwhelmingly by both the House and Senate, authorized the president to "...use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines..." as the excerpt below makes clear: (emphasis added)

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

There is simply no compelling argument that any laws were broken regarding the invasion of Iraq.

Second, that Bush lied about prewar intelligence, and lied about a connection between prewar Iraq and al Qaeda. This one has been repeatedly debunked by many, including The Lost Tooth Society. Recently released and translated documents from prewar Iraqi Intelligence files show a clear link between Iraq and al Qaeda prior to 9-11. The veracity of these documents is still in question, and it will take years to translate and decipher all 55,000 boxes of seized documents, but based on what has been so far translated, the correctness of the prewar intelligence may well be vindcated.

Moreover, the Duelfer Report clearly shows that Saddam Hussein had a strategy to secretly maintain his WMD capabilities while working to use the Oil For Food UN program to bribe his way to the end of sanctions. Once the sanctions were lifted, he would be in an even stronger position to resume his WMD development programs.

Third, that the Bush administration violated international laws and treaties, and the US Constitution by holding indefinitely and without charges "enemy combatants. While the Lost-Tooth Society was initially very troubled by this action, digging into the facts showed that these actions are completely in compliance with all applicable legal standards. Note a key passage from the post above:

The Third Geneva Conventions clearly spell out how prisoners of war shall be treated, and Part 1, Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the III Geneva Conventions defines precisely who is a "prisoner of war":

"(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.'

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Given the specific conditions of part (2), it seems unlikely that many of those detained at Gitmo could be considered POW's under the Geneva Convention. In fact, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (July15, 2005) that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al Qaeda, and that the Geneva Conventions themselves cannot be enforced in US courts.

But ruling in the Rasul v. Bush case in June of 2004, the US Supreme Court held that Gitmo detainees are entitled to challenge their incarceration in federal court, arguing essentially that since the US government holds legal authority over Gitmo and its facilities, that federal courts also hold jurisdiction over the detainees, hence their right to habeas corpus.

The Lost-Tooth Society continues to believe that the indefinite detention of many of these people is unwise, and we welcome the Supreme Court's ruling allowing challenges to detention, but the legality of the detentions is not in question, and is therefore not grounds for impeachment.

Fourth, That Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 with "warrantless" wiretapping of American citizens. This is no doubt the strongest card in the hand of the pro-impeachment lobby, but is it strong enough to warrant impeachment?

First, some background:

As part of the president's post-9/11 anti-terrorism efforts, he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept certain electronic communications from persons outside the USA to persons within the USA, without warrants. FISA is the governing statute regarding this type of surveillance, and around its provisions lie the basis of the argument that the NSA program was was allegedly illegal.

There are very complex and technical legal questions involved here, and my opinions are based on the legal analyses I have read, since I am neither a legal scholar nor an attorney. The central issue revolves around the FISA statute and Separation of Powers issues. FISA is, of course, a statute passed by the Legislative branch of the federal government, not Constitutional provision. Therefore, the applicability of the statute by the legislature, inasmuch as it applys to the Executive branch of the federal government, must be examined in light of Constitutional authority delegated to the Executive branch.

In other words, the Congress cannot by statute constrain the authority of the President beyond those constraints already specified by the Constitution.

Unfortunately for the pro-impeachment crowd, FISA does just that.

There are several excellent authorities that illustrate this point:

John Hinderaker at Powerline writes:

The starting point, of course, is the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution sets out the powers and duties of the President. Some people do not seem to realize that the executive branch is coequal with the legislative and judicial branches. The President has certain powers under the Constitution, and they cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional legislation any more than the President can limit the powers of Congress by executive order.

Article II makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As such he is preeminent in foreign policy, and especially in military affairs. This was no accident; as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 74, "Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand." The federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. In Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850), the Supreme Court wrote that the President has the Constitutional power to "employ [the Nation's armed forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy."

Powerline also writes of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' comments in a debate in late January of this year.

Quoting from Powerline the words of the Attorney General:

[F]rom the outset, the Justice Department thoroughly examined this program against al Qaeda, and concluded that the President is acting within his power in authorizing it. These activities are lawful. The Justice Department is not alone in reaching that conclusion. Career lawyers at the NSA and the NSA’s Inspector General have been intimately involved in reviewing the program and ensuring its legality.

The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in the President’s constitutional authorities. *** It has long been recognized that the President’s constitutional powers include the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance aimed at detecting and preventing armed attacks on the United States. Presidents have uniformly relied on their inherent power to gather foreign intelligence for reasons both diplomatic and military, and the federal courts have consistently upheld this longstanding practice.

If this is the case in ordinary times, it is even more so in the present circumstances of our armed conflict with al Qaeda and its allies.

There are other powerful arguments supporting the legality of the NSA program. Charles Krauthammer wrote recently in the Washington Post (registration required) about the legality of the program,

In 1972 the Supreme Court required the president to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on domestic groups but specifically declined to apply this requirement to snooping on foreign agents. Four appeals courts have since upheld presidential authority for such warrantless searches. Not surprisingly, the executive branch has agreed.

True, Congress tried to restrict this presidential authority with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It requires that warrants for wiretapping of enemy agents in the United States be obtained from a secret court. But as John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, wrote: "Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms." Indeed, President Bill Clinton's own deputy attorney general testified to Congress that "the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," then noted a few minutes later that "courts have made no distinction between electronic surveillances and physical searches."

Finally, a panel of five former judges of the secret FISA court recently testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the president:

"[D]id not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA)."

On the surface, the calls for impeachment of president Bush over these matters might be worrisome, but once one investigates the actual facts of the case, and the controlling legal authorities, the foundation justifying such action fizzles.

Tags
"Bush Lied"
Wiretapping
WMD
Gitmo
"Impeach Bush"

Bush's News Conference Tuesday March 21, 2006

2006-03-22T06:07:00.000-08:00

I heard the president's news conference live yesterday on my way to work. It was a good session, with the president giving good, thoughtful answers that I figured would be helpful to him. Then I read the headlines later in the day from the MSM, and wondered hw I could have not heard what I heard. They way the MSM made things out to be was completely different than what a listener would have heard had they heard it themselves, as did I. This is just another example of the left-leaning MSM's Bush-bashing.

John Hinderaker at Powerline has a great piece on just this subject.

Tags
Bush
Iraq
News Conference

Global Warming

2006-03-16T12:55:00.000-08:00

The debate about human-induced global warming, better known as "anthropogenic global warming", or AGW, continues to be an extremely political and bitter one. Many scientists consider the science settled, and accept as fact that human activity, specifically the release of so-called "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere are the cause of the apparent rise in temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. However, there are also many scientists who dispute the theory of AGW. Two such scientists recently published studies suggesting that either radiation from space or as a result of a meteor or comet that exploded over remote Russia in 1908.

In the first case, renowned geochemistry professor Jan Veizer of the university of Ottawa overcame years of reluctance (out of fear of reprisals) to report his theory in Geoscience Canada. An excerpt:

The standard explanation for vagaries of our climate, championed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), is that greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are its principal driver. Recently, an alternative model that the sun is the principal driver was revived by a host of empirical observations. Neither atmospheric carbon dioxide nor solar variability can alone explain the magnitude of the observed temperature increase over the last century of about 0.6[degrees]C. Therefore, an amplifier is required. In the general climate models (GCM), the bulk of the calculated temperature increase is attributed to "positive water vapour feedback". In the sun-driven alternative, it may be the cosmic ray flux (CRF), energetic particles that hit the atmosphere, potentially generating cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Clouds then cool, act as a mirror and reflect the solar energy back into space. The intensity of CRF reaching the earth depends on the intensity of the solar (and terrestrial) magnetic field that acts as a shield against cosmic rays, and it is this shield that is, in mm, modulated by solar activity.

The second example came out just recently by Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He says that instead of human activity, the likely source of global warming is the result of something called the Tunguska Meteorite Event, which occured in 1908 in remote Russia.

Quoted from Mosnews.com:

The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth’s atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused “considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure.” Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.

Tags
Global Warming
Anthropogenic Global Warming

Free Market Capitalism versus Socialist Collectivism

2006-03-08T12:10:00.000-08:00

Seen recently (don't know the author):

"A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and many times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. that way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played, while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party""

Tags
Free Market Capitalism
Socialism

Katrina Video and the AP "Clarification"

2006-03-08T05:52:00.000-08:00

The Associated Press issued a "clarification" of its story earlier this month that erroneously stated that President Bush had been warned prior to the arrival of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans that the levees could be "breached" by the force of the storm. The story cited video evidence shown widely on television news showing the president being briefed on the potential damage from the hurricane. The only problem with the story, is that, as reported here BEFORE the AP issued its "clarification", never during the briefings did anyone use the word "breech". They discussed 'overtopping' the levees, which is considerably different than 'breeching'.

What is important here, besides the embarrassingly elementary mistake by those responsible at the AP, is the fact that they thought they had an "A-HA!" moment. They thought they had video evidence of Bush lying about the levees, since after the hurricane he stated (paraphrasing) that "nobody anticipated the breeching of the levees". It shows yet again how outrageously biased and uncareful the AP is in general, and how so much of the mainstream press obviously must also be to unquestioningly run this so easily debunked story. This is almost as good as the Rathergate scandal.

Tags
Katrina
"Bush Lied"
Levees breached

Katrina: The Democrats and Bush-Haters Still Don't Know the Difference Between "Breaching" and "Overtopping"

2006-03-03T12:16:00.000-08:00

John Hinderaker at Powerline shows us once again how the Left, and more disturbingly major components of the MSM, continue to get their facts wrong regarding hurricane Katrina and the levees in New Orleans. As discussed in this forum in September of 2005,

"Breaching refers to a hole or break in the integrity of the levee, while overtopping describes the water level rising above the top of the levee, but not the failure of the levee itself. The distinction between the two is crucial to the crux of this article."

You can read all the related transcripts and watch all the videos in question, but it is clear from them that the president was correct when he said, on September 1, 2005, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." The only pre-Katrina warnings ever discussed warned of "overtopping" not "breaching" the levees.

Here's an excerpt from Mr. Hinderaker's article:

"Is it possible that all of these reporters have somehow missed all of the post-Katrina discussions about the important differences between levee overtopping (widely predicted before Katrina hit, including by CNN), and breaching of the levees, which apparently resulted from design or construction defects? It seems almost inconceivable that all of those involved in misreporting the video can claim ignorance."

Tags
Katrina
FEMA
Levees
New Orleans levee breaks

An Intelligent View on the Muslim Cartoons

2006-02-21T06:28:00.000-08:00

The prevailing view among westerners on the controversy surrounding the publishing of cartoons that show images of the Profit Muhammad seems to be 'why are Muslims so offended over some cartoons?' That's not, apparently, how the Muslim community sees it.

Nadia Maiwandi, a staff writer for the North County Times (San Diego), wrote an intelligent and thought-provoking piece about this issue. Nothing justifies the deaths and rioting that the reaction to these cartoons has brought about, but this controversy shows once again that making fun of somone else's deeply held beliefs is disrespectful at best, and most likely deeply offensive.

An excerpt from Ms. Maiwandi's article:

"Since the publication of the cartoons and the subsequent protests, I've heard non-Muslims ask why it's OK to ridicule Christianity and Judaism but not Islam. Simply put, it's not. Mocking monotheism isn't an Eastern value, period, whether it's Islam, Christianity or Judaism on the receiving end. People who ridicule those two religions in the West are far more likely to be adherents of those religions than Muslims."

Global Warming and the "Hockey Stick" Debate

2006-02-14T17:08:00.000-08:00

Will it never end? Lou Hissink shows so very clearly how the global warming argument is based on a false analysis of global temperature data.

Tags
Global Warming
The Hockey Stick Debate

A French Leftist Laments the Idea-less American Left

2006-02-13T17:08:00.000-08:00

The Nation published recently a translated article by Bernard-Henri Lévy wherein he takes the American Left to task for its lack of ideas. A common criticizm has been that the Left of today simply offer opposition and obstructionism to the Conservatives. Apparently, the French elitists agree.

Here is how it begins:

Nothing made a more lasting impression during my journey through America than the semi-comatose state in which I found the American left.

I know, of course, that the term "left" does not have the same meaning and ramifications here that it does in France.

And I cannot count how many times I was told there has never been an authentic "left" in the United States, in the European sense.

But at the end of the day, my progressive friends, you may coin ideas in whichever way you like. The fact is: You do have a right [right wing]. This right, in large part thanks to its neoconservative battalion, has brought about an ideological transformation that is both substantial and striking.

And the fact is that nothing remotely like it has taken shape on the other side--to the contrary, through the looking glass of the American "left" lies a desert of sorts, a deafening silence, a cosmic ideological void that, for a reader of Whitman or Thoreau, is thoroughly enigmatic. The 60-year-old "young" Democrats who have desperately clung to the old formulas of the Kennedy era; the folks of MoveOn.org who have been so great at enlisting people in the electoral lists, at protesting against the war in Iraq and, finally, at helping to revitalize politics but whom I heard in Berkeley, like Puritans of a new sort, treating the lapses of a libertine President as quasi-equivalent to the neo-McCarthyism of his fiercest political rivals; the anti-Republican strategists confessing they had never set foot in one of those neo-evangelical mega-churches that are the ultimate (and most Machiavellian) laboratories of the "enemy," staring in disbelief when I say I've spent quite some time exploring them; ex-candidate Kerry, whom I met in Washington a few weeks after his defeat, haggard, ghostly, faintly whispering in my ear: "If you hear anything about those 50,000 votes in Ohio, let me know"; the supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton who, when I questioned them on how exactly they planned to wage the battle of ideas, casually replied they had to win the battle of money first, and who, when I persisted in asking what the money was meant for, what projects it would fuel, responded like fundraising automatons gone mad: "to raise more money"; and then, perhaps more than anything else, when it comes to the lifeblood of the left, the writers and artists, the men and women who fashion public opinion, the intellectuals--I found a curious lifelessness, a peculiar streak of timidity or irritability, when confronted with so many seething issues that in principle ought to keep them as firmly mobilized as the Iraq War or the so-called "American Empire" (the denunciation of which is, sadly, all that remains when they have nothing left to say).

Tax Cuts Hurting the Deficit??

2006-02-10T12:50:00.000-08:00

It seem that tax receipts for January exceeded spending by almost $21 billion dollars, on "strong receipts". How can anyone still argue that lower taxes mean lower revenue? The tax cuts have proven once again to be revenue enhancing by stimulating financial activity. The US Treasury takes in a smaller piece of a bigger pie.

(From Reuters via The Drudge Report)

Tags
Tax cuts
Deficit

"Obscene Profits" by Major Oil Companies

2006-02-02T12:03:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Post (Subscription required) in October regarding the gigantic profits reported by the oil companies (this from their 3Q results) comes this article discussing the reasons behind these profits, and what the real profit story is about. As Exxon-Mobile reports another record year and quarter—at least in dollars—try to keep in mind their modest profit margins on huge revenue.

An excerpt:

“…in 2004 Exxon Mobil earned more money -- $25.33 billion -- than any other company on the Fortune 500 list of largest corporations. But by another measure of profitability, gross profit margin, it ranked No. 127.”

A $9.9 billion quarterly profit is mostly a function of Exxon Mobil's size. It had sales of $100 billion this quarter, more than any other U.S. company. At its current rate of growth, Exxon Mobil will be the biggest U.S. corporation this year by revenue, bigger than Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which had $288.19 billion in revenue last year. Generally, the bigger the company, the bigger the bottom line.

Even so, many companies smaller than Exxon Mobil "earn" more, depending on what measure is used.

Most financial institutions, such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon Mobil was in its third quarter. For example, Exxon Mobil's gross margin of 9.8 cents of profit for every dollar of revenue pales in comparison to Citigroup Inc.'s 15.7 cents in 2004. By percentage of total revenue, banking is consistently the most profitable industry in America, followed closely by the drug industry.

Altria Group, the maker of Marlboro and other cigarettes, made 22 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004, and pharmaceutical company Merck made 25.3 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004.”

Tags
Exxon-Mobile
Obscene Profits
Oil Company Profits

Pre-Invasion Iraqi Documents

2006-01-23T12:37:00.000-08:00

Steven Hayes at the Weekly Standard writes today of the apparently imminent release of 39 translated Iraqi documents from the Saddam Hussien government to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra. These could prove to be important in understanding the relationship—if any—between the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Iraq, although Mr. Hayes admits that these 39 documents represent a very small sample of the roughly 2 million captured in the weeks following the toppling of the former dictator's government. Writes Mr. Hayes:

It is important to remember that this set of documents is a tiny percentage of the Iraqi documents that have been translated (.078 percent of the 50,000) and a mere sliver of the overall document take of approximately 2 million. Whatever emerges from this group may not be a representative sample of the overall document takes.

Tags
Secret Iraqi Documents

Final Report of David M. Barrett, Independent Council in the Cisneros Affair

2006-01-07T12:43:00.000-08:00

Is there a government cover-up going on regarding the release of the Clinton-era Independent Council's final report on the Henry Cisneros investigation? According to a recent Fox News article, there may be. Here's an excerpt:

"WASHINGTON — Potentially explosive allegations from a 10-year independent counsel investigation may never see the light of day due to an appropriations bill negotiation that has some conservatives crying foul.

The final report of David M. Barrett, an independent counsel appointed in 1995 to investigate potential felonies committed by one-time Clinton administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, is tentatively scheduled for release on Jan. 19, Barrett told FOXNews.com.

However, Barrett and others say, thanks to an amendment to the November judiciary appropriations bill, key elements in the final report, which was completed in August 2004 and has been sitting with a three-judge panel at the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. ever since, may be heavily redacted before its release.

"As it currently stands, the report will not be released in its entirety," said Barrett, who didn't want to speculate why or which portions of the report may not be made public. One decade and some millions of taxpayers' dollars later, he said he is disappointed that the report may not reflect his careful and diligent efforts.

"I believe after 10 years and the expense of $22 million, the public has the right to see the entire report and make their own judgments," he said.

As the contents of the report have been sealed, Barrett is unable to offer details, but sources say the most serious of the allegations concerns, in part, the use of the Internal Revenue Service under the Clinton administration to intimidate political foes. The charges in the report could embarrass former members and associates of the Clinton White House, including former first lady and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., say the sources.

"Some people have said it contains some serious allegations, and when people see the report, they can decide for themselves," Barrett said."

According to the article, the portions in question deal with persons who "had not been publicly indicted or named." Privacy, especially for those not charged and who never will be charged should be protected, and I, for one, strongly support such concerns. However, there is disagreement on the level of "redaction" of the report, and legislation dealing with the matter is still a concern. The article goes on to state:

"Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa and Dorgan introduced an amendment to the judiciary appropriations bill that would have released all portions of the report, with deletions only for "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy."

But the language worked out in the subsequent House-Senate conference and in the final bill gave much more discretion to the court to redact individuals' names, which critics contend, ensures that much of Section Five and the most serious charges would be left out of the final report."

I get very nervous whenever the Clinton's are involved in a criminal case, and the potential for political "shenanigans". Until the report is released, hopefully with only minimal redaction, we will never know if there is any fire beneath the smoke.

Tags
Special Prosecutor
Clinton Independent Council
Clinton
Henry Cisneros
David M. Barrett

The Best Quote I've Seen in a Long Time

2006-01-03T17:10:00.000-08:00

Kate O'Beirne of the National Review Online has a new book out called "Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports".

She was interviewed by Katheryn Jean Lopez, also of NRO about her book. I was stuck by this statement Ms O'Beirne made:

"I have long thought that if high-school boys had invited homely girls to the prom we might have been spared the feminist movement."

What an interesting idea.

The Housing Bubble Myth: A Construct of the Left?

2005-12-28T08:41:00.000-08:00

Everywhere you look today, it seems like people are talking about a "housing bubble". The MSM has been hyping this story for several years now, and while the market is definitely slowing down, there is no real evidence that the "bubble" is about to burst. Carl Steidtmann, chief economist at Deloitte Research wrote an interesting piece in July of this year that goes into great detail on why there is no housing bubble to burst. The following month Neil Barsky, managing partner of Alson Capital Partners, LLC., wrote another myth-busting piece in the Wall Street Journal (here via Nations Building News Online) that illustrates why past and current housing markets differ, and why the "bubble" won't burst anytime soon. In fact, he warns of a shortage of housing.

Despite these strong and convincing arguments, there are many who are convinced that the housing market is way over inflated, and is due for a major 'correction' soon. Their reasons for such a belief are many, but I can't help but notice that many seem to also hold generally liberal political views. I have no doubt that there are many conservatives who agree that a housing bubble is real and about to burst, but my suspicions are that that group is quite a small subset of the housing bubble crowd. I would go further and argue that these conservative 'bubblers' are probably the analytical type who's view is that the easy access to mortgage loans seemingly without regard for credit worthiness has 'artificially' brought too many buyers into the market, pushing up home prices to unsustainable levels. No doubt there is some truth to that viewpoint, but I believe that segment of the housing market is a significant minority.

The bigger question, and the real focus of this post is the apparent political component to this important debate.

Their position goes essentially like this: First, the GOP, led by GWB and Alan Greenspan made access to credit very easy by lowering short term interest rates, and more importantly, by pumping lots of liquidity into the economy, which made borrowing and buying more available to people who would not have had access to mortgages in the past due to credit and/or income issues. Second, after these people bought into the market with low or no-interest loans, assuming that the market would continue to appreciate, the GOP-controlled Congress changed bankruptcy laws to make personal bankruptcy more difficult, and consequently foreclosure easier. Couple this with the false perception of a poor economy and rising unemployment rates, and you have the beginnings of a "bubble".

Then, as rates began to rise (note the evil Alan Greenspan again) from their historical lows, many of the people with adjustable loans found that they could not make the payments, and also, now that credit began to tighten, could not refinance their loans, could not declare bankruptcy, and were foreclosed. This allowed evil, rich Republicans to buy these foreclosed properties at a giant discount, then sell them later for quick profit. Our friends at the Daily Kos illustrate this point clearly.

Unfortunately, the facts just don't bear this scenario out. Yes, bankruptcy laws have changed, and yes, rates are rising slightly, but are still very low. More importantly, the economy is very solid. Add in the opinions of the experts (above and below) along with the fact that regional economic conditions are far more indicative of healthy or not-so-healthy housing market, and it becomes clear that the only thing bursting is the MYTH of a housing bubble.

Regarding regional situations, I live in one of the hottest real estate markets in the country: San Diego County California, and know it well from a buyer's perspective. I bought my first house here in 1996 at the bottom of the last housing bubble crash. In the years prior, the economy in San Diego was heavily influenced by military spending. There was (and still is) a large Navy and Marine presence, and the large industrial economy was mostly defense-related. In the very large scale-back of defense spending and base closings following the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, San Diego, as were many other markets, was hit very hard, and the recession of the early 1990's put the housing market here on its heels. Foreclosures were everywhere, as defense workers moved elsewhere to find jobs, they had bigger mortgages than their homes were worth, and many just walked away from them.

It was sad, and I couldn't bring myself to profit from their misfortune. I ended up buying a new, 2,400 square foot home for $169,000 that had stood unoccupied for more than a year. It was so bad then that the original builder of the tract had even gone bankrupt. There is no doubt that there was a housing bubble here then, and equally no doubt in my mind that no bubble exists now. I still own that house today, and it is worth about $680,000 based on a search today.

But to get back to the people who believe in the "bubble", it is that envy drives much of their enthusiasm for a housing 'bubble'. As Dr. John Ray writes, envy and and a strong need for "equality" is the driving force behind much of the leftist agenda. Many people are angry that so many have gotten rich (on paper anyway) from the recent strong appreciation in housing prices. They believe that it is unfair that many are left out of the housing market since prices have risen faster than incomes. They seem to actually relish the idea of a 'bubble', and are even hoping for a crash to 'show those rich people' that they are not so rich after all. It is really the classic liberal cause; If somebody is getting rich, then somebody is getting poor as a result. Too bad these people don't understand the concept of wealth creation.

Their anger toward anyone who disagrees with their view is becoming as vicious as the anger directed at those of us who remain unconvinced of anthropomorphic global warming. Consider this respected financial columnist from a San Diego area paper who recently wrote that a housing 'bubble' doesn't exist here in San Diego. Be sure to read the comments from readers and see if you don't agree that it is unwise to rile these people up. In fact, Mr. Chamberlin, who, by the way I have read and followed for years and highly respect, wrote a follow-up piece wherein he described the vitriol sent his way over the original column. Be sure not to miss the comments to that column as well.

Is there a housing bubble? No, the facts don't support it. Will housing prices rise or fall? They are softening somewhat here in San Diego, and time-to-market is lengthening, but I do not believe a crash in prices is coming since the data I have seen does not support such a conclusion. But there certainly seems to be many who are hoping for such a crash, and, not surprisingly, many of these people have a political agenda aligned with the Left.

Tags
Housing Bubble
Real Estate Bubble

More on the NSA Electronic Evesdropping Program

2005-12-24T07:58:00.000-08:00

As the NY Times continues to facilitate the illegal leaking of classified information, thus degrading the ability of the United States government to protect Americans from foreign terrorisim, the blogosphere is repleat with legal experts who can speak elequently on the legality of the program, and are clearly a much better source for information than the hideously biased MSM.

Some excellent sources:

Powerline
Baseball Crank (practicing attorney)
Volokh Conspiracy (via Baseball Crank)
Cass Sunstein (via Baseball Crank)

Tags
NSA
Surveillance
FISA

The President's Secret Surveillance Program

2005-12-23T11:00:00.000-08:00

The New York Times broke the story on December 16th, 2005. In the aftermath of 9-11, the president authorized a secret eavesdropping program on international phone calls and emails originating within the United States. The order did not require court-issued warrants, and that has the Left even more frothing for George Bush's head—if you can believe it—than ever before.

First of all, the leaking of the existence of the program in the first place is illegal, and second it certainly helps the terrorists that the program was intended to catch. Moreover, it may even mean that some future terrorist act, possibly worse than 9-11, cannot not be stopped as the terrorists will switch to new forms and paths of communication, now that they know they are being surveilled.

The legality of the program is obviously under intense scrutiny, as the both the Blogosphere and the MSM investigate and analyze. There are legal experts in the Blogosphere who are far more qualified than I to write on this important subject, and I will reference below their excellent posts that you should read in detail and follow all the links. First, though, I want to quote from the president's recent statement prior to a press conference last week:

"And after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against Al Qaida.

After September the 11th, one question my administration had to answer was, using the authorities I have, how do we effectively detect enemies hiding in our midst and prevent them from striking us again?

We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to Al Qaida here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives. To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks.

So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorize the interception of international communications of people with known links to Al Qaida and related terrorist organizations.

This program is carefully reviewed approximately every 45 days to ensure it is being used properly. Leaders in the United States Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this program. [emphasis added.]

And it has been effective in disrupting the enemy while safeguarding our civil liberties. This program has targeted those with known links to Al Qaida.

I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens."

Powerline is the best source on this subject:

Powerline, Powerline, Powerline, Powerline

Tags
NSA
Secret Surveillance
Bush Spying

A Silent American Revolution

2005-12-10T07:47:00.000-08:00

Is there a revolution underway in America? Have parts of the bureacracy of the US government been in silent revolt against the duly elected executive?

Consider these events and decide for yourself:

Plamegate. Did elements within the CIA who disagreed with the administration's Iraq policies deliberately select Joe Wilson, the husband of CIA officer Valerie Plame, in an effort to discredit the administration with his highly critical post-Niger "yellowcake" uranium report? Wilson was not required by the CIA to sign a confidentiality agreement prior to making the trip to Niger, nor was he required to even give a written report upon his return. Was that omission, usually a requirement under such circumstances, a deliberate effort to allow Wilson to write his infamous op-ed piece? By appearances, it looks like his trip was simply an effort by at a minimum a rogue CIA operation, and possibly something even larger. Too bad most of what Wilson had to say in his report turned out to be lies and untruths. In fact, there WAS over 500 tons of yellow cake uranium found in Iraq, and it's likely source was Niger.
CIA. Plamegate was merely a battle in an on-going war between the CIA and the Whitehouse. Following the resignation of former director George Tenet, Porter Goss was named to head the agency, with clear marching orders to reform the organization post-9-11, and to attempt to purge the organization of politically partisan operatives who sought to undermine administration policy.
The State Department. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, in a speech in 2003 as well as in subsequent articles has written of a systemic, institutionalized resistance by certain parts of the State Department, specifically career officers, to the authority of the president. He suggests that this has been going on for at least several decades now. Here is an excerpt from a recent Gingrich article in ForeignPolicy.com (reproduced with permission by American Diplomacy):

"Some critics, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and former Republican Rep. Jack Kemp of New York, have taken me to task for my remarks at the American Enterprise Institute on April 22, 2003, where I argued that the State Department was engaging in a “deliberate and systematic effort” to undermine Bush’s foreign policy. Yet that charge has proved true historically, and additional examples have emerged even since the speech.

Only six days following my remarks, Bush made the following statement to a group of Iraqi Americans in Dearborn, Michigan: “I have confidence in the future of a free Iraq. The Iraqi people are fully capable of self-government.” He also told them that “You are living proof the Iraqi people love freedom and living proof the Iraqi people can flourish in democracy. People who live in Iraq deserve the same freedom that you and I enjoy here in America.”

Contrast that vision with a recent classified report by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research titled “Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes,” which was leaked in March 2003 to the Los Angeles Times. As reported by that newspaper, the document stated that “liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve [in Iraq] . . . Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements.” And according to an anonymous intelligence source interviewed by the newspaper, the thrust of the report argued that “this idea that you’re going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible.”

The Los Angeles Times has also reported that U.S. diplomats (insisting upon anonymity) “said they are profoundly worried about what they describe as the [Bush] administration’s arrogance or indifference to world public opinion, which they fear has wiped out, in less than two years, decades of effort to build goodwill toward the United States.” Meanwhile, as reported recently by National Review Online contributor Joel Mowbray, a Bush administration official believes the outgoing director of policy planning at the State Department, Richard Haass, has “made it his mission to loosen sanctions on Iran,” despite Bush’s designation of Iran as part of the “axis of evil.”

None of the people involved in these activities or 'leakers' were elected to serve the people. All are either career officers, hired to execute certain tasks as directed by their superiors. Their surperiors were either hired (if career officers), or appointed by the President if a political appointee. All serve at the pleasure of the President. The President is the chief executive of the United States. His job is to execute the laws enacted by Congress. The various departments under his command are there to serve him and his policies. Whether those working in these departments agree with the policies of the President is irrelavent. If their personal views interfere with their duties as agents of the United States, and their abilities to carry out the policies as directed by the President, then they should at a minimum be fired, and possibly charged with treason.

More views on this subject:

Powerline
More Powerline

Tags
CIA
Joe Wilson
Yellowcake
State Department

Able Danger and its Inconvenient Facts (as Ignored by the 9-11 Commission) UPDATED

2005-12-08T15:16:00.000-08:00

[Scroll down for updated analysis*]

Andrew McCarthy has an excellent article today in the National Review Online on Able Danger, and how the 9-11 Commission utterly failed in its investigation. In fact, this article outlines what certainly appears to be a cover-up of the findings of Able Danger by the 9-11 commission.

Here is an especially pointed excerpt:

Consider for a moment the dimensions of this omission by reference to another current controversy. The Bush administration is being accused by Democrats of lying about intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. One of the key allegations involves the purported suppression of State Department dissent from the conclusion that Iraq was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

But the objections lodged by State's intelligence shop were not suppressed. They are set forth in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, although relegated to the footnotes. Essentially, the administration is said by Democrats to have "lied" because, even though it did acknowledge the dissenting information, it purportedly minimized the dissent's significance.

The 9/11 Commission, by contrast, did not do even that with Able Danger. It didn't report the dissent at all. Not in the text, not in the footnotes, not anywhere. It tried, Pravda-like, to erase completely from historical memory any version of events but its own.

Think about that. The commission's mandate was to conduct a thorough investigation and tell us exactly what it found. Its job was not to produce a carefully marketed narrative so media-starved commissioners would have a best-selling launch-pad from which to score sugary interviews. This panel was not supposed to have a vested interest in a single, definitive, air-brushed version of events. It was supposed to give us the facts as it found them, including on disputed issues it could not resolve. Why on earth did it decide to kill Able Danger?

*Many questions remain remain unanswered in the Able Danger story, as Mr. McCarthy so elequently writes in his column. The main issue seems to be the potential coverup by the 9-11 Commission and its staff over the allegations made by the Able Danger operation. Many questioned the inclusion of Jamie Gorelick as a commissioner, given that she was the author of the infamous "wall" between domestic and international intelligence gathering and analysis operations.

A thorough investigation of the Able Danger project and its findings must be conducted commencing immediately, as well as a thorough investigation of the 9-11 commission and staff to determine if they acted properly, especially given the clear conflict of interest of at least one commissioner, and lat least part of the commission staff. The safety of our country and our children may be at stake.

Previous posts:

Able Danger and the 9-11 Commission
Able Danger: A Third Source Corroborates Initial Claims
Able Danger Getting Uglier by the Day
Able Danger: Were the 9/11 Hijackers Known to the US Government As Early As 1999? ***UPDATE***

Tags
Able Danger

The "Fraud" of the 2004 Ohio Election

2005-11-28T16:35:00.000-08:00

The Left has been agitated since the November 2004 elections with what they believe was a 'stolen' election in Ohio. They believe that GWB's cronies who make electronic voting machines rigged the election for Bush through fraudulantly compiled votes.

Silly, I know, and now a new analysis of the 2004 Ohio vote cited by The Mystery Pollster proves just how silly was the notion that the election was rigged.

Tags
Stolen Ohio Election

Randy "Duke" Cunningham

2005-11-28T11:45:00.000-08:00

Duke Cunningham has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to accept bribes and income tax evasion, and will resign from the US House of Representatives. The 63-year old former fighter pilot faces a possible 10-year prision sentence.

Tags
Duke Cunningham

Happy Thanksgiving to All

2005-11-24T08:21:00.000-08:00

May your Thanksgiving be filled with laughter, joy, and happiness. Please remember also all those who have given the Ultimate Sacrifice to secure our freedom.

To further mark this day, here is George Washington's proclaimation of the first official Thanksgiving, in 1798:

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789."

Go: Washington"

Key words
Thanksgiving

White Phosphorus: Was it Used by US Forces in Iraq?

2005-11-20T08:31:00.000-08:00

The short answer is "yes". But there is a longer answer as well. North County Times (San Diego) staff writer Darrin Mortenson, along with photojournalist Hayne Palmour, was embedded with a Marine unit involved in the aborted April, 2004 assault on Fallujah. His account of their use of "Willie Pete" is excellent, and discusses how white phosphorous was used when they were there.

(Don't forget to view Hayne Palmour's excellent slide shows of their embed's in Iraq)

Linked to open trackbacks: PoliticalTeen, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

How Different Would the World be Were it Not for Talk Radio and the Blogosphere?

2005-11-19T09:04:00.000-08:00

I'm one of those idiots who enjoyed watching the House debate last night the resolution to immediately withdraw all US forces from Iraq. What kind of a moron spends even a few minutes of his Friday evening watching C-Span? That's a subject for a different post, but while watching the debate I got to thinking how different would the world be today if there were no conservative voices being heard? What would the world be like if talk radio and the blogosphere were not around to counter the voices of the Left in the MSM?

For one thing, were it not for the Blogosphere and talk radio, Dan Rather would still be hosting the CBS evening news. But let's look back on the war in Vietnam, which is another good example.

I was too young to have participated in Vietnam, but was something of a political "hack" even then in my youth. I followed politics, and remembered watching Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite report every day on how badly the war was going. Never was there any good news. The MSM reported the 1968 Tet Offensive as a victory for the North, when in fact it was a stunning victory for the South Vietnamese and the US. The MSM—and especially Walter Cronkite—got the story wrong, and this error ultimately led to the growing disillusionment of the American people toward the war. It cost LBJ his job, in that he chose not to seek re-election in 1968, and emboldened the North Vietnamese as they saw public support for the war erode. Richard Nixon won the presidential election that year, partly on the grounds that he would end the war. His former Defence Secretary, Melvin Laird, wrote an excellent article on the Vietnam war, his efforts to get the US out, and the Congress' vote in 1975 to cut funding of the South Vietnamese. An important excerpt:

The truth about Vietnam that revisionist historians conveniently forget is that the United States had not lost when we withdrew in 1973. In fact, we grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory two years later when Congress cut off the funding for South Vietnam that had allowed it to continue to fight on its own. Over the four years of Nixon's first term, I had cautiously engineered the withdrawal of the majority of our forces while building up South Vietnam's ability to defend itself. My colleague and friend Henry Kissinger, meanwhile, had negotiated a viable agreement between North and South Vietnam, which was signed in January 1973. It allowed for the United States to withdraw completely its few remaining troops and for the United States and the Soviet Union to continue funding their respective allies in the war at a specified level. Each superpower was permitted to pay for replacement arms and equipment. Documents released from North Vietnamese historical files in recent years have proved that the Soviets violated the treaty from the moment the ink was dry, continuing to send more than $1 billion a year to Hanoi. The United States barely stuck to the allowed amount of military aid for two years, and that was a mere fraction of the Soviet contribution.

The fall of Saigon later in 1975 led directly to the deaths of millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians as the communists in the region were freed from interference by the forces of freedom and democracy.

How many lives could have been saved had the Blogosphere and talk radio been around in those days? How much differently would the world be today had the blogosphere and talk radio been around to challenge the lies of the Left? Would the MSM have been able to ignore the inconvenient facts asthey did in 1968? (And still do today!)

While I have always resisted comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, in this case we can learn much from Tet. The debate last night in the US House of Representatives brought this point into crystal clarity: The Left's strategy on Iraq is following the Vietnam model. They seek to undermine public support for the war in an attempt to gain political advantage. So far have been very successful in doing so, as public opinion polls clearly show waning support among the American people.

I hope we on the Right will remember the lessons from Vietnam, or I fear a bloodbath will ensue in the Middle East following our premature withdrawl and likely failure to fund Iraqi forces, just as a bloodbath ensued in southeast Asia following our failure to keep our word to the people of Vietnam.

Linked to open trackbacks: The Political Teen, Cao's Blog, Stop The ACLU, Mudville Gazette, California Conservative,

Key words
Blogosphere
Tet Offensive
Iraq
Cut and Run
Vietnam War

Withdrawl from Iraq Voted Down in the US House

2005-11-18T21:45:00.000-08:00

The United State House of Representatives voted late tonight to defeat a Democratic effort to immediately withdraw US troops from Iraq, 403-3.

May God bless the USA and our troops wherever they may be.

Iraq and WMD's

2005-11-17T21:56:00.000-08:00

Wisbang links to a great post in FrontPage Magazine that reports an interview with former Weapons Inspector Bill Tierney, who describes in great detail the elaborate deceptions by Iraq to hide their relentless pursuit of WMDs.

Key words
WMD
Weapons Inspectors
Iraq's WMDs
Hiding WMDs

Opinion Polls on How the Bush Administration is Handling the War in Iraq

2005-11-17T21:42:00.000-08:00

So you've been listening to the MSM and the Left say that Iraq "posed no threat", or "had no WMD's", or maybe that "Bush Lied" about the pre-war intelligence to launch this 'illegal" war. Reading the polls, it seems like you're not alone.

63% of those polled disapproves of the way the war is being handled. But you also have to look at the question that was asked to gain the answer many gave: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" That was the question posed by a recent CNN/USA poll on Iraq. While I support the war, and continue to do so, but the way that question was formed, I might answer "disapprove". I wish the president would be MORE aggressive in dealing with the insurgents, and root them out. I suspect that a fair percentage of those polled agree with my view.

What's your's?

Key words
WMD
Presidential approval ratings

Able Danger and the 9-11 Commission

2005-11-17T06:50:00.000-08:00

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh writes in today's OpinionJournal (by the Wall Street Journal) a very interesting article about the the failures of the 9-11 Commission and Able Danger. Here is an excerpt:

"It was interesting to hear from the 9/11 Commission again on Tuesday. This self-perpetuating and privately funded group of lobbyists and lawyers has recently opined on hurricanes, nuclear weapons, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and even the New York subway system. Now it offers yet another "report card" on the progress of the FBI and CIA in the war against terrorism, along with its "back-seat" take and some further unsolicited narrative about how things ought to be on the "front lines."

Yet this is also a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself. Recent revelations from the military intelligence operation code-named "Able Danger" have cast light on a missed opportunity that could have potentially prevented 9/11. Specifically, Able Danger concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Mohamed Atta by name (and maybe photograph) as an al Qaeda agent operating in the U.S. Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents, even though appointments had been made to do so. Why?

There are other questions that need answers. Was Able Danger intelligence provided to the 9/11 Commission prior to the finalization of its report, and, if so, why was it not explored? In sum, what did the 9/11 commissioners and their staff know about Able Danger and when did they know it?"

It is long past time to investigate this shameful disregard of the facts by the 9-11 Commission. Remember the infamous "wall" erected by Jamie Gorelick during the Clinton administration?

Previous posts on Able Danger:

Able Danger: A Third Source Corroborates Initial Claims

Able Danger: Were the 9/11 Hijackers Known to the US Government As Early As 1999?

Key words
Able Danger
9-11 Commission

Note to Readers

2005-11-16T06:16:00.000-08:00

I recently changed my "comments and trackack" software, and in so doing have somehow lost previous comments. I am working to recover them, but in the meantime feel free to re-post any comments you feel need to be shown.

I apologize for this inconvenience.

Bush Lied! (Not!)

2005-11-15T12:20:00.000-08:00

The Left's lies that the president and his administration "lied" about prewar intelligence on Iraq are beginning to unravel. Oh, how they wish the internet and bloggers didn't exist! All you need to do is "Google" the subject and you'll find page after page of clear and compelling evidence that virtually EVERYONE who had even tangential access to intelligence agreed prior to the Iraq war that Iraq was a threat, had and continued to pursue the acquisition and/or development of WMD's, and that regime change in Iraq was in the US, the Iraqi people's, and the world's best interests.

JunkYardBlog, guest-blogging on Michelle Malkin's blog, created the great graphic above to illustrate the search, and you can use this link to see the real search on Google.

You can see for yourself how clear the lies of the left are on this subject, but for reference here are some of my favorite examples:

President Bill Clinton's official statement at the signing of the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998".

Sentor Hillary Clinton's Senate floor speech regarding the authorization for war in 2002.

Senator Carl Levin's floor speech in 1998 regarding Iraq and the threat of thir use of WMD's.

President Bill Clinton's speech to the nation in December, 1998 regarding the US-UK airstrikes on Iraq.

Mark Levin's NRO piece in July, 2003 regarding Iraq, President Clinton, the 1998 bombings, and WMD's.

Key words
Bush Lied
WMD
Democrat Lies about WMD

Bush's Veteran's Day Speech UPDATE

2005-11-14T06:34:00.000-08:00

**UPDATE** Michelle Malkin links today to Indepundit and Powerline who have similar posts to this subject. Their takes refer to the pathetic Democrats and their tired response to the president's speech on Friday.
**
During his Veteran's Day speech yesterday, president George W. Bush yesterday finally shot back at his critics over the origins and reasons for going to war in Iraq. Like many, I have remain in strong support of the war and our aims there, and have been watching incredulously as the Left keeps telling the Big Lie over and over about how GWB "lied" about WMD's to get us to go to war. There is not a shred of evidence to support that contention, as the bi-partisan Senate investigation on pre-war intelligence found.

It has truely been amazing to watch the Left transform from fairly strong support of the war, to now actually trying to claim that they were always against it, and 'knew Bush was lying' about WMD's. The more the tell this lie, the more they convince themselves that it's true. But it isn't, of course.

If anyone is lying about the war or why we went to Iraq, it's the Left. Senator Ted Kennedy, for example, issued a statement last Thursday, November 10th, 2005, regarding the intelligence on the threat that pre-war Iraq posed, wherein he said:

"150,000 American troops are bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq because the Bush Administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America never should have fought.

As we know all too well, Iraq was not an imminent threat. It had no nuclear weapons. It had no persuasive links to Al Qaeda, no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

But the President wrongly and repeatedly insisted that it was too dangerous to ignore the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein, and his ties to Al Qaeda."

Compare those words with these that Senator Kennedy used in September, 2002 on the same subject:

"No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

While Senator Kennedy went on in that 2002 speech to argue and later to vote against war with Iraq, he certainly agreed—as did virtually everyone with access to the intelligence—that Iraq possessed and continued to pursue the development of WMD's. To deny that position now is ludicrous.

This is but one of many examples that I could cite, as the public record is rich with similar contradictive statements by the Left.

Finally, Bill Kristol writes an excellent article today in the Weekly Standard regarding the President's Veteran's Day speech.

Key words
President Bush's Veteran's Day Speech
Senator Kennedy on WMD's
WMD
Pre-war intelligence

Veteran's Day

2005-11-11T06:47:00.000-08:00

To all those who have served their country in the armed forces: Thank you for your service and your sacrifice, and may God bless you and your families.

I know of no one who likes war. I know of no one who wants US armed forces to be engaged in armed conflicts. Everyone I know hopes that our troops can come home very soon. Many of us hold these views and yet we also support the president's decision to go to war in Iraq, and continue to support the efforts underway to complete the mission. Many on the Left claim to support the troops but not the war. Is it possible to do both? I don't think so.

For those most vociferously object to the War in Iraq, their idea of "supporting the troops" appears to mean 'bring them home immediately, then muster them ALL out of service and dismantle all but a tiny core of our military forces.' They don't really support the troops, of course, but many of them learned their lesson from the horrible way the Left treated the returning veterans from Vietnam. They still fee the same way as they did then, they've just gotten smarter about expressing it.

Let's face it, they hate the military, they hate everyone who serves in the military, and they hate everything that the military stands for. They hate the money spent on the military, and think it could be better spent on the poor, the homeless, and downtrodden. My view is that without the freedom that the threat of military force to our enemies provides us all, we'd have many more poor, many more homeless, and many more downtrodden.

Thank you again to all veterans everywhere.

Key words
Veteran's Day

California Election Results

2005-11-10T06:06:00.000-08:00

As I went to bed last Tuesday night, it looked like Prop's 73 and 75 would pass, and possibly 74. Props 76 through 80 appeared to be heading for a resounding defeat. When I awoke on Wednesday morning, I was surprised to see that ALL EIGHT PROPOSITIONS FAILED.

This blog, like the Governor, endorsed Prop's 74 through 77, and did not support 73, 78, 79, nor 80, so to look on the bright side, I batted .500 in the election! But seriously, I am disappointed that 74, 75, 76, and 77 were defeated, but if that is the will of the people then I support and accept their decision.

I am not too surprised that 74 through 76 lost, since all directly affected unions, and they spent something like $100 million to defeat them. 76 was the most important of those three, as it would have helped smooth-out spending. The only problem with it, and part that concerned me (and likely was it's ultimate downfall) was it's potential to reduce school funding. It didn't specifically do that, and if the legislature and the governor agreed, funding could go UP, but the minimum school funding guarantees of Prop 98, passed by the voters in 1988.

State spending will still have to be addressed, and only time will tell how the governor and the legislature will figure it out. For those of us who want to see spending brought more in line with revenues, we will have to stay on top of this issue and 'hold their feet to the fire' on spending.

I am mostly disappointed by the defeat of Prop 77, the proposition to change how legislative districts are drawn. Those in power—mainly the entrenched political parties—fought a dirty and outright lying campaign. They ran TV ads that were false and misleading at best, claiming that 77 was a "power grab" and would take the power from the people and give it to retired (white male) judges. Nothing could be further from the truth, and unfortunately, they won.

As I have laid out in previous posts, we need to get politicians out of the business of politics, and the vote on 77 is the best evidence that our current system is broken. Based on the radical proposal laid out in that post (above), perhaps 77 should have been structured differently. Maybe instead of a three-member panel of retired judges, a pool of average citizens could have been assembled to draw up legislative districts. The guidelines for drawing districts laid out in 77 could still be used, and the final plan would still go to a vote of the people.

Would the power structure in Sacramento fight this proposal? I am sure they will. But the only way to return power to the people is to break the grip of centralized power and control on elections, and the only way to do that is by changing how—and most importantly WHO—draws up legislative districts.

If you have a better idea, please add your comments.

Key words
California Special Election
California Special Election Results
Prop 73
Prop 74
Prop 75
Prop 76
Prop 77
Prop 78
Prop 79
Prop 80

The Pinnacle of Foolishness

2005-11-07T06:26:00.000-08:00

The North County Times (of San Diego county) has one of the best 'letters' pages of any paper I have ever read. There is usually a good selection of intelligently written letters from both sides of the political spectrum, but yesterday the "moonbats" of the Left were so far out of touch with reality that I just had to reprint the highlights for your reading enjoyment:

"Libby, as the alter ego of the vice president, is probably one of the five most powerful individuals in the regime that occupies the Oval Office. Libby was one of the authors of the 48-page draft speech prepared in January 2003 that was intended to make Bush/Cheney's case for the illegal war in Iraq before the United Nations. Fortunately, most of its contents were cast aside because many of the document's claims related to Iraq were exaggerated and unwarranted or, better put, lies.

Any thinking individual knows that the outing of an intelligence agent, thus risking that individual's life is an act of treason, and when Cheney takes the stand in Libby's trial. he either lies or America will begin to understand the scope of the dishonesty of these men."

***

"This administration has been consistently wrong about everything and a running joke since Scalia cast the tie-breaking vote in the rigged election back in 2000. If our Congress wasn't as thoroughly incompetent and corrupt as Dubya himself, and doing its job rather than simply obeying the orders of their corporate bosses, they would have impeached him at least twice by now."

***

"Millions of Muslims are being trained and armed to kill the infidels in Iraq and other countries. The facts are Bush intended to invade Iraq months before 9/11; Iraq had no WMDs; there were no terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded. Extremists don't take miles and miles of territory. Their sole goal is to bring death and destruction to non-Islamic people."

***

"President Clinton was indicted for lying about sex. Nixon resigned mostly due to a third-rate burglary. Drunk with power, Bush and his cabal of neocons have lied to the nation and the world about Iraq having nonexistent nuclear weapons.

Approximately 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of this administration's aggression. Over 2,000 of our soldiers are dying for wealthy corporations and other special-interest groups.

It's time to clean house. The vice president should resign. Everyone involved should be punished to the full extent of the law. Yes, that means you too, President Bush. Support our troops by bringing them home."

***

"It's long overdue for those involved in the long line of White House deceptions and cover-ups to start to be brought to justice. Leading up to the Iraq war, Cheney spoke before the Veterans of Foreign War declaring, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction, and there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use on us."

In his State of the Union address Bush pontificated, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Colin Powell went before the U.N. with satellite photos purportedly showing mobile biological weapons labs and unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering biological or chemical weapons. All these statements were false. And all these statements took us to war.

So why would Bush and Cheney's point men want to discredit Joe Wilson and blow his wife's cover as a CIA agent? Apparently part of the war on terrorism includes destroying the reputation or lives of American citizens who don't espouse this administration's lies. Aren't we as citizens of the country considered the beacon of democracy supposed to tell and be told the truth? When did we become the bully telling lies to support needless killing and chaos?"

***

"Treason and lying us into war are serious crimes. Why are so many saying it's nothing? Do they think they can sweep so many dead under the rug? If guilty, everyone trying to cover up should all be in jail."

***

"Throughout life we are taught by our parents and society in general that when you do something wrong, your best chance is to confess and humble yourself to the fitting consequence. Why does our government remain so childish? We have moved passed the "if" they lied to the "when" they lied and now we all want to know "why" they lied.

Two thousand-plus troops have already died. Has our government looked into the mirror and admitted its greed? Not yet. The adult eyes of our country remain fixed upon the actions of our childlike president.

Will he act as our elected leader, as most of our other presidents have, by ridding the administration of cheats and thieves? Or will he remain proudly arrogant? What do you think?"

***

"On Oct. 30 we saw the tip of the iceberg of vicious and possibly criminal White House efforts to silence Americans, liberal or conservative, regardless of faith or party, who questioned the president's reasons for going to war in Iraq. His supporters have already begun to trivialize the indictments and attack the opposition in order to deflect attention away from the fact that the president, not Mr. Scooter Libby, is ultimately responsible for the cover-up.

They will fail because there is now undeniable evidence that the administration knew there were no weapons of mass destruction when the decision to invade Iraq was made and that officials used McCarthyism tactics to intimidate and silence anyone who said otherwise. In the wake of these troubling disclosures, we must speak up and not allow ourselves to be fooled or intimidated by the president or his attack dogs ever again."

***

"The indictment of Scooter Libby last week should be seen as the tip of a vast iceberg that needs to be explored. The facts that have come out of this investigation are frightening and require a closer look. It seems the president and his staff deliberately used lies and deception to sell the idea of war in Iraq to the American people and the world.

Two thousand American families have suffered a devastating loss of a son, a daughter, a father, or a mother because our president and his staff lied to us. In Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, he claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and had tried to purchase uranium from Niger. It now appears he knew these statements were false when he said them, but he was so bent on selling this war, the truth was secondary.

The American people deserve the truth. We need to call for a congressional investigation into the lies that brought us to war, and if it turns out that the president ordered or had knowledge of this campaign of deception, he should be impeached."

***

"Watching this latest White House scandal unfold, I find it hard to believe that I am not reading a John Grisham novel. But this is not fiction. This is our very own government, and this is very, very real.

I am appalled at the callousness of these men who have put so many lives at risk, from CIA operatives to young American soldiers, by lying to the American public in furtherance of their own misguided agendas. As the White House attempts to minimize the significance of the indictment of Scooter Libby, the American people must stand up and refuse to accept continued lies and cover-ups. Our future as individuals and as a nation relies upon men and women of integrity being at the helm. How do we explain to our children that they cannot trust their government?"

***

"Vice President Cheney's chief of staff was charged with obstructing an investigation into the White House cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq. Two senior White House officials outed CIA operative Valerie Plame as punishment for her husband's revelations about the administration's Iraq lies.

Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were part of the White House Iraq group. This secretive team operated out of Cheney's office and was formed to sell the case for war. In 2002, Joe Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate if Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials. He discovered those claims were a lie. He told the CIA, and they told the White House.

Bush made the discredited claim in his 2003 State of the Union address as he made the case for war. Nuclear threat was key to selling war.

The American people must know the truth about the indictment. The American people must know that Libby's indictment is about the White House cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq. Bush must clean house. We will not be able to trust our government until every one of the White House officials who conspired to mislead the American public into war with Iraq are out of the administration."

***

"I am a lifelong Democrat who voted Republican once in my life. I will never do that again, unless it is the right person. I do not trust the Bush administration. I don't think they have the people of this great country first on their minds. It seems to be a greedy bunch up there on the Hill.

They are standing there feeding us a line of stuff right to our faces, hoping we will be good little citizens and believe it. I cringe at the fact that they will be there for the next three and a half years. Dick Cheney has got to be the most evil man in America. The things he is allowed to get away with keep adding up. Oh, I do love this country, but I pray for an awakening."

***

"Except in cases of treason, I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty. I believe Lewis Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney committed treason by divulging the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the public.

After they have received the fair trial and due process they are accorded by our Constitution, and if they are found guilty, these traitors should be shot -- and then stood up and shot again."

***

"I have been a supporter of President Bush, but he has taken a wrong turn in regard to Libby and Karl Rove. This has become a cover-up and a very big waste of time for the FBI and special prosecutor. Both Libby and Rove should have come forward when the investigation began. Now Karl Rove must go."

***

"The reason we have not had any refineries built in the past 30 years is because there was no need and/or the oil companies did not want any competition. For the last 30 years the oil companies have supplied oil and gas for an ever-expanding population, and the demand has steadily increased as the population grew.

The demand grows as the population grows, and few variations except in time of a staged war, which requires more fuel. Have you ever seen a report about the amount of oil products produced for a month or a year? The answer is no because they don't want you to know what the production rate is and they do not want to publish the maximum amount of oil products they can produce. If you don't know, then they can use the demand argument and no one can dispute the argument, and raise prices as much as they would like, which is what has happened over the past years.

Don't forget who controls the market -- the oilmen in Washington and Big Oil that helps put them in office. The profits are astronomical."

***

"People are not voting, as the voting system lacks credibility. A single, universal system where all votes are counted, not discarded on technical reasons, must be found.

Mail-in voting by reregistered voters in the two weeks prior to the date would provide time for the registrar of voters to verify each vote by comparing it to the registration. All voting should be stopped at a single time in all time zones and results held confidential until all verification has been completed. This would do away with the confusion at the polling place.

Bush and his administration must be held accountable for their actions by impeachment proceedings, as the war on Iraq was based only on speculation, contrary to our own investigations that had concluded there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the United Nations'.

The war has caused thousands of deaths and injury, wasted large amounts of taxpayer money and caused this government and its citizens to be held in disrepute by many residents of other countries, as we are reminded daily by the media."

Key words
Libby
Rove
Hate Bush
Moonbats
Plame
Joe Wilson
Cheney

California Proposition 75: Public Employee Union Member's Dues for Political Campaigns **UPDATE #2

2005-11-05T10:57:00.000-08:00

Despite what the Unions say about members and non-members ability to "opt-out" of the union's fees for political campaigns, a federal judge on Friday ruled that public employee unions CAN force members and non-members to pay against their will fees to be used for political purposes. Irronically, this lawsuit is aimed at Prop 75!

VOTE YES on 75!

Key words
California Prop 75
Prop 75
Join Arnold
Union Dues for Political Campaigns

Blog Round Up

2005-11-05T06:50:00.000-08:00

I thought I'd post some quick links to articles I saw today that interested me.

Relating to my earlier post on "Plamegate" and how the Left seems to want to use the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby to forwrad their anti-war, impeach Bush agenda:

Human Events Online has a very interesting article by Allan H. Ryskind.
Powerline has a great post that also questions the strategy of the Left on this issue.
The Anchoress has an interesting post on the Joe Wilson angle of Plamegate.
James Robbins at NRO has a great article on the pre-war intelligence aspects of Plamegate, and how the Democrats have bungled their "strategy".

California Special Election: Statewide Ballot Recommendation Wrap-Up UPDATE

2005-11-04T07:44:00.000-08:00

**UPDATE** Here is a link to the latest polling data on the California Special Election.

Next Tuesday voters in California go to the polls in a special election to decide the fate of many important propositions, several of which are part of Governor Schwartzenneger's reform plan. I have spent the last couple of weeks reviewing these propositions in detail and will today summarise my positions on each of them.

I'll be voting NO on Prop 73, Prop 78, Prop 79, and Prop 80, and I urge everyone who will be voting next week to do the same.

I'll be voting YES on Prop 74, Prop 75, Prop 76, and Prop 77, and again, strongly urge likewise votes by all Californian's.

Follow the links to my original posts for background and analysis.

"Plamegate" Update

2005-11-03T18:32:00.000-08:00

Some very interesting developments in the "Plamegate" situation. Of course you already know that the 2-year investigation into the "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has concluded, with criminal indictments being returned against Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's Chief of Staff.

It is important to note, however, that the investigation did not turn up any evidence that any crime was committed in the leak of Valerie Plame's name as a CIA operative, only that Mr. Libby lied to the grand jury during the investigation. Even more important is the fact that Karl Rove, chief political strategist for president Bush (and hated even more by the Left than the president) was NOT and will not be indicted for anything related to this episode.

The lack of an indictment against Rove has sent the Left into a complete meltdown, as it is now clear that they anticipated that this would be the first of many pieces to fall which would bring down the Bush administration. In their zeal, they even came up with a name for it: "Fitzmas" (like Christmas). Reading that last link you will see how the Left was so excited about "Fitzmas" that they almost couldn't contain themselves; like a child waiting out those last few days before Christmas.

But with "Fitzmas" having come and gone without the present the Left so desperately but confidently 'just knew' they would receive, they have begun to once again spin off their already unsteady axis. They forced a rare closed session of the Senate in a crazy stunt to "force an investigation" into pre-war intelligence and how it may have been "manipulated" by the Bush administration. This was probably planned in the run up to "Fitzmas", intended as the first salvo in their post-"Fitzmas" assault on the Bush administration. The lack of an indictment against Rove, however, threw a huge and very inconvenient 'wrench in the works'.

And as alluded to in the opening line of this post, a completely different picture is beginning to emerge in this affair. Instead of Bush, Rove, and Cheney as the conspirators, Valerie Plame herself and those within the CIA who are ideologically opposed to the Bush administration are looking more and more like the real culprits. This picture is certainly not one of my making, but the blogosphere and even the MSM to some extent have formulated this new theory on these events.

Powerline has has a great post on this today, and quotes an article in today's Wall Street Journal by Victoria Toensing on this issue"

• First: The CIA sent her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for nonconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration's Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion.

• Second: Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or who represent CIA clients.

• Third: When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report.

• Fourth: Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we'd have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA's Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.

• Fifth: More important than the inaccuracies is the fact that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.

• Sixth: CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame's employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.

• Seventh: Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.," information publicly available at the FEC.

Toensing concludes:

The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which.

The American Thinker also has a great post today on this new theory, and frankly the idea of a rogue CIA operation run specifically to undermine and potentially bring down the executive branch is very disturbingly treasonous.

Key words
Rove
Plame
Yellowcake
Plamegate
Libby

California Special Election: Statewide Ballot Recommendation Wrap-Up

2005-11-02T12:38:00.000-08:00

Next Tuesday voters in California go to the polls in a special election to decide the fate of many important propositions, several of which are part of Governor Schwartzenneger's reform plan. I have spent the last couple of weeks reviewing these propositions in detail and will today summarise my positions on each of them.

I'll be voting NO on Prop 73, Prop 78, Prop 79, and Prop 80, and I urge everyone who will be voting next week to do the same.

I'll be voting YES on Prop 74, Prop 75, Prop 76, and Prop 77, and again, strongly urge likewise votes by all Californian's.

Follow the links to my original posts for background and analysis.

California Proposition 73: Parental Notification PRIOR to Abortion

2005-11-01T15:54:00.000-08:00

California Prop 73 is another ballot measure that Californians will be voting on next Tuesday. If passed, this proposition would amend the California constitution to require doctors to notify an "unemancipated minor's" parents at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on that minor. Notification is the only requirement; this measure does not require the doctor to obtain the minor's parent's permission for the abortion to take place.

This proposition was the most difficult for me to come to a decision on, but as a libertarian-leaning Republican, I have to err on the side of less government and urge a NO vote on Prop 73. On the one hand, I strongly support the right of parents to make decisions—especially a decision as important as ending a pregnancy—for their minor children. On the other, I don't like government getting too involved in healthcare and decisions that rightfully belong to individuals and their doctors alone.

I am confident that those who are strongly in favor of Prop 73 are probably the ones who least need its protection, as they likely have family relationships that have an excellent support system. However, there are many families who do not have healthy relationships between parents and children, and THEY are much more likely to need protection from the potentially violent reaction of parents upon learning that their daughter seeks an abortion.

I also understand the strong feelings on both sides of the abortion debate, and have written about it previously. The upcoming debate over the nomination of appellate judge Alito to the US Supreme Court will further highlight this debate, and I will post again on this very important and yet very personal debate.

Until then, I strongly urge a NO vote on Prop 73.

Key words
Prop 73
Join Arnold
California Special Election
Proposition 73
Abortion
Is abortion Murder?

California Proposition 78, 79, and 80: VOTE NO!

2005-10-31T06:21:00.000-08:00

These are the three upcoming California Special Election ballot issues that are the 'no-brainers' of the ballot. As a libertarian-leaning conservative who is a strong supporter of "promoting individual liberty and economic freedom through the idea of limited government, private property rights, and free market capitalism" (as our masthead states), I emphatically urge everyone to VOTE NO on 78, 79, and 80. All three are anti-capitalist, pro-big government measures that will result in shortages and more regulation.

Prop 78 and Prop 79 are competing attempts to regulate prescription drugs. One is sponsored by the drug companies, the other by trial lawyers and consumer advocate groups, and both would mean government regulation of prescription drug costs. Government imposed cost controls always result in lower quality, lower supply, and frustrated consumers. I cannot think of a single circumstance where the imposition of government bureaucracy and regulation has resulted in lower costs, more choice, better quality, and more supply. The opposite is ALWAYS the result.

Prop 80, if passed, would re-regulate California's electrical supply. While deregulation of a decade ago was poorly planned, and even more poorly executed, the re-imposition of government controls is not the answer. Like Prop's 78 and 79, the result will be less supply, fewer choices, and lower quality.

If you doubt my conclusions on free markets versus a regulated market, consider how the telephone service market developed. First, under the regulated market of the first five or six decades of telephone service here in the USA we though we had good prices, features, and quality. However, compare those days to the current, relatively unregulated mobile phone market. Prices are lower, features are too many to list, and long distance is FREE! In addition, the monthly costs keep dropping, and the features list grows longer.

Don't put the prescription drug market nor the electrical markets back into the stone age.

Vote NO on 78, 79, and 80.

Key words
Prop 78
Prop 79
Prop 80
California Special Election

California Proposition 76: State Spending and School Funding Limits

2005-10-29T07:59:00.000-07:00

California's special election next month gives voters the opportunity to decide several important state issues. This post will discuss the merits of Prop 76, which, if passed, would place limits on state spending and on state school funding.

Currently, there are spending limits in place in the state of California, but due to the nature of the source of state revenues, primarily personal and corporate income taxes and general sales taxes, revenues rise and fall dramatically as the state's economy rises and falls. Spending must rise and fall accordingly, or large surplusses or deficits result. The legislature hasn't shown the ability to restrain spending the surplusses, instead of holding it in reserve for the years when revenues fall below expected expendatures.

Prop 76 would change all that. In general, this proposition would limit spending to "the prior-year level of expenditures, adjusted by the average of the growth rates in combined General Fund and special fund revenues over the prior three years", as the non-partisan Legislative Analyst reports in the Voters Guide. This would have the effect over time of constraining spending during revenue-rich periods, but would allow more liberal spending in revenue-poor periods. It would accomplish this by placing excess revenues in reserve for those leaner times.

For school funding, this measure would alter the current minimum spending guarantees in place from previous propositions. It's rather complicated, but essentially would likely lower minimum spending guarantees, while at the same time reducing school funding volitility. School administrators would be able to better plan budgets with the knowledge that future funding would be more consistent.

It is important to note as well that just because minimum funding guarantees would likly be reduced, there is no reason to assume that actual school spending will decrease. The legislature and the governor can fund schools at higher than the minimum, and no limits are initiated by this proposal. It will be up to you and me to hold the state responsible if school funding is inadequate.

Finally, this proposal would grant new power to the governor to control spending. Under Prop 76, the governor could declare a "fiscal emergency", and then unilaterally reduce spending without legislative approval.

The Democrats and the public employee unions are, of course, opposed to this measure. They oppose any limits placed on their ability spend your money. The unions are specifically opposed to any limits that might impact their ability to implement pay raises and improve retirement benefits for their members. The legislature is heavily dominated by Democrats, and they, of course, oppose anything thing that limits their power to spend, and grants authority to the governor to override their spending plans.

They have never before shown any ability to restrain spending, and this proposal will bring some fiscal sanity and consistency to the budget process.

Vote YES on 76

Key words
California Special Election
Join Arnold
Proposition 76
California State Spending
California School Funding

California Proposition 75: Public Employee Union Member's Dues for Political Campaigns UPDATED

2005-10-25T06:44:00.000-07:00

**UPDATE** Recent television advertisements paid for by public employee unions deceptively suggest that (paraphrasing) 'there are already ways for members to opt-out of politcal fees and activities', and that Prop 75 is therefore unecessary.

What they don't say, but as this original post did below, is that the only way for a union member to 'opt-out' is to resign membership in the union. A member cannot opt-out.

Furthermore, if this proposition is "unecessary", then why will the public employee unions pay the tens and probably hundreds of million dollars on their "No on 75" campaign?

This third installment in my series of discussions about the California Special Election next month discusses Proposition 75, which, if passed, would require public employee unions to receive annual written permission from each member to use union dues for political purposes.

The public employee unions (police, fire, nurses, and teachers, primarily) are absolutely livid about this proposition because it's passage would mean that these unions would not be able to compel their members to contribute money to spend on the political campaigns that the union leadership supports.

Currently, public employees are not required to join unions, and those who choose not to join must pay a fee to the union for the union's collective bargaining work, though they do not have to pay a fee to the union for political activities.

Members of the union, however, don't have that right, and must pay whatever fee the union leadership decides is appropriate to support whatever political position the leadership chooses. The member who believes in and supports the right to collective bargaining, but is not politically allied with the generally far-left leaning union leadership, MUST support financially the leadership's political positions. The passage of Prop 75 would end that unfair practice and allow loyal members the option to 'opting-out' of political activity. That is the extent of the proposition if passed.

The union leadership views this issue as one of power; specifically theirs. They try to paint the backers of Prop 75 as evil corporations out to destroy the American way of life, when, in fact, this matter is really about freedom and the rights of the individual over that of the union. Many union members support the union in its efforts to help members, but don't necessarily support the political positions of the union leadership. This proposition would simply allow the members themselves—not union leadership—to decide if they wish to finacially support the union's political activities.

One of the arguments against passage of Prop 75 is that it unfairly targets unions, and doesn't require corporations to receive shareholder permission prior to contributing to a given political campaign. However, their is a very big difference between unions and corporations in this regard. If you work as a police officer, firefighter, nurse, or teacher in the state of California, you must join the union, or be represented by them as a non-member. There are no other choices.

However, no one is required to buy shares in a corporation. The decision to own or not to own shares in publicly traded corporation is entirely that of the individual. Furthermore, you can still work and provide for yourself and your family while owning, or while not owning shares in a corporation. Your livelihood is not affected in any way by your personal decision to own or not to own corporate stocks.

This issue, despite what the unions are spending millions to convince you of, is simply about choice. Your choice versus theirs. The rights of the individual or of the union. Freedom versus central control.

Vote YES on 75

Key words
Prop 75
California Special Election
Ask Arnold
California Propositions
California Public Employee Unions

California Proposition 74: Teacher Tenure Updated

2005-10-13T07:13:00.000-07:00

Next month's special election here in California has several important propositions on the ballot. These were placed on the ballot by Governor Schwartzenegger after failing to agree with the Democrat-controlled legislature on these important issues. In my previous installment on these propositions, I discussed Prop 77, the redistricting issue, and this week I will discuss Prop 74, the "teacher tenure" issue.

If enacted, the measure would be officially titled "Put the Kids First Act". This measure affects two employment criteria for public school teachers: First, the probationary period for new teachers would be extended from two to five years. Second, school administrators would have the ability to fire lower-performing teachers who have received two consecutive "unsatisfactory evaluations", regardless of their tenure status. The dismissed teacher can, within 30 days of their dismissal, ask for an administrative hearing on their dismissal.

The teachers unions obviously are very upset about this measure. They don't like the idea that their members can be fired for poor performance, and without a prior hearing. Welcome to the real world, teachers!

Most of us—some estimates say 60%* —are employed as "at-will" employees, which means that we can be fired "at-will", with no reasons given. We can also quit under the same circumstances. There are some exceptions to this, of course, but for the most part, an at-will employee can be fired or can quit without reasons or notice, or hearings. Why shouldn't teachers work under the same employment rules as most everyone else?

Obviously collective bargaining agreements have had a lot to do with this issue, and the teachers unions are viscously fighting this proposition, as they stand a lot to lose if it passes. While I am a strong supporter of teachers, and have argued previously that I believe the lion's share of blame for poor student performance lies with parents, I also believe that teachers should be held to the same employment standards as the majority of Americans in the workforce.

Vote YES on 74.

*New estimates are closer to 80%

Key words
California API
Prop 74
Put the Kids First
California Propositions
California Special Election
"At-will" employment

Is Atheism a Religion?

2005-10-09T07:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's post about the Mt. Soledad Cross controversy spurred me into further investigation of the question of whether atheism is a form of religious belief. As I discussed yesterday,

"If belief in a Higher Power is considered a religious faith, then an equally powerful argument can be made that the non-belief in a Higher Power is also a religion. To put it another way, a religious person believes in a Higher Power. An atheist does not. Neither position can be proven with facts or science; each requires faith in an idea."

A Google search of the title of this post reveals many relevant links to this discussion. Many of those who consider themselves atheists bristle at the charge that atheism is a religion. Many of these people have a very simple adherence to atheism that they don't believe in any Higher Power, no After-Life, no Supreme Being, nothing.

There is also a very large segment of the atheist population who very actively seeks to abolish any references to any form of religious faith in any public forum, governmental agency, or public schools, or any organization or activity open to the general public. I would characterize this group of atheists as "activists", and suspect that many of them would also characterize themselves as politically liberal.

The latter group is the more vocal 'face' of atheism, and are usually the ones filing lawsuits to remove religious symbols from public buildings, schools, etc. These activist atheists zealously and ruthlessly pursue their non-believer goalsÂwhich seem to this writer as ultimately the elimination of all religious activity anywhere except possibly in the privacy of one's home. One such zealot sued to remove the Cross atop Mt. Soledad, and another sued to stop public schools from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and its reference to "under God".

In researching this question, however, I discovered a recent United State Appellate Court ruling that held that atheism is indeed areligiouss belief. The August, 2005 decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has spurred furious debate between those of religious faith and atheists, and even among atheists themselves.

Since the federal courts have now affirmed that atheism is a religion, my argument that the San Diego judge who ruled that the public vote to transfer the land under the Cross on Mt. Soledad to private hands was an unconstitutional promotion of religion, was by her ruling violating the constitution by promoting atheism. Atheists want the Cross removed because their religion (atheism) says such symbols are opposed to their religion. If you are anti-religion, then you are pro-atheism. Therefore the removal of religion and religious symbols from public property is the promotion of atheism. The promotion of atheism is the promotion of a religion. The promotion of a religion by government is unconstitutional, therefore the order to removereligiouss symbols and practices from government property and institutions is, in fact, the unconstitutional promotion of a particular religious faith over others.

The Supreme Court has held (the Lemon Test) that to beincompletelye with the1stt amendment, government must be secular in nature, must neither promote nor inhibit religious activity, and must not excessively entangle government and religion.

The ruling on the Mt. Soledad Cross, given the above, is in clear violation of the Lemon Test in that it promotes atheism, inhibits Christianity, and, through its promotion of atheism, excessively entangles government and religion.

Mt. Soledad Cross Controversy

2005-10-08T19:10:00.000-07:00

Justice was again delayed by a San Diego county superior court judge who ruled Friday that the transfer of Cross and land around it atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego to a veteran's group was an "unconstitutional preference of the Christian religion to the exclusion of other religious and non-religious beliefs in violation of the No Preference Clause of the California Constitution."

Some quick background: The current Cross has been there since 1954, and was preceded in the same location by another Cross since 1913. In 1989, a local atheist began litigation to have the Cross removed, since it was on city-owned property. In 1991, a superior court judge held that the Cross, located on city property, violated the Separation clause of the US Constitution. Legal sparring has continued since that ruling, culminating with Prop A, which overwhelmingly passed last July by a 75% "yes" vote to transfer the Cross and the land on which it rests to a private veteran's group. Opponents filed legal challenges that judge Patricia Yim Cowett ruled to be unconstitutional.

This ruling makes no sense to me. Essentially, the judge held that the existence of the Cross, and it's transfer to a private group is unconstitutional. So the judge rules that the Cross on government property is unconstitutional, and the transfer of the Cross and land to a private entity is also unconstitutional. The only possible remedy then, would be to either move or destroy the Cross. What the judge failed to address, however, is the Free Exercise clause of the US Constitution. Every Easter, probably since 1913, various religious groups hold services at Mt. Soledad, and I would argue that to now deny them this opportunity would be a clear violation of the Free exercise clause.

As discussed in this space back in May of 2005, the Supreme Court has made very clear that the "wall of separation of church and state" is not a wall at all, but a fuzzy line. The government cannot promote NOR inhibit religion. By transferring the Cross, a now-historic part of San Diego, the government is certainly not promoting a religion. Since so many religious activities have occurred there by so many Christian sects for so many years, to argue that government has been somehow sponsoring or promoting religion is preposterous.

In fact, I would argue that by ordering the removal of the Cross, this judge is essentially promoting a form of religion, that form being atheism. If belief in a Higher Power is considered a religious faith, then an equally powerful argument can be made that the non-belief in a Higher Power is also a religion. To put it another way, a religious person believes in a Higher Power. An atheist does not. Neither position can be proven with facts or science; each requires faith in an idea.

I would therefore argue that to order the removal of the Cross is an unconstitutional promotion of a religion by government, that religion being atheism.

Key words
Mt. Soledad
Cross
Wall of Separation
Lemon Test
Separation of Church and State
1st Amendment

Harriet Miers

2005-10-05T00:27:00.000-07:00

Like most people watching to see who President Bush would nominate to fill retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, my first reaction to news reports that White House Council Harriet Miers was the nominee was, "Who?" I am, as you might guess, something of a newshound, and thought I knew all the major players in the Bush White House, but I must confess I had never even heard her name before she was announced as his choice.

Many in the MSM and the Blogosphere on both the Right (here, and here, and here, etc.) and Left (here, and here, and here etc.) have been either happy or sad with this news, and there is no real concensus as to whether the Left or the Right are more disappointed. Based on all I have so far heard, seen, and read, I would say that there are more conservatives who are disappointed than liberals, though I don't see how anybody could possibly know enough about her to even form an opinion yet.

I believe that the president could have, and probably should have chosen someone with much better credentials, though the choice is his and his alone. I hope he knows something that we don't.

Keywords:

Miers

California Proposition 77: Redistricting

2005-10-02T09:35:00.000-07:00

California's Prop 77 is an amendment to the state constitution that reforms how legislative districts are drawn. Under existing law, the legislature draws the boundaries of all statewide legislative districts, as is done in many, if not the majority of states. "Redistricting" is mandated by the federal constitution following the decennial federal population census, and usually provides incumbent politicians with the opportunity to draw political boundaries that favor their re-election, or at least the election of a member of their party to their seat. In fact, in the last election (November 2004) not a single legislative or Congressional seat in the state of California changed political party.

Under the current system, "gerrymandering" by the legislature reduces competitiveness and increases reelection rates of incumbents. This gerrymandering has resulted in average reelection rates in the US House and Senate of an average of approximately 93% and 81%, respectively, between 1964 and 2002.

Prop 77 seeks to change this system so that a three-member panel of retired state and/or federal judges would be empowered to draw up all statewide legislative districts. The recommendation would then be placed on the ballot for approval by the voters. Having read the entire text of the bill, there are many checks and balances that ensure that those in power will not in control of the process, which, under the current system is a huge conflict of interest.

The panel will be required to create boudaries that are contiguous, are geographically sensible, and that will strive to ensure that existing city and county boundaries are used whenever possible. If the voters reject the redistricting plan, then a new panel will be formed who will re-draft the proposal, which will again go to the voters. This process repeats until a plan is accepted.

I strongly support the passage of Prop 77.

Keywords: Prop 77

Postings

2005-09-30T18:58:00.000-07:00

Sorry I haven't posted in too long. Been really busy, but have been formulating posts in my head. I hope to get some big ones going this weekend, so please check back!

Depleted Uranium: Is it a Health Hazard?

2005-09-26T12:04:00.000-07:00

Doesn't appear to be, despite the wild assertions of the Left. The World Health Organization doesn't seem too concerned, nor does Sandia National Labs.

Hurricane Forecasters Got it Right, But the AP Gets the Story Wrong

2005-09-17T08:27:00.000-07:00

Much has been reported and written about hurricane Katrina and the poor response from government at all levels. The president has even accepted responsibility for the shortcomings of the federal government, but as written about in this space previously, the real tragedy was the inability or unwillingness of local officials to implement their own well-documented emergency plan and evacuate those people who could not get out themselves.

Much has also been made, especially by those opposed to everything the president does and says, to his comment that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breech of the levees." In an otherwise good article about the accuracy of the hurricane forecasters, John Pain of the Associated Press writes,

"The performance by the two agencies calls into question claims by President Bush and others in his administration that Katrina was a catastrophe that no one envisioned."

For example, Bush told ABC on Sep. 1 that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." In its storm warnings, the hurricane center never used the word "breached." But a day before Katrina came ashore Aug. 29, the agency warned in capital letters: "SOME LEVEES IN THE GREATER NEW ORLEANS AREA COULD BE OVERTOPPED."

Note that the president says "breached", whereas the warnings Mr. Pain cites warns of levee "overtopping". "Breaching" and "overtopping" are not the same thing. Breaching refers to a hole or break in the integrity of the levee, while overtopping describes the water level rising above the top of the levee, but not the failure of the levee itself. The distinction between the two is crucial to the crux of this article.

The article does go on to cite dire warnings given to the administration by the director of National Hurricane Center, but fails to cite specific sources or quotations. It makes one wonder if specific warnings about "levee breaches" or "levee failures" were ever actually given. If such evidence were available, I would think Mr. Pain would have cited references.

I will give Mr. Pain credit for adding, albeit at the very end of the article, the fact that the National Hurricane Center director took the unusual step of personally calling "the governors of Mississippi and Louisiana and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin two days ahead of time to warn them about the monstrous hurricane."

Unfortunately, most of the blame for the slow response to the disaster continuesÂfrom the left, anywayÂon the president, when the mayor and governor had ample warning to get the residents out two days before the hurricane struck.

Keywords:

Katrina

The Liberal Mind

2005-09-16T06:31:00.000-07:00

I spent time with a committed liberal recently, and it was a real eye-opener. Like you, I have heard and read about the differences between how liberals and conservatives think, but here before me like a freshly opened oyster was liberalism in all its glory... or misery, depending on your point of view.

For context, we spent time together while the tragic events unfolded in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. My liberal comrade was deeply offended that the media referred to those people who sought refuge from the storm and its aftermath as "refugees". He actually believes that the apparent slowness of the aid response is because most of the people who live in New Orleans are black.

On a broader level, he believes that everything printed in the New York Times is gospel truth, and everything broadcast on Fox News is a lie. He is, at 25 years old, still in college studying to be a social worker. A social worker. No doubt a noble pursuit, but one that will forever place him under the control of, and in support of a growing Welfare State. I know his heart is in the right place, and he doesn't qualify (yet) as a classic "angry liberal", but he isn't yet old enough to become angry and bitter.

His choice of career, however, compared with another 20-something acquaintance of mine who is more conservative is stark. Here he is, still in college, with no plans for his future other than doing social work. He doesn't own a car, or a computer, or a TV, or really anything except, of course, his Ipod. He does have very good musical talent, but doesn't have the drive to succeed at music. He is irresponsible about many things, and completely lacks a sense of urgency in just about anything he does.

My more conservative friend, however, is also in his twenties, is a college graduate, has a good job with a high five-figure salary, owns a house, two cars, has a family, and pays lots of taxes. In fact, if it weren't for my more conservative friend who earns money and pays taxes (and the millions like him), my liberal friend (and the millions like him) wouldn't have the grant money to go to college, perform social work, or generally be the lazy and irresponsible guy he is.

It seems clear to me that my liberal friend is very typical of many liberals. It is also very clear why so many liberals go into journalism, academia, government and the public sector, and why so many conservatives prefer to go into business and private sector. Liberals, to their credit, seem to understand that by controlling the news media, academia, and government, that their collectivist goals can be reached. Whether by design or by accident, liberals have for a very long time been working to institutionalize their agenda through control of these three areas, with average Americans unaware of this creeping revolution.

Conservatives, on the other hand, generally tend go into business and the private sector because they believe that by helping themselves, they can best help society. Conservatives, while working to build success in their own lives and the lives of their fellow Americans, haven't and still don't seem to understand that liberals have a seven-decade head start on controlling government, academia, and the news media. Fortunately, however, the conservative counterrevolution is underway, with control of the government now in Republican hands.

One other interesting illustration of how conservatives and liberals think is their respective reactions to hurricane Katrina. Liberals, who prefer strong central control over local control, were aghast at the response of the federal government. Conservatives, on the other hand, were aghast at the response of the state and local authorities to the hurricane, as conservatives prefer control by state and local authorities through the concept of federalism.

It seems to me that to be a liberal, you must first react emotionally to a situation. You must also be able to overlook reality if you find it offensive. Like referring to those seeking refuge as "refugees"; even though that is what they are, it is 'mean-spirited' to call them that. And you must believe that the best way to solve problems is by a consolidation of power in fewer hands.

Who's Fault is Katrina? UPDATE

2005-09-13T06:38:00.000-07:00

The destruction and misery brought on by Hurricane Katrina has been viciously exploited by the Angry Left, the Hate-Bush crowd, and even the leadership of the Democrat party. The unfortunate truth in this tragedy, despite the lies of the left, is that many of those people killed, or raped, or murdered during and in the aftermath of the storm would likely have been saved had they been properly evaculated.

The emergency plan in place prior to Katrina's strike clearly outlines that the evacuation of New Orleans is "responsibility of the Mayor of New Orleans in coordination with the [state] Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the OEP Shelter Coordinator." If the people who had no transportation were looked out for as described in such great detail in NO's "Hurricane Emergency Evacuation Standard Operating Procedure", the horrific situation that followed the hurricane could have been avoided. Had the people not been in NO, as ordered by the mayor (but not enforced), then whether federal response was fast or slow would have made no difference.

There is also evidence (though I have not been able to confirm this yet) that the president had urged the governor or Louisiana to formally request federal assistance as early as Friday night before the storm hit, and again on Saturday. It wasn't until Sunday, the day before the storm hit that the governor actually requested federal assistance. Until this request is formally made, the president does not have the authority to order federal troops or other aid into an affected area.

It is also important to remember that the mayor of NO did not order mandatory evacuations until Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit. Had he done so even 24 hours earlier, or on Friday night as apparently urged by the director of the National Hurricane Center, the situation during and following the hurricane would likely have been much better.

It is clear that the federal response to Katrina was inadequate, but more importantly, the state and local response was even worse. Had they not delayed requests for federal aid, and not delayed mandatory evacuations, and had they actually implemented their own emergency plans, federal aid would probably have come sooner, and more importantly, those most vulnerable to the wrath of Katrina could have gotten out of harm's way before the storm hit.

A timeline of Katrina

**Update** A better timeline of Katrina

*Fixed misspelling

Low post rate

2005-09-08T20:02:00.000-07:00

Sorry, been really busy, but will post more this weekend, mostly about Katrina.

Are You a Democrat, Republican, or Southern Republican?

2005-08-30T12:48:00.000-07:00

Here is a little test that will help you decide...

Question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes on you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat's Answer:

"Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!"

"Does the man look poor or oppressed?"

"Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?"

"Could we run away?"

"What does my wife think?"

"What about the kids?"

"Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?"

"What does the law say about this situation?"

"Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?"

"Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?"

"Is it possible he would be happy with just killing me?"

"Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?"

"If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?"

"Should I call 9-1-1?"

"Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior."

"This is all so confusing! ! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus."

Republican's Answer:

BANG!

Southern Republican's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

click.....(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

click

Daughter:

"Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"

Inside the Sheehan Camp: A Conservative's View

2005-08-30T06:24:00.000-07:00

The RadioEqualizer has an interesting post by Curtis Loftis, a conservative activist. He managed to infiltrate the Cindy Sheehan camp in Crawford, Texas, and while incognito, saw the inner workings of this very professional public relations operation.

Costs of the Iraq War

2005-08-29T12:17:00.000-07:00

David Francis pens a great article in today's Christian Science Monitor regarding the costs of the war in Iraq. It is stacking up as the third most costly war in 2005 dollars, going back trough all the wars since World War 1.

The last two paragraphs I found particularly interesting:

"From one standpoint, the US economy should find it easier to absorb the present war. Today's defense budget is about 4 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's output of goods and services. That compares with 6.2 percent in the 1980s, 9.4 percent in 1960 (Vietnam), 14.2 percent in 1953 (Korea), and 38 percent in 1944 (World War II).

In that respect, today's war "is much cheaper," says Kosiak."

Able Danger: A Third Source Corroborates Initial Claims

2005-08-27T08:11:00.000-07:00

Fox News is reporting today that JD Smith (no relation), a defence contractor who was part of the Able Danger team, has come forward to confirm that at least some of the 9-11 hijackers were identified well before 9-11, but were not allowed to report the information to the FBI.

The most troubling thing about the Able Danger story is that the infamous "wall" between intellgence and law enforcement, created by Jamie Gorelick while in the Clinton Administration, and later a member of the 9-11 Commission, prevented this information flow, and the specter of a cover-up by Commission staff to protect those responsible hangs over the whole affair.

Interesting Stuff I Noticed Today

2005-08-25T06:30:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin links to more lies from the Left (aka Mainstream Media).

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has a great article on the continuing and irrational obsession of some on the Left claiming stolen elections in 2000 and 2004. (Hat tip American Thinker)

Patterico shares with us his letter to the New York Times regarding their columnist Paul Krugman's article on the election of 2000 in Florida.

A scientist quits an important panel studying global warming over charges that his co-panelists don't want to consider possibities other than established dogma.

The debate over whether global warming is increasing the severity and frequency of hurricanes rages on, though my money is on the guys who actually study hurricanes. (They don't think so.)

California Academic Performance Index (API)

2005-08-19T06:29:00.000-07:00

The California 2004 API scores came out this week. The API is a measure of student performance in English, math, science, and related subjects. The scores are reported by county, district, and school, and even includes charter schools. The scores run between 200 and 1,000, with 800 being the target.

The API has become the primary yardstick for school performance since passage of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Each summer parents, teachers, and administrators wait anxiously for the scores to come out as so much is riding on the results. There are people who have sold their homes in one lower-performing district an bought another in a district with better API scores. New people moving in to an area often base their buying decisions on API scores. I suspect that teachers and administrators have been promoted or demoted based on their school or district's API rise or fall.

The scores are very easy reading, and most people assume that a school with low scores has bad teachers and/or administrators. But looking more deeply into the API report one can see that there is far more than meets the eye, and many schools and school employees have no doubt been unfairly judged as a result of not looking beyond the obvious. Digging just a little deeper into the report, results are listed by race. Reviewing the data by race suggests that something other than schools, teachers, and curriculum may be to blame for poor performance. By no means am I suggesting that one race is inherently smarter; I believe the source of the difference by race is the type of support that many kids at home.

Take San Diego County schools, since that is where I live and have the most familiarity. When an individual school is picked at random from the list linked above, a breakdown by race is shown. The Encinitas school district is in a fairly affluent coastal city of northern San Diego County. Capri Elementary has about an even mix of White and Latino students, but their scores are quite different. Whites scored 855 whereas Latinos scored 649. At a similar school in the same district, Park Dale Lane Elementary, whites outnumber Latinos by more than 3.5:1, and score 865 to Latinos 694. [Note: "Socioeconomically Disadvantaged" is defined as children of parents who both have not finished highschool, and/or participate in the school lunch program. Race is not a factor.]

So given the mix of students, Capri's overall API is a respectable yet below target 759, whereas Park Dale Lane scores an above-target 833. Most people who follow the API scores would rather send their kids to Park Dale Lane, of course, because it scored better. However, given the fact that the White students at Capri scored nearly identical to the White students at Park Dale Lane, a successful argument cannot be made that the school, the administrators, and the teachers are not adequately teaching their students. Click around some of the other schools, and you will find similar results almost everywhere. It is also interesting to note that when the racial breakdown is studied by district, where the samples are large enough, that is, Asian children seem to easily score the best. In the Encinitas district, Asian's cored 950, to White's 891, to Latino's 676.

Why though? What is the reason for the better scores of the White students? I don't for a second think that Latinos are in any way 'not as smart' as Whites. I work with many Latinos, I have many Latino friends, I married a Latina, my children are Latino, as are, of course, my in-laws. Latinos are smart, caring, hard working, happy people, and I am proud to have become part of the Latino culture. So if 'smarts' is not the answer, what is it? Why don't Latinos score higher as a group?

I believe that the reason is their parents. Many of them are first or second generation immigrants, and language is a big problem for them. They have not fully assimilated into American society, and often live each day speaking only Spanish. They watch Spanish TV, listen to Spanish radio, and read Spanish newspapers, and then when their kids come home they can't help them with their homework. Because of the schools, fortunately, the kids speak perfect English, but at home they must speak Spanish. This is not alway the case, of course, but seems to be the rule more often than not.

There also is the feeling among some parents, and this cuts across all races, is that educating children is the job of the schools, and parents don't think they have to do their part. But lets face it, education at the primary and secondary level is like a three-legged stool, where schools, students, and parents are each one leg. If one of the legs doesn't hold up its weight, the stool will fall over.

Can schools and teachers do a better job? I'm sure they would be the first to say "yes", and I believe they try to do so everyday. But we as parents MUST do a better job of helping our childen learn by helping, challenging, and nurturing their intellectual development.

This post also appears on Blogger News Network.

Able Danger Getting Uglier by the Day

2005-08-17T07:01:00.000-07:00

Even the MSM smells blood in the water.

The New York Times has several new articles on the Able Danger scandal that put the 9-11 Commission, 9-11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, and the Clinton administration's "wall" between intelligence and the FBI in a very, very bad light. Could 9-11 have been prevented if information that can flow freely now have been in effect then?

Here are the articles:

"State Department Says..."

"Officer Says Military..."

Able Danger: Were the 9/11 Hijackers Known to the US Government As Early As 1999? UPDATE

2005-08-11T06:33:00.000-07:00

Saw this interesting article today that the 9/11 Commission will investigate claims by Congressman Curt Weldman (R-Penn), vice-chair of the Homeland Security and House Armed Services committees that "U.S. defense intelligence officials identified ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as a likely part of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the hijackings but didn't forward the information to law enforcement."

***UPDATE***

As I suspected this story has started to reverberate throughout the blogosphere, and even the MSM is starting to take notice (unlike the [Hot]AirAmerica scandal). Michelle Malkin has agreat round-up on the subject with lots of links.

UAL Flight 934 Diverted to Boston

2005-08-04T06:48:00.000-07:00

I received a copy of an email circulating in the airline/flight community detailing the events that took place aboard United Airlines Flight 934 late last month causing it to be diverted to Boston. This was written by one of the airline employees who was on the flight, and details what happened and why the flight crew was concerned about these passengers.

The email (slightly edited for clarity and privacy concerns) is below:

"Many of you may have seen CNN and other news reports or read in the papers about the LAX/[London] flight that diverted to Boston to remove three suspicious passengers. Well, guess who was lucky enough to be on the flight? Thanks to those of you who have called or written with their concern. I am fine and other than a million reports I have to write, all is well.

The three Pakistani passengers, two in BC [business class] seats (8A and 14D) and one in economy, got our attention before takeoff with self upgrading, moving about the plane, changing seats several times and asking the crew about our layover, where we stayed, etc. We basically ignored them and wrote them off as bothersome. During the bar service, two of the guys kept drinking a lot, and asking for refills before we got two rows away. Now we wrote them off as obnoxious, as well as annoying. We cut down the drinks to the guy in who wanted more scotch and wine with dinner. After the meal service, the guy in 8A, who hadn't said a word, got up and went to 14D and spoke with him for 10 minutes. We didn't even know they knew each other as they had no prior contact. The F/A's [flight attendants] in economy were concerned over the behavior of the economy passenger and asked for a name check. The cockpit got back to us to let us know all had gone through secondary clearance in LAX and were all ticketed to Islamabad, Pakistan. All the guys kept going to the bathroom and now we were checking the loos every time they came out. After 8A spoke with 14D, he (14D) went to economy and went straight to the overhead in 32CDE, took out a briefcase and brought it back to his BC seat. 32E was where the economy passenger was originally seated, but he had moved to 31G on the aisle. All the F/A's were keeping an eye on these three and every time we would casually look at them, they were staring at us, watching everything we were doing. The economy guy went to the back galley and kept the duty free sellers busy by asking to see everything and having them open several items to the point where one of them wrote on a piece of paper to another F/A, "He's distracting us, see what's happening in the cabin"....

I was communicating all this information to the cockpit, as well as our concerns. I don't think they took it as seriously as we did. That was until the economy guy went to the F/A's in the back and asked them if we had been up in the air for 3 1/2 hours yet. He kept asking when 3 1/2 hours would be. At the same time, the 14D guy went up to the BC F/A's and asked if we'd been flying 3, 3 1/2 or 4 hours yet. Now most passengers ask how much longer we have to go and not if we've been flying a specific time, and we figured with all their drinking, they didn't want to know the time so they could face Mecca for their prayers.

UAL and the pilots decided we needed to divert before we got over the Atlantic (we were about 3 1/2 hours out from LAX, over the Hudson Bay) so we did a slow turn and descent to Boston for 1:50 hours. We also pulled the circuit breaker on the airshow [stopped the in-flight entertainment]. About 5 minutes before landing, the Captain made announcement we had a navigational problem that needed to be looked at before we crossed the ocean. We were all watching the guys when they were told we were landing, and none reacted abnormally. We moved a very muscular passenger to seat 1E on the aisle and an SA to seat 1A and told them we had security issues and if anyone not in uniform came up the aisle towards the cockpit, they were to try and do anything to stop them. We also moved one of the F/A's sitting up front (she is 5 foot and weighs about 100 pounds) to another jumpseat and moved another male F/A up front so there were three guys in the jumpseats by the cockpit. Having done that, we realized [that she,] the F/A we moved, was so pissed off at these guys, she could have beat the [heck] out of all of them. The one nervous Nellie F/A who walked around with the ice mallet for the last two hours of the flight, we kept in the back where if anything did happen, he could scream and hit himself with the mallet. The Captain informed me just about everyone would meet the airplane.

The landing was normal, and very quiet on the plane since it was 0300 and most passengers were asleep when we woke them. [We] pulled to the gate, but the jetway didn't come toward us for two minutes. I looked out and saw about 30 swat team guys in flak jackets and machine guns. Well, I guess everyone figured out at this point it was not a navigational problem. As I went to door 2, the guy in 8A was staring out the window at our welcoming party. The guy in 14D was on his mobile phone and he was later observed hiding the phone in the pillow when the armed guys came on board. 20 swat team guys boarded the plane, ten down each aisle with guns ready. Most of the passengers were pretty freaked by this. The police took the three guys off. We had to help them find all their carry on. Most of the passengers were very helpful in trying to ID their hand carry on as we really had no idea of what was theirs.

The FBI, TSA, Joint Terrorism Task Force Rep, Boston Police, Airport Police and Massachusetts State Troopers interviewed the Captain, the two F/A's who had the most contact with them and me for two hours. The FBI also interviewed the passengers sitting around the guys. The FBI asked the Captain when he realized the severity of the situation, and he replied, "When he saw the fear in the eyes of his crew..."

By the time we got back to the plane, UAL Ops had shown up and arranged for the passengers to go to hotels for an 1100 departure to continue to London with a new crew. Of course, we then had to wait for immigration to show up since all the non-US and greencard holders were now reentering the US and had to fill out I-94 forms as new visitors and be fingerprinted and photographed again.

When we finally got to the hotel around 0730, we were already on the news, and several hours later, we heard the passengers were interviewed, cleared and released. The FBI told me they felt they were on a test run surveillance flight, observing and watching our routine and looking for weaknesses in our security. All the authorities reassured us we did the right thing and that was backed up by the passengers who thanked us and said that they were so glad we watching out for their well being. I think as F/A's, we sense when something just isn't right, and this flight had too many small incidents that didn't add up, and thankfully, we acted on our feelings."

We should all be on guard for similar circumstances.

Gitmo Detainees: Is their Detention Legal And Moral?

2005-08-01T21:16:00.000-07:00

I had an email exchange with a reader this week regarding the detainment of so-called "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo), Cuba. My correspondent cited the judge's statement (PDF) at sentencing of Ahmed Ressam, the "Millenium Bomber", who was apprehended while he attempted to cross from Canada into the United States at a remote border crossing in the state of Washington. He was planning to bomb the Los Angeles International airport on New Year's Eve in 1999 at the "millenium". Mr. Ressam was found guilty, and was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

Here is what I consider the key passage of US federal Judge John Coughenor's statement at Mr. Ressam's sentencing:

"...I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.'

I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.'

Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens."

I agree completely. I don't support the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants", though Mr. Ressam doesn't fit the criteria for that status anyway. I do understand the reasoning behind the detentions, though I think that indefinite detention for these people is the wrong approach.

The Third Geneva Conventions clearly spell out how prisoners of war shall be treated, and Part 1, Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the III Geneva Conventions defines precisely who is a "prisoner of war":

"(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.'

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Given the specific conditions of part (2), it seems unlikely that many of those detained at Gitmo could be considered POW's under the Geneva Convention. In fact, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (July15, 2005) that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al Qaeda, and that the Geneva Conventions themselves cannot be enforced in US courts.

But ruling in the Rasul v. Bush case in June of 2004, the US Supreme Court held that Gitmo detainees are entitled to challenge their incarceration in federal court, arguing essentially that since the US government holds legal authority over Gitmo and its facilities, that federal courts also hold jurisdiction over the detainees, hence their right to habeas corpus.

In discussions with my email correspondent, I argued erroneously that,

"...there is some contradictory logic here, in my opinion.'

"On the one hand, the government argues that since these people were not in uniform as "citizen" soldiers, that the Geneva Conventions don't apply. If that is true, then why can they [US Administration] at the same time detain them as "enemy combatants" under the same Geneva Convention?"

The flaw in my argument cited above is that the administration does NOT argue that that the detainment of these people, since they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, is in any way governed by those very Conventions. In fact, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the appellate court held that the president had and has the authority, as Commander-in-Chief, and under the the Joint Resolution passed by Congress in 2001 giving the president the authority to use "all necessary and appropriate use of force", and, specifically the Presidential Military Order of November 13th, 2001. which outlines in detail the how "enemy combatants" are defined and treated.

Based on this more in-depth view of the circumstances surrounding the detainees at Gitmo, I believe that their detentions have so far been, and will continue to be lawful and moral, yet politically unwise. The American justice system and our unusual (by global standards) attention to the rights of the accused renders these long-term detentions inappropriate. Being who we are, the United States should, in my opinion, anyway, stand for justice even for those people that we find despicable.

This post also appears on Blogger News Network.

The Press and The Plame Affair

2005-07-25T07:37:00.000-07:00

While the left breathlessly and giddily awaits the impeachment hammer to drop on the hated Bush administration, those pesky facts keep stalling the process. As noted here and here, there remains substantial doubt over whether a crime has even been committed in the Plame Affair.

Today we noted a post by JustOneMinute [via The American Thinker] that suggests more press complicity in the Plame Affair. Here's the opening:

"I believe there may be a substantial, ongoing press cover-up in the Plame leak investigation. Various White House staffers claim to have heard about Ms. Plame from reporters, but not many reporters seem to have been subpoenaed - for example, in their recent coverage Adam Liptak of the Times only noted Matt Cooper of TIME, Judy Miller of the NY Times, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of the WaPo, and Tim Russert of NBC News, in addition to the shadowy Robert Novak."

The whole post is fascinating reading, and goes into significant detail on how the press is reporting the story.

I find it very interesting that the MSM is, on the one hand, shocked that someone leaked the name of a CIA employee (the facts surrounding her real status as a NOC notwithstanding), yet on the other hand has filed an amicus brief to maintain the confidentiality of their sources! In a town such as Washington, where the press and those actually in positions of power in government have such a symbiotic relationship that lives on leaks, it is amazing that the press has the audacity to feign shock at this leak, but at nearly the same time hold up as a 'triumph of journalism' the leaks of Mark Felt, aka Deep Throat.

***

While reading JustOneMinute, I also saw this interesting post about the possibility that Ari Fleischer, who was White House Press Secretary at the time the Plame Affair emerged, may be the real leaker. The timeline certainly makes sense.

The Plame Affair

2005-07-23T08:48:00.000-07:00

To follow up my recent post on the Plame Affair, it is worthwhile to dig deeper into two areas: First, the question of whether a crime has even been committed; and second, considering their incredibly zealous pursuit of Karl Rove,what exactly did the mainstream media (MSM) argue before the US Court of Appeals in the Cooper/Miller (Plame) case?

First, a look at the Intelligence Protection Act of 1982 (amending the National Security Act of 1947), the controlling statute in this situation. This act lays out several conditions which must all be met before a crime has been committed. These conditions are:

That the 'leaker' has or had access to classified information that identifies a covert agent;
That the US government is taking "affirmative measures" to protect the identity of the covert agent;
That the 'leaker' knowingly leaks classified information with the intent to "out" the covert agent;
That the recipient of the classified information is not authorized to receive classified information;
And finally, that the US government had not "publicly acknowledged or revealed" the covert status of the agent.

Based on what I know about the case today, Karl Rove certainly had access to classified information (condition 1), though it seems unlikely to me that he would have access to classified information on the identity of specific covert agents, particularly such a low-level agent as Plame.

Since Plame was evidently coming and going to CIA headquarters every day through the main entrance, it seems unlikely that condition 2 has been met. Moreover, Plame's husband admitted that his wife was not a clandestine officer when the Novak article ran. In addition, if Plame really was using the front entrance, and working under her own name, and the CIA allowed such open entry/exit, then it seems to me that such allowance qualifies as "publicly acknowledging" her relationship with the CIA, providing further exculpatory evidence for Mr. Rove, and satisfying condition 5.

Plame was also named at least as early as 2002 as the wife of Ambassador Wilson, and was known in the mid 1990's by Russian intelligence, as well as in Cuba through the mis-handling of secret documents by US officials at the Swiss embassy in Havana, both of which, by the way, occurred prior to Novak's article in July, 2003.

Based on what I have read and heard Mr. Rove's conversation with Michael Cooper, wherein the identity of Valerie Plame was discussed, Rove's intent was to dissuade Cooper from publishing a story that contained 'false statements'. He did not pass along her name at all, according to Rove's attorney. If this is true, then condition 3 (above) is also not met.

Condition 4 certainly is met, considering that Novak is hardly authorized to receive classified information.

This brings us to the amicus (PDF), or "friend of the court" brief filed by the consortium of news organizations that is a virtual "who's who" of the MSM. [Hat tip, Andrew McCarthy, NRO]

In this brief, which the MSM consortium filed in an effort to protect journalists from divulging confidential sources (a strange irony, I know!), they argue passionately and with compelling supporting facts that since she was so well known prior to this episode as an intelligence officer, that no crime could have been committed by her "outing" in the Novak article.

They cite these facts (among others):

That Plame's husband, former Ambassador Wilson, was not a CIA officer;
That he was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement;
That he was not prevented from writing an op-ed piece about his trip;
That when Novak called the CIA to confirm that Plame worked for the CIA, the CIA confirmed that she did, and that "the agency failed to give him a serious request not to publish her name". (They argue that usually in such cases (a covert officer's name potentially published) a senior-level officer contacts the journalist and ask that they NOT publish);
And that the CIA did nothing to prevent Plame from making political contributions in her own name;

We do know that eventually, the Supreme Court ordered they reporters to divulge their sources, and eventually Mr. Cooper did so. We also know that both he and Judith Miller received written releases from their confidential sources at least a year ago, so why they waited until the threat of jail was about to be carried out to give them up (Miller did not divulge her sources, and is now in jail) is a mystery that raises new questions about their motivations in this regard.

So if the MSM is so convinced that no crime has been committed, as their brief lays out so well, one must ask why they are not with equal vigor defending Karl Rove instead of attacking him. It is difficult to draw any conclusions other than media bias, and their obvious hatred of Bush, Rove, and Cheney.

The facts do not support further investigation, and unless some new and stunning information is unearthed by the Special Prosecutor, no indictments will be forthcoming.

This post also appears on Blogger News Network.

Edited last sentence of paragraph preceeding the cited facts from MSM amicus brief, and corrected punctuation in second-to-last paragraph.. -JZS 7.24.05

The Left's Obsession with Karl Rove

2005-07-22T20:36:00.000-07:00

Reviewing the left-wing websites and blogs about the so-called "outing" of Valery Plame by the guy they may hate even more than George W. Bush—Karl Rove—one can only come to the conclusion that the Angry Left is living in some kind of parallel universe. Many of these Angry Leftists (AL) are convinced that Rove illegally "outed" Valerie Plame as a NOC (non-official cover) during a phone conversation with columnist Robert Novak.

However, many of the facts don't actually fit the "crime". First, for a crime to have been committed, the agent must be actively working to keep their affiliation secret. Second, the person 'leaking' the information must knowingly do so knowing that the person in question is undercover.

In the Plame case, she was openly working at CIA headquarters, her friends and neighbors knew she worked there, and, reports suggest that a State Department memo had circulated through Airforce One, including the press corps, as well as in other places in Washington. That she was a NOC CIA operative is not in dispute, but the fact that she was hardly concealing her relationship to the CIA, and the apparent fact that most of the Washington press corps knew about it seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the MSM.

And speaking of the MSM, a consortium of 36 major MSM outlets (all the mainstream media, including NYT, WP, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.) filed an amicas brief (scroll down) with the court in the case of the two reporters ordered to divulge their sources or go to jail, arguing that the two reporters should not be required to divulge sources since no crime was committed. How convenient that they now seem to believe otherwise.

Despite the obvious "no there there" to this matter, the left is all a tingle, thinking that Bush will even be impeached over this! I will admit that with a special prosecutor involved, anything could happen, but based on what I know about this case, I don't even foresee an admonition coming down. No crime was committed, and no breach of trust was committed, and the facts will continue to support this contention.

This post also appears on Blogger News Network.

The City of San Diego in Crisis

2005-07-20T19:48:00.000-07:00

If you haven't been following the political melt-down in San Diego government, you've missed some incredible drama. First, there is an on-going federal investigation into the city employee's pension fund. Seems that big increases in retirement benefits without adequately funding these increases paved the way to a $1.7 billion short-fall, which lead to the down-grading of municiple bonds to junk status. The pension board itself is the target of several criminal investigations, and many on the board have resigned.

This situation, several years in the making, lead to a very tight mayoral election in 2004 that gained national attention with the late write-in candidacy of a sitting council member, which was eventually decided by a state judge in favor of the incumbant mayor. However, the widening multiple scandals in town lead to the now re-elected mayor to resign, effective July 15th.

The deputy mayor, who, along with a fellow councilman was on trial for corruption, assumed the duties of the mayor on Friday, but before he could preside over his first council meeting as mayor on the following Monday, was convicted. He has since resigned, and his co-defendent on the council is expected to resign on Thursday.

The odd thing about this is that there was apparently no back-up plan by the council in the event that the deputy mayor was found guilty, so it's not clear who is in charge at City Hall.

Add to this embarassing mess the situation that congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham finds himself in regarding a highly questionable (the best I can say about it) real estate deal with a defence contractor who's business stands to gain from favorable treatment by Cunningham's Appropriations Committee, and you have a real political melt-down.

There will be a special election next Tuesday to fill the mayoral position, but there are over a dozen candidates on the ballot, and if one doesn't receive a majority (50% plus one vote) then a runoff will be held in November.

The pension fund is likely to go into receivership, no one wants to serve on its board, and there are lawsuits being filed seemly daily.

At least the weather is perfect!

This post also appears on Blogger News Network.

Global Warming & G8

2005-07-14T12:32:00.000-07:00

Philip Stott writes today in today's Spiked about the failure of the G8 conference in Gleneagles, Scotland to address global warming in a way that could be viewed as a victory for greens.

Mr. Stott's analysis is very interesting and discusses how the issue is viewed in Europe, and how much "faith" is involved in being a "believer".

An exerpt:

"Despite all the hype, where 'global warming' is concerned, the Greens have failed to force their paranoid religion on to the world. Like many Europeans, most Canadians are happy to talk 'green', while they continue to promote a profligate and hedonistic lifestyle that would make even George Bush blush beneath his Texan hat. In yuppie Yaletown and gaudy Gastown, patio heaters spring up like salmonberries. Canadian suburbs should be renamed the SUVurbs, while Canadian drivers idle with the best."

CIA "Outing"

2005-07-14T12:08:00.000-07:00

Byron York has a great commentary today in The Hill on the Plame/Rove controversy.

"The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions"

2005-07-13T06:18:00.000-07:00

I don't know who said that originally, but it seems very appropriate when applied to modern left-wing idealogy. I wasn't around during the Russian Revolution, but I suspect that Lenin and his followers had the 'peoples' best interests in mind when they overthrew the Czar and installed communism. It seems logical that Stalin later meant to build a better socialist state when he starved millions through his actions, or lack of actions during the 1930's. Hitler's National Socialist Party sought to make life better for Germans by ridding them of their Jewish brethren and by seeking the domination of the western world. Pol Pot and his regime were only trying to build a better 'workers paradise' when they killed as many as 1/7th of their population.

In all of these cases, millions died as a result of government believing it could put to better use private property.

These are only a few of the many examples I can cite of good intentions of the left gone bad. Consider the recent Kelo decision of the US Supreme Court. In that decision, the court's majority held that government can seize private property if government can show that the state (and therefore the people) can gain higher return (through higher tax revenues) from he property if it is turned over to government or a third party for development. How is this view different from that of the notorious leaders discussed above?

That is the problem with so many leftist, progresssive "programs". The basic assumption is that the people are really not smart enough as individuals to "properly" make use of their property and labors, and that only through government action can the needs of the people be met.

That so many on the left think those on the right are none-too-smart is clear; consider the angst of the left in the days following the complete electoral victory of the right at the polls in 2004. Since then the shrillness of the attack on the right from the left has only gotten worse. Given the desparation of the left in these post-election months, it is easy to see how the leaders of the failed socialist regimes of the 20th century felt that it was their duty to rid themselves of those who they felt were clearly not as smart as they, and were therefore a threat to the success of socialism.

More Justification For the War On Terror

2005-07-12T17:41:00.000-07:00

(As If We Needed Any More!)

RightWingNews has an excellent post about the War on Terror, justifications for it, its connections to Iraq, 9/11, and debunks fully the many false claims by the Left on these issues.

(via Dissecting Leftism)

The War on Terror

2005-07-10T08:00:00.000-07:00

The war on terror continues. The 7-7 bombings of London this week clearly illustrate the global nature of the war. The first engagement of the war is generally considered to be the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, although its origins can go back further:

1973 terror attack at the Rome airport, where more than 30 people were killed and a plane was hijacked;
The assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981;
The 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut by Islamic Jihad, wherein 63 people died;
The 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut (242 killed), and the French barracks in Beirut (58 dead);
The kidnap and murder of diplomat William Buckley in Beirut, 1984, by Islamic Jihad;
The 1984 bombing of a restaurant in Spain frequented by US servicemen (18 sailors killed, 83 injured);
The Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro hijacking in 1985 (1 dead);
The 1985 Rome and Vienna airport attacks by the Abu Nidal group (16 deaths, more than 100 injured);
1986 Berlin disco bombing, killing 2 and injuring 79 US servicemen;
Pan Am flight 103, blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland (259 dead);
The foiled Iraqi bombing of the US ambassador to Indonesia in 1991;
The World Trade Center bombing (mentioned above) where 6 died and more than 1,000 injured;
The 1993 attempted assassination of former president Bush in Kuwait by Iraqi intelligence agents;
Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 US servicemen and wounding 515 others, including 240 US servicemen;
US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Africa in 1998, killing 301 and injuring over 5,000;
USS Cole bombing in 2000, killing 17 and injuring 39;
And of course, September 11th, 3,025 killed in 3 hijacked airliners that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and a the crash of the third plane as US citizens made the first counter-strike and fought to regain control of the plane from the terrorists. Who knows how many more would have been killed at the US capitol or the White House had not brave American civilians been willing to fight back...

As noted in this space before, the war on terror is a battle for freedom and democracy the world over. For the radicals who perpetrate these atrocities, no amount of reasoning will stop the violence. They understand only the smoking barrel of a gun and the power of a bomb.

Despite claims by the Left to the contrary, Iraq,and 9-11 are linked directly as they both are part of the long timeline above. Iraq, as outlined recently on NRO, was directly linked to 9-11, and the toppling of Sadam Hussien has made the world safer.

There is a tiny bit of good news in this recent tragedy, however: (hat tip, RealClearPolitics) An excerpt:

More striking have been the condemnations from radical groups like Hamas, Hizbullah and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, all of which have denounced the bombings. Many of them have, of course, coupled their attacks on the terrorists with denunciations of American and British policies in the Middle East, particularly regarding Iraq and the Palestinian territories. But that kind of rhetoric is old news. What is new here is the fact that no one, not even Hamas, can continue to condone or even stay silent about these barbarities.

This post also appears on Blogger News Network.

London's 7/7 Bombings

2005-07-08T06:11:00.000-07:00

As I write this, the death toll from the 7/7 bombings in London have reached 50 souls. As we were all New Yorkers in the days after 9/11, we are now Londoners, just as we have agonized over the daily bombings in Iraq. Our hearts go out to the families of those killed or wounded, and we hope that those responsible are brought to justice swiftly. If foreign governments can be connected to this, then we must bring those countries to justice as well, if necessary, by the use of military force.

Why would someone do this? Amir Tahiri writes a guest opinion in today's Times (of London) that may shed light on this question.

(Hat tip, RealClearPolitics)

The Lost-Tooth Society

Political Perspectives

The Current Crisis in the Financial Markets: What Caused it?

Corporate Income Taxes Not Paid Grossly Exaggerated

Barack Obama: What the Left Expects of Him as President

Interesting Emails

Does it Matter what the Europeans think of America?

US Open 18 Hole Playoff: A Fan's Perspective

Is Anthropogenic Global Warming Real?

I've been busy...

The Estate Tax Debate

Global Warming Skeptics of the Scientific Kind

Low post rate

A Perfect Machine to a Socialist

May 1st Immigration Protests

Uno de Mayo

Bush Tax Cuts: Soaking the Rich

Leftism: Where Truth is a Fluid Concept

Immigration Reform

Impeach Bush??

Bush's News Conference Tuesday March 21, 2006

Global Warming

Free Market Capitalism versus Socialist Collectivism

Katrina Video and the AP "Clarification"

Katrina: The Democrats and Bush-Haters Still Don't Know the Difference Between "Breaching" and "Overtopping"

An Intelligent View on the Muslim Cartoons

Global Warming and the "Hockey Stick" Debate

A French Leftist Laments the Idea-less American Left

Tax Cuts Hurting the Deficit??

"Obscene Profits" by Major Oil Companies

Pre-Invasion Iraqi Documents

Final Report of David M. Barrett, Independent Council in the Cisneros Affair

The Best Quote I've Seen in a Long Time

The Housing Bubble Myth: A Construct of the Left?

More on the NSA Electronic Evesdropping Program

The President's Secret Surveillance Program

A Silent American Revolution

Able Danger and its Inconvenient Facts (as Ignored by the 9-11 Commission) **UPDATED**

The "Fraud" of the 2004 Ohio Election

Randy "Duke" Cunningham

Happy Thanksgiving to All

White Phosphorus: Was it Used by US Forces in Iraq?

How Different Would the World be Were it Not for Talk Radio and the Blogosphere?

Withdrawl from Iraq Voted Down in the US House

Iraq and WMD's

Opinion Polls on How the Bush Administration is Handling the War in Iraq

Able Danger and the 9-11 Commission

Note to Readers

Bush Lied! (Not!)

Bush's Veteran's Day Speech **UPDATE**

Veteran's Day

California Election Results

The Pinnacle of Foolishness

California Proposition 75: Public Employee Union Member's Dues for Political Campaigns **UPDATE #2

Blog Round Up

California Special Election: Statewide Ballot Recommendation Wrap-Up ***UPDATE***

"Plamegate" Update

California Special Election: Statewide Ballot Recommendation Wrap-Up

California Proposition 73: Parental Notification PRIOR to Abortion

California Proposition 78, 79, and 80: VOTE NO!

California Proposition 76: State Spending and School Funding Limits

California Proposition 75: Public Employee Union Member's Dues for Political Campaigns **UPDATED**

California Proposition 74: Teacher Tenure **Updated**

Is Atheism a Religion?

Mt. Soledad Cross Controversy

Harriet Miers

California Proposition 77: Redistricting

Postings

Depleted Uranium: Is it a Health Hazard?

Hurricane Forecasters Got it Right, But the AP Gets the Story Wrong

The Liberal Mind

Who's Fault is Katrina? **UPDATE**

Low post rate

Are You a Democrat, Republican, or Southern Republican?

Inside the Sheehan Camp: A Conservative's View

Costs of the Iraq War

Able Danger: A Third Source Corroborates Initial Claims

Interesting Stuff I Noticed Today

California Academic Performance Index (API)

Able Danger Getting Uglier by the Day

Able Danger and its Inconvenient Facts (as Ignored by the 9-11 Commission) UPDATED

Bush's Veteran's Day Speech UPDATE

California Special Election: Statewide Ballot Recommendation Wrap-Up UPDATE

California Proposition 75: Public Employee Union Member's Dues for Political Campaigns UPDATED

California Proposition 74: Teacher Tenure Updated

Who's Fault is Katrina? UPDATE

Able Danger: Were the 9/11 Hijackers Known to the US Government As Early As 1999? UPDATE