OpinionJournal.com's James Taranto wrote in this week's Best of the Web Today about a conversation on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" between the host and former Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg regarding the spreading of democracy in the Middle East. As has become painfully obvious to watch, Ms. Soderberg, like so many Democrats, is so desparate to return to power that she would prefer American policy failures, since she sees failure by America as an opportunity for Democrats. It is frankly embarassing to watch Democrats continue to hope for American failure so that they can 'rescue' us from ourselves. They can't stand the idea that the liberation of Iraq and the subsequent enthusiastic vote could well mark the beginning of a new era of democracy in the Arab world.
Already since the vote in Iraq we have seen the people of Lebanon rise up and force the upcoming withdrawl of Syrian forces, the presidential order in Egypt to hold real, democratic elections in that country for the first time ever, and the clear move toward further peace in the Israli-Palestinian conflict. In addition, since the Iraq war Libia has chosen to destroy it's WMD's and move back into the community of nations.
How Democrats could be sad over these developments is beyond reason, except that it is clear that they want, and could actually work for American failure to help them return to power. It is truely sad to see a once-great party turned into such a feable excuse for one today.
Here's an excerpt from Mr. Taranto's analysis of the show:
We've long been skeptical of Jon Stewart, but color us impressed. He managed to ambush this poor woman brutally, in a friendly interview. She was supposed to be promoting her book, and instead he got her to spend the entire interview debunking it (at least if we understood the book's thesis correctly from the very brief discussion of it up top).
She also admitted repeatedly that Democrats are hoping for American failure in the Middle East. To be sure, this is not true of all Democrats, Soderberg speaks only for herself, and she says she is ambivalent ("But as an American . . ."). But we do not question her expertise in assessing the prevailing mentality of her own party. No wonder Dems get so defensive about their patriotism.
Here is an excerpt from the show's transcript (by Taranto):
Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily.
Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something.
Soderberg: I think partly what's going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they're--people are sort of sick of that, and saying, "Wait a minute, that's a stretch too far." So part of what's going on is they're just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them.
Stewart: Do you think they're the guys to--do they understand what they've unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I'd almost--I'd have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings.
Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole--
Stewart: This could be unbelievable!
Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's--
Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's--
Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say.
Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.
Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us.
Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region.
Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had--
Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow!
Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is--
Stewart: You mean free love and that kind of stuff? [audience laughter] Like, free love, drugs?
Soderberg: If you're a terrorist, yeah.
Stewart: They are Baathists, are they--it looks like, I gotta say, it's almost like we're not going to have to invade Iran and Syria. They're gonna invade themselves at a certain point, no? Or is that completely naive?
Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see.
Stewart: Really? Hummus for everybody, for God's sakes.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Part-Time Legislatures
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to break the grip of special interests and the political parties on the state legislature by returning the legislature to a part-time schedule from the full-time schedule it currently holds.
A part-time legislature will also help return democracy to goverment. By making the legislature a part-time body, legislators will need to also have 'real' jobs when not in session. Since the legislature would revert to part-time status, they could be paid considerably less, and as well their paid staff expenses would be less. Most importantly, the legislature would have less time to create new regulation, and less time to overspend the people's tax money. It's certainly not a lock on getting government spending under control, but it will definitely help.
This may seem like a radical proposal, but we need only review the US Constitution to see that the framers of that document clearly envisioned only a part-time, citizen legislature. Article 1, Section 4, Clause 2 states:
"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day."
This clause was modified in 1933 by the 20th Amendment to read, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."
The framers, and later Congress and the states affirmed through passage of the 20th Amendment, the clear intent that the Congress "shall assemble at least once in every year". Twice has the idea of a part-time legislature been formalized in the Constitution. In fact, reading this passage suggests that the framers, and possibly the later Congress who proposed a modification to it, foresaw a legislature that met FOR ONE DAY only!
Another benefit of a part-time legislature is the idea of "citizen goverment". The framers clearly wanted the legislature to be comprised of average citizens. The "consent of the governed" is also codified in the Constitution, and the idea was that We the People would meet each year to write the laws underwhich we agreed to live. The executive branch, as its name implies, would 'execute' these laws, either as president of the United States or as a state governor.
If the framers could see our now-professional legislatures, they would be shocked.
[This post was also posted at Blogger News Network.]
A part-time legislature will also help return democracy to goverment. By making the legislature a part-time body, legislators will need to also have 'real' jobs when not in session. Since the legislature would revert to part-time status, they could be paid considerably less, and as well their paid staff expenses would be less. Most importantly, the legislature would have less time to create new regulation, and less time to overspend the people's tax money. It's certainly not a lock on getting government spending under control, but it will definitely help.
This may seem like a radical proposal, but we need only review the US Constitution to see that the framers of that document clearly envisioned only a part-time, citizen legislature. Article 1, Section 4, Clause 2 states:
"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day."
This clause was modified in 1933 by the 20th Amendment to read, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."
The framers, and later Congress and the states affirmed through passage of the 20th Amendment, the clear intent that the Congress "shall assemble at least once in every year". Twice has the idea of a part-time legislature been formalized in the Constitution. In fact, reading this passage suggests that the framers, and possibly the later Congress who proposed a modification to it, foresaw a legislature that met FOR ONE DAY only!
Another benefit of a part-time legislature is the idea of "citizen goverment". The framers clearly wanted the legislature to be comprised of average citizens. The "consent of the governed" is also codified in the Constitution, and the idea was that We the People would meet each year to write the laws underwhich we agreed to live. The executive branch, as its name implies, would 'execute' these laws, either as president of the United States or as a state governor.
If the framers could see our now-professional legislatures, they would be shocked.
[This post was also posted at Blogger News Network.]
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Racism, the GOP, and the Democratic Party
Deroy Murdock writes in Friday's National Review Online to describe the awful history of Democrats and racism. More importantly, he writes as we did in this space here and here several months ago how the Republican party was founded on the concept of protecting the rights of blacks in America. The Democrat party has been working feverishly since the 1960's to try to re-write their racist past. Mr. Murdock goes a long way to reverse that thinking. An excerpt:
Today marks the 90th anniversary of a very special White House ceremony. President Woodrow Wilson [Democrat] hosted his Cabinet and the entire U.S. Supreme Court for a screening of D. W. Griffith's racist masterpiece, Birth of a Nation. The executive mansion's first film presentation depicted, according to Griffith, the Ku Klux Klan's heroic, post-Civil War struggle against the menace of emancipated blacks, portrayed by white actors in black face. As black civil-rights leader W.E.B. DuBois explained: In Griffith's 1915 motion picture, "The freed man was represented either as an ignorant fool, a vicious rapist, a venal or unscrupulous politician, or a faithful idiot."
Here is the entire article.
Today marks the 90th anniversary of a very special White House ceremony. President Woodrow Wilson [Democrat] hosted his Cabinet and the entire U.S. Supreme Court for a screening of D. W. Griffith's racist masterpiece, Birth of a Nation. The executive mansion's first film presentation depicted, according to Griffith, the Ku Klux Klan's heroic, post-Civil War struggle against the menace of emancipated blacks, portrayed by white actors in black face. As black civil-rights leader W.E.B. DuBois explained: In Griffith's 1915 motion picture, "The freed man was represented either as an ignorant fool, a vicious rapist, a venal or unscrupulous politician, or a faithful idiot."
Here is the entire article.
The 2004 Elections are still going on in some places
For most of the country the election of last November is long over. However, there are a couple of places where it continues. We've been following the election "contest" in the Washington state governors race, wherein the election first won in several recounts by the Republican Dino Rossi, but then lost to the Democrat Christine Gregoire in the final hand recount. Rossi filed an contest of the election based on lost of troubling election problems. SoundPolitics seems to be a reasonably good source of information, albeit from a Republican point of view. It seems to us at the LTS that the liberal side of the disagreement is trying to ignore the election contest and hope it just blows over. It seems like they hope that the longer Gregoire is in office the more legitimate she'll become in the eyes of voters. But according to polling data, something like 60% of Washington voters want a re-vote.
Here in southern California we have similar election situations. In Oceanside, a small coastal city in northern San Diego County, one of the sitting council members won the mayoral race, leaving an open seat on the council. Since then the debate was centered on appointing a replacement or holding a special election. Some argued that the third-place vote getter in the two other council-seat races should be appointed, thus avoiding an expensive special election. Others favored letting the people decide in a special election, especially since fully two years remain on the vacant term. In the end, the now four-member council deadlocked 2-2 on all prospective appointees, forcing the special election. The fact that they could not decide clearly seems to us to justify the special election. Small town politics are sometimes the nastiest, and Oceanside, while over 170,000 in population, has certainly got some politics and back-room deal making going on! It should be interesting to see how the the campaign, and the election plays out in June.
In San Diego, the mayoral race was decided by about 2,000 votes in a city of 1.25 million residents. The dispute was over a write-in candidate in the general election. First, the city charter prohibits write-in's in the general election, to ensure that only two candidates appear on the ballot so that one is assured a majority. The city election ordinance, however, conflicts with the charter on this point. A post-election challenge to the viability of the write-in candidate was denied, since the challenge was filed AFTER the election. There was a second challenge since the vote tally fell in favor of the write-in, if ballots incorrectly marked were counted. The courts ruled that the ballots shall NOT be counted, because state law is very clear on this point. However, appeals are likely since the Democrats backing the write-in think the "intent of the voter" should be paramount despite the law. No one realistically expects the appeals to prevail, however, they will go forward.
Here in southern California we have similar election situations. In Oceanside, a small coastal city in northern San Diego County, one of the sitting council members won the mayoral race, leaving an open seat on the council. Since then the debate was centered on appointing a replacement or holding a special election. Some argued that the third-place vote getter in the two other council-seat races should be appointed, thus avoiding an expensive special election. Others favored letting the people decide in a special election, especially since fully two years remain on the vacant term. In the end, the now four-member council deadlocked 2-2 on all prospective appointees, forcing the special election. The fact that they could not decide clearly seems to us to justify the special election. Small town politics are sometimes the nastiest, and Oceanside, while over 170,000 in population, has certainly got some politics and back-room deal making going on! It should be interesting to see how the the campaign, and the election plays out in June.
In San Diego, the mayoral race was decided by about 2,000 votes in a city of 1.25 million residents. The dispute was over a write-in candidate in the general election. First, the city charter prohibits write-in's in the general election, to ensure that only two candidates appear on the ballot so that one is assured a majority. The city election ordinance, however, conflicts with the charter on this point. A post-election challenge to the viability of the write-in candidate was denied, since the challenge was filed AFTER the election. There was a second challenge since the vote tally fell in favor of the write-in, if ballots incorrectly marked were counted. The courts ruled that the ballots shall NOT be counted, because state law is very clear on this point. However, appeals are likely since the Democrats backing the write-in think the "intent of the voter" should be paramount despite the law. No one realistically expects the appeals to prevail, however, they will go forward.
Friday, February 18, 2005
New Study throws a wrench in the "global warming skeptic" point of view
A new study by a group of scientists at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography says that global warming is real, and its strongest effects can be seen in the oceans, not the atmosphere.
If this study can withstand scrutiny, it surely 'throws a wrench' into the argument by skeptics on the subject. I haven't had a chance to review the report nor any reviews of the report, but on the face of it, it seems likely to bring around those (like me) who have been highly skeptical of global warming.
Here is a link.
If this study can withstand scrutiny, it surely 'throws a wrench' into the argument by skeptics on the subject. I haven't had a chance to review the report nor any reviews of the report, but on the face of it, it seems likely to bring around those (like me) who have been highly skeptical of global warming.
Here is a link.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Global Warming article from the Wall Street Journal
No time for comment now, but saw this long article worthy of reading.
***UPDATE***
The above is a great article (via Greenie Watch) that does an excellent job of illustrating the Hockey Stick debate (see my posts below as well).
Given that today the Kyoto Protocols take effect, it would also be wise to consider what Kyoto really is: a wealth transfer from the rich nations to the poor. The countries who have the most, and pollute the most are being asked to spend billions of dollars to clean up, while the poorest nations can continue to pollute. The root of the debate about global warming, at least politically, is money.
***UPDATE***
The above is a great article (via Greenie Watch) that does an excellent job of illustrating the Hockey Stick debate (see my posts below as well).
Given that today the Kyoto Protocols take effect, it would also be wise to consider what Kyoto really is: a wealth transfer from the rich nations to the poor. The countries who have the most, and pollute the most are being asked to spend billions of dollars to clean up, while the poorest nations can continue to pollute. The root of the debate about global warming, at least politically, is money.
Southern Ocean Changes
A multinational team of scientists have discovered significant changes in salinity and temperature of the southern ocean, according to a recent article on Yahoo.com. Using a network of free-floating submersible measurement robots, the scientific team surveyed roughly 3,000 square kilometers of the southern ocean to measure deep water temperature and salinity.
The team leader, Australian Steve Lintour, described how the deep water of the southern ocean was found to be much colder and less salty that ten years prior. The Yahoo article quotes Mr. Lintour as saying,
"Ocean circulation is a big influence on global climate, so it is critical that we understand why this is happening and why it is happening so quickly," Rintoul said after he and his team docked at Hobart on the Australian island state of Tasmania.
"The surprise was just how rapidly the deepest parts of the ocean are changing, at depths of four or five kilometers (13,200-16,500 feet) below the sea surface," Rintoul said.
"Whether its a natural cycle that takes place over many decades, or it's climate change, it's an indication that the deep ocean can respond much more rapidly to changes that are happening near the surface than we believed possible," he said. "
It is not clear, according to Mr. Lintour, if the changes seen in the ocean temperatures or salinity levels are human-induced changes or part of a normal cycle.
From our high school science classes we all remember the concept of "thermal inertia", which is the ability of a body to resist rapid changes in temperature. Water has a very good thermal inertia, so whatever is the cause of this may be something big and interesting. On the other hand, it may simply be the natural cycling of currents that we are only not beginning to recognize. Just like global warming.
Another point to consider (You knew I couldn't resist!) is that it seems to be well-established science that the oceans 'drive' the atmospheric weather, not the reverse. In other words, the oceans influence the atmosphere by a far larger degree than the atmosphere influences the ocean. That makes sense since the thermal inertial of air is significantly lower than the thermal inertia of water.
As you know if you've read my previous posts, I am a global warming skeptic, and data such as this fuels my skepticism.
The team leader, Australian Steve Lintour, described how the deep water of the southern ocean was found to be much colder and less salty that ten years prior. The Yahoo article quotes Mr. Lintour as saying,
"Ocean circulation is a big influence on global climate, so it is critical that we understand why this is happening and why it is happening so quickly," Rintoul said after he and his team docked at Hobart on the Australian island state of Tasmania.
"The surprise was just how rapidly the deepest parts of the ocean are changing, at depths of four or five kilometers (13,200-16,500 feet) below the sea surface," Rintoul said.
"Whether its a natural cycle that takes place over many decades, or it's climate change, it's an indication that the deep ocean can respond much more rapidly to changes that are happening near the surface than we believed possible," he said. "
It is not clear, according to Mr. Lintour, if the changes seen in the ocean temperatures or salinity levels are human-induced changes or part of a normal cycle.
From our high school science classes we all remember the concept of "thermal inertia", which is the ability of a body to resist rapid changes in temperature. Water has a very good thermal inertia, so whatever is the cause of this may be something big and interesting. On the other hand, it may simply be the natural cycling of currents that we are only not beginning to recognize. Just like global warming.
Another point to consider (You knew I couldn't resist!) is that it seems to be well-established science that the oceans 'drive' the atmospheric weather, not the reverse. In other words, the oceans influence the atmosphere by a far larger degree than the atmosphere influences the ocean. That makes sense since the thermal inertial of air is significantly lower than the thermal inertia of water.
As you know if you've read my previous posts, I am a global warming skeptic, and data such as this fuels my skepticism.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The Global Warming Debate Rages On
I know, I know... you're all getting tired of hearing about global warming. But this subject is just too important to let it go. Just like with the Vietnam war, where the mainstream media (MSM) told us one thing, but the truth was something different, you'll think that human activity is solely responsible for global warming if you listen solely to the MSM. While no one here at the LTS is a scientist, and certainly I am not, we remain skeptics (if you haven't already figured that out) on the subject.
It would be so much easier to simply shut up and go along with the mainstream view on this, but I get very suspicous of 'coincidences'. The fact that those who see humans and our capitalistic society as evil and wrong now have this convenient tool to use to try to bring down all that we have built. That is just too coincidental for me. I don't know for sure that global warming isn't caused by human activity, and it seems logical that we contribute to it.
For that matter, if anyone wants to have a discussion on ways to cut the levels of pollutants we put into the environment, I am ready. I want a clean environment as much as anyone, but it should be done in a reasonable and responsible way. To try to shout down opposition to the prevailing view of the causes of global warming, as it seems so many are want to do is irresponsible at the least. To not question the veracity of science is also irresponsible. Many scientists in the field of climate change DO question the veracity of the prevailing view, and part of our purpose here at the LTS is to try to bring those points of view into focus.
Once such view we saw recently supports our skepticism: (Via Greenie Watch)
At a recent global warming conference in Exeter called by UK prime minister Tony Blair, all the usual fears were aired. Yet real debate about climate change seems to be strictly prohibited.
The week before, another conference organised by the Scientific Alliance at London's Royal Institution raised critical questions about the global warming thesis. This time the Royal Society's president Sir Bob May received frontpage coverage for arguing that the event would be biased and dangerous.
'On one hand we have the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], the rest of the world's major scientific organisations, and the government's chief scientific adviser, all pointing to the need to cut emissions', he wrote. 'On the other we have a small band of sceptics, including lobbyists funded by the US oil industry, a sci-fi writer, and the Daily Mail, who deny the scientists are right. It is reminiscent of the tobacco lobby's attempts to persuade us that smoking does not cause lung cancer. There is no danger this lobby will influence the scientists. But they don't need to. It is the influence on the media that is so poisonous.' (1)
But in fact, those labelled 'sceptics' and those regarded as 'mainstream' actually share much in common. Professor Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), usually regarded as a sceptic but also a lead author for the IPCC, agrees that there is consensus among scientists. That consensus is as follows:
1. While there are inconsistencies in the temperature data, it is very likely that the world has got a bit warmer over the past 100 years - 0.6 degrees Celsius, on average, give or take 0.2 degrees either way.
2. That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the warmer the world will tend to get.
3. That human activity has led to a significant increase in carbon dioxide levels, from 280 parts per million in the centuries before 1750, to 380 parts per million now.
4. Economic trends will tend to further increase carbon dioxide levels - so it is very plausible that the world will get warmer in the coming decades, all other things being equal.
Here is the whole article.
It would be so much easier to simply shut up and go along with the mainstream view on this, but I get very suspicous of 'coincidences'. The fact that those who see humans and our capitalistic society as evil and wrong now have this convenient tool to use to try to bring down all that we have built. That is just too coincidental for me. I don't know for sure that global warming isn't caused by human activity, and it seems logical that we contribute to it.
For that matter, if anyone wants to have a discussion on ways to cut the levels of pollutants we put into the environment, I am ready. I want a clean environment as much as anyone, but it should be done in a reasonable and responsible way. To try to shout down opposition to the prevailing view of the causes of global warming, as it seems so many are want to do is irresponsible at the least. To not question the veracity of science is also irresponsible. Many scientists in the field of climate change DO question the veracity of the prevailing view, and part of our purpose here at the LTS is to try to bring those points of view into focus.
Once such view we saw recently supports our skepticism: (Via Greenie Watch)
At a recent global warming conference in Exeter called by UK prime minister Tony Blair, all the usual fears were aired. Yet real debate about climate change seems to be strictly prohibited.
The week before, another conference organised by the Scientific Alliance at London's Royal Institution raised critical questions about the global warming thesis. This time the Royal Society's president Sir Bob May received frontpage coverage for arguing that the event would be biased and dangerous.
'On one hand we have the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], the rest of the world's major scientific organisations, and the government's chief scientific adviser, all pointing to the need to cut emissions', he wrote. 'On the other we have a small band of sceptics, including lobbyists funded by the US oil industry, a sci-fi writer, and the Daily Mail, who deny the scientists are right. It is reminiscent of the tobacco lobby's attempts to persuade us that smoking does not cause lung cancer. There is no danger this lobby will influence the scientists. But they don't need to. It is the influence on the media that is so poisonous.' (1)
But in fact, those labelled 'sceptics' and those regarded as 'mainstream' actually share much in common. Professor Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), usually regarded as a sceptic but also a lead author for the IPCC, agrees that there is consensus among scientists. That consensus is as follows:
1. While there are inconsistencies in the temperature data, it is very likely that the world has got a bit warmer over the past 100 years - 0.6 degrees Celsius, on average, give or take 0.2 degrees either way.
2. That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the warmer the world will tend to get.
3. That human activity has led to a significant increase in carbon dioxide levels, from 280 parts per million in the centuries before 1750, to 380 parts per million now.
4. Economic trends will tend to further increase carbon dioxide levels - so it is very plausible that the world will get warmer in the coming decades, all other things being equal.
Here is the whole article.
Put your money where your votes are
We saw a new website organized by our friends on the Left listing companies they feel are either "Blue" or "Red", like "Blue states" or "Red States" from the past election. They want you to ony patronize "blue" companies, but people of all political stripes can use the list to buy either Red, Blue, or in between.
We'll leave it to you to decide.
We'll leave it to you to decide.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
The Bush tax cuts are working
William P. Kucewisz writes in today's National Review Online a very interesting article describing how the Bush tax cuts, particularly the June, 2003 cuts, rallied the capital markets and generated big increases in investments. He reports that "net nonresidential capital formation has risen 63%" since the enaction of the June 2003 tax cuts.
Here is his opening paragraph:
"The Bush tax cuts of 2 years ago continue to lay the foundation for a prolonged economic expansion, owing to a conspicuous shift in private expenditures from consumption to investment. The June 2003 tax cuts, in fact, are functioning precisely as promised — boosting GDP to the benefit of all Americans, regardless of income. It’s one of the marvels of supply-side fiscal policy. By raising the incentive to invest, marginal tax-rate reductions augment the ratio of financial capital to labor capital, thus raising labor productivity and, in turn, accelerating growth."
He compares this phenominal growth to those of the Clinton years, writing,
"Since mid-2003, annualized nonresidential capital growth has averaged nearly 30 percent, far surpassing the Clinton-era mean of 13 percent and the 1946-2004 norm of 8 percent."
He also mentions one our favorite topics, that the information technology boom of the 1990's, and the subsequent capital investment made by industry, not the Clinton tax increases of 1993 that brought about the "boom" of the 1990's, writing,
"The pronounced rise in net private nonresidential capital formation in the 7-year period commencing in 1993 wasn’t initiated by the Clinton tax hikes of that year, which eventually caused federal revenues to exceed 21.1 percent of nominal GDP, an all-time high, versus a 1946-2004 mean of 18.1 percent. The investment boom of the 1990s was instead initiated by an exogenous factor — i.e., the IT revolution. A mighty Schumpeterian gale swept across the business world in the form of PCs, the Internet, and other information technology. Competitive pressures demanded that businesses invest heavily in IT. Ergo, private fixed non-housing investment climbed in the last decade despite the 1993 tax increases."
He added this:
"Democrats, however, aided by a pliant (and largely economically illiterate) Washington press corps, continue to foist the fiction that the Clinton tax hikes produced the 1990s boom by closing the federal budget deficit. This is patent nonsense. For a start, they’ve got the cause-effect deficit-GDP relationship backwards: The deficit closed because economic growth quickened, not the other way ’round."
Read the whole article here.
Here is his opening paragraph:
"The Bush tax cuts of 2 years ago continue to lay the foundation for a prolonged economic expansion, owing to a conspicuous shift in private expenditures from consumption to investment. The June 2003 tax cuts, in fact, are functioning precisely as promised — boosting GDP to the benefit of all Americans, regardless of income. It’s one of the marvels of supply-side fiscal policy. By raising the incentive to invest, marginal tax-rate reductions augment the ratio of financial capital to labor capital, thus raising labor productivity and, in turn, accelerating growth."
He compares this phenominal growth to those of the Clinton years, writing,
"Since mid-2003, annualized nonresidential capital growth has averaged nearly 30 percent, far surpassing the Clinton-era mean of 13 percent and the 1946-2004 norm of 8 percent."
He also mentions one our favorite topics, that the information technology boom of the 1990's, and the subsequent capital investment made by industry, not the Clinton tax increases of 1993 that brought about the "boom" of the 1990's, writing,
"The pronounced rise in net private nonresidential capital formation in the 7-year period commencing in 1993 wasn’t initiated by the Clinton tax hikes of that year, which eventually caused federal revenues to exceed 21.1 percent of nominal GDP, an all-time high, versus a 1946-2004 mean of 18.1 percent. The investment boom of the 1990s was instead initiated by an exogenous factor — i.e., the IT revolution. A mighty Schumpeterian gale swept across the business world in the form of PCs, the Internet, and other information technology. Competitive pressures demanded that businesses invest heavily in IT. Ergo, private fixed non-housing investment climbed in the last decade despite the 1993 tax increases."
He added this:
"Democrats, however, aided by a pliant (and largely economically illiterate) Washington press corps, continue to foist the fiction that the Clinton tax hikes produced the 1990s boom by closing the federal budget deficit. This is patent nonsense. For a start, they’ve got the cause-effect deficit-GDP relationship backwards: The deficit closed because economic growth quickened, not the other way ’round."
Read the whole article here.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
The "Hockey Stick" debate again
John Ray at Greenie Watch has a great link to the debate about the Hockey Stick debate. It seems that the two Canadians we discussed here have been having a quite a debate about the whole matter with the original author of the study that described the "Hockey Stick", which has become the linchpin for the IPCC papers and the very foundation of the prevailing view of global warming. Dr. Ray sums it up nicely:
The original hockey-stick team now seem to be ignoring most of the data and hanging their whole case on a single sample of long-lived desert trees -- bristlecone pines. That what happens in one desert might not represent the whole climate of the earth is obvious to anyone who knows how great regional climate variations can be. Due to local effects, one place can be cooling while the other is warming and vice versa.
Obviously, we are not scientists, but we are struck by the fact that the author of the original Hockey Stick study, Michael Mann, who publishes at Realclimate.org, seem to attack their critics above for being statisticians, not scientists. However, their criticisms are how the data was analysed statistically, their field of expertise!
Here is a link to the original work.
The original hockey-stick team now seem to be ignoring most of the data and hanging their whole case on a single sample of long-lived desert trees -- bristlecone pines. That what happens in one desert might not represent the whole climate of the earth is obvious to anyone who knows how great regional climate variations can be. Due to local effects, one place can be cooling while the other is warming and vice versa.
Obviously, we are not scientists, but we are struck by the fact that the author of the original Hockey Stick study, Michael Mann, who publishes at Realclimate.org, seem to attack their critics above for being statisticians, not scientists. However, their criticisms are how the data was analysed statistically, their field of expertise!
Here is a link to the original work.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Social Security Reforms
We are astonished over the amount of fear and consternation from the Left on the president's proposed reforms to Social Security (SS). It was just a few years ago, in fact, that the Left was shouting about the need to "save SS". They complained, especially Al Gore during his failed presidential campaign in 2000, about the need for a "lockbox" for SS, and that the system would be broke for future generations if major reforms were not undertaken. It seems clear that his concerns were mostly for raids from the Treasury, but there was also the strong message that the system in general was 'broken' and needed fixing.
Now that the Democrats are even further out of power, however, they claim that the system is NOT broken. Their fear, of course, is that now they don't have much power to stop any reforms that might wind their way through the halls of Congress and to the president's desk. They don't want the Republicans, and especially not George Bush to be able to take the credit for reforms that might actually work, as that would further erode their claim to be the protectors of SS from the 'evils of capitalism'.
Let's face it, the reforms proposed by the president are mild; Allow middle aged and younger worker the opportunity—if they CHOOSE—to divert up to 1/3rd of their 6.2% payroll tax for SS into private accounts. The amount of money is capped at only $1,000 in 2009, and will raise by about $100 each year thereafter.
The plan itself would work like the Thrift Savings Plan, which has been available to federal employees for years and is like a 401-k plan. There are several investment choices, diversified like mutual funds, and even includes a fund that invests in more conservative holdings as the worker approaches retirement.
Apparently many people are afraid of investing, and know little about it. That is hard for us at the LTS to believe, given the amount of information available to the average person these days. Most of us who work have some sort of a 401-k plan available through our employers, and IRA's have been around now for almost 20 years. The internet, which brings you this incredibly informative space, is loaded with financial advice, information, and results. Free seminars on investing are everywhere. There is no excuse for not being informed on the ins and outs of investing basics.
We support a plan that allows workers to invest part or all of their payroll taxes for SS into private accounts, and will monitor the debate and report facts and offer opinions on what is being proposed.
Now that the Democrats are even further out of power, however, they claim that the system is NOT broken. Their fear, of course, is that now they don't have much power to stop any reforms that might wind their way through the halls of Congress and to the president's desk. They don't want the Republicans, and especially not George Bush to be able to take the credit for reforms that might actually work, as that would further erode their claim to be the protectors of SS from the 'evils of capitalism'.
Let's face it, the reforms proposed by the president are mild; Allow middle aged and younger worker the opportunity—if they CHOOSE—to divert up to 1/3rd of their 6.2% payroll tax for SS into private accounts. The amount of money is capped at only $1,000 in 2009, and will raise by about $100 each year thereafter.
The plan itself would work like the Thrift Savings Plan, which has been available to federal employees for years and is like a 401-k plan. There are several investment choices, diversified like mutual funds, and even includes a fund that invests in more conservative holdings as the worker approaches retirement.
Apparently many people are afraid of investing, and know little about it. That is hard for us at the LTS to believe, given the amount of information available to the average person these days. Most of us who work have some sort of a 401-k plan available through our employers, and IRA's have been around now for almost 20 years. The internet, which brings you this incredibly informative space, is loaded with financial advice, information, and results. Free seminars on investing are everywhere. There is no excuse for not being informed on the ins and outs of investing basics.
We support a plan that allows workers to invest part or all of their payroll taxes for SS into private accounts, and will monitor the debate and report facts and offer opinions on what is being proposed.
Friday, February 04, 2005
How do you like our new look?
The Lost Tooth Society felt that a change was in order, so we downloaded a new blog template, modified it to meet our needs, and viola, here it is! We hope you like its easier-reading style, plus for all you "linkers", we now feature "permalinks", where you can link directly to a post.
Let us know ho you like it!
Let us know ho you like it!
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Still More on Global Warming
Greenie Watch has some great links on global warming, specifically dealing with the "hockey stick" debate. "The Hockey Stick", for those of you who haven't followed so closely the debate on global warming, refers to a study from the late 1990's describing the rise of global temperatures as a hockey stick laid on its side with the blade at the right, and pointing up. The long, flat stick portion is the state of global temperature for the last 1,000 years, and the blade, where the line spikes up dramatically, is the years since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800's. This study is the very foundation of the common view of global warming, hence anything that undermines it is a threat to the global warming lobby.
Recently two Canadians have been publishing new examinations of the underlying data used to create the Hockey Stick that show serious flaws in the math, which is discussed in more detail HERE.
Here's an excerpt:
The hockey-stick image has appeared in countless documents and hundreds of speeches. The opening graphic in the recently-published Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report reproduces the Mann chart as the main springboard to hundreds of pages on climate risks in the Arctic. It is also the core justification for the Kyoto Protocol, which comes into effect on Feb. 16.
Until now, criticisms of the hockey stick have been dismissed as fringe reports from marginal global warming skeptics. Today, however, the critical work of two Canadian researchers, Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at Guelph University, and Toronto consultant Stephen McIntyre, will be published by Geophysical Research Letters, the prestigious journal that published one of the early versions of Michael Mann's 1,000-year tracking of Northern Hemisphere temperatures,
Publication in Geophysical Research sets McIntyre and McKitrick's analysis and conclusions in direct opposition to the Mann research. Their criticism can no longer be dismissed as if it were untested research posted on obscure Web sites by crank outsiders. Their work is now a full challenge to the dominant theme of the entire climate and global warming movement.
Recently two Canadians have been publishing new examinations of the underlying data used to create the Hockey Stick that show serious flaws in the math, which is discussed in more detail HERE.
Here's an excerpt:
The hockey-stick image has appeared in countless documents and hundreds of speeches. The opening graphic in the recently-published Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report reproduces the Mann chart as the main springboard to hundreds of pages on climate risks in the Arctic. It is also the core justification for the Kyoto Protocol, which comes into effect on Feb. 16.
Until now, criticisms of the hockey stick have been dismissed as fringe reports from marginal global warming skeptics. Today, however, the critical work of two Canadian researchers, Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at Guelph University, and Toronto consultant Stephen McIntyre, will be published by Geophysical Research Letters, the prestigious journal that published one of the early versions of Michael Mann's 1,000-year tracking of Northern Hemisphere temperatures,
Publication in Geophysical Research sets McIntyre and McKitrick's analysis and conclusions in direct opposition to the Mann research. Their criticism can no longer be dismissed as if it were untested research posted on obscure Web sites by crank outsiders. Their work is now a full challenge to the dominant theme of the entire climate and global warming movement.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Historic Day for Democracy and Liberty
History will mark today, January 30th, 2005, as the day democracy gained its first foothold in the Arab world. Despite threats of bombings and beheadings, the people of Iraq stood in long lines to cast their first-ever free ballots. Early figures place turnout at about 72% nationwide, a figure far higher than the naysayers would have thought possible. In fact, the turnout, if these numbers standup over the next few weeks, are higher than the best voter turnout ever seen in a presidential election here in the United States.
It must be very difficult for those on the left who so wanted this election to be a 'bust'. But once again, freedom and democracy win over hate and fear.
It must be very difficult for those on the left who so wanted this election to be a 'bust'. But once again, freedom and democracy win over hate and fear.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
More on Global Warming
A discussion of the economic component of the debate on global warming, by David Henderson, visiting professor at the Westminster Business School.
Excerpt: (credit: Greenie Watch)
In an official document headed 'Principles governing IPCC work', which can be viewed on its website, the role of the Panel is specified as being:
... to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impact and options for adaptation and mitigation. (Italics added).
Thus the responsibilities of the IPCC include that of advising and informing its member governments on the economic factors that may bear on 'human-induced climate change'.
The economic aspects are sometimes viewed as incidental or peripheral. For example, in a recent exchange in the House of Lords (15 July 2004) Lord Whitty, replying for the government to a question put by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson (now Lord Lawson of Blaby), said that
... the scientific basis for, and the physical effects of, climate change are virtually unchallenged by any serious scientists. The economic calculations are subject to some degree of dispute. I am happy to urge people to engage in discussing these questions, but they do not undermine or threaten the basic conclusion that, unless we do something, this world will get dangerously warmer.
This is a misleading statement. For one thing, economic considerations, and criteria, are relevant to deciding what form the 'something' that 'we do' should take. For another, projections of global warming are based on projected atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which in turn are based on the projections of CO2 and related emissions which emerge from the SRES; and the emissions figures themselves are linked to SRES projections of world output, world energy use, and the carbon-intensity of energy sources. In these latter projections economic factors are central. True, they act in conjunction with demographic and technical factors, but these are themselves subject to economic influences. If and in so far as the treatment of these latter influences is open to question, the basis for IPCC projections of global average temperature changes cannot be taken as assured.
Here is the whole article.
Excerpt: (credit: Greenie Watch)
In an official document headed 'Principles governing IPCC work', which can be viewed on its website, the role of the Panel is specified as being:
... to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impact and options for adaptation and mitigation. (Italics added).
Thus the responsibilities of the IPCC include that of advising and informing its member governments on the economic factors that may bear on 'human-induced climate change'.
The economic aspects are sometimes viewed as incidental or peripheral. For example, in a recent exchange in the House of Lords (15 July 2004) Lord Whitty, replying for the government to a question put by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson (now Lord Lawson of Blaby), said that
... the scientific basis for, and the physical effects of, climate change are virtually unchallenged by any serious scientists. The economic calculations are subject to some degree of dispute. I am happy to urge people to engage in discussing these questions, but they do not undermine or threaten the basic conclusion that, unless we do something, this world will get dangerously warmer.
This is a misleading statement. For one thing, economic considerations, and criteria, are relevant to deciding what form the 'something' that 'we do' should take. For another, projections of global warming are based on projected atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which in turn are based on the projections of CO2 and related emissions which emerge from the SRES; and the emissions figures themselves are linked to SRES projections of world output, world energy use, and the carbon-intensity of energy sources. In these latter projections economic factors are central. True, they act in conjunction with demographic and technical factors, but these are themselves subject to economic influences. If and in so far as the treatment of these latter influences is open to question, the basis for IPCC projections of global average temperature changes cannot be taken as assured.
Here is the whole article.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Global Warming
The debate over Global Warming has been heating up, so-to-speak, and we at the LTS have been following the developments with keen interest. On the one hand, we have what seems to be a majority of the scientific community accepting as fact the the view that global warming is a primarily a human-caused reality through our burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent release of CO2 in the atmosphere. On the other hand, there is a significant yet minority body of scientists who believe that the Earth's climate is far too complex to fully understand, let alone make definitive statements about what we should do or not do about it. That the atmosphere is getting slightly warmer there is no doubt, but concensus has not, in our view, been reached on whether this is a natural or human induced condition.
The "Bible" on global warming from the majority view is the Third Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The IPCC is a UN-sponsored organization charged with investigating global warming and its causes. This report (the 4th is due soon) says essentially that the Earth is warming, and that human activity is primarily responsible. The IPCC and their reports are the basis for the Kyoto Protocols, an international treaty not yet (and not likely to be) ratified by the United States. [For more detail the IPCC website has links to all their reports.]
However, new research has lead some scientists to suggest other causes of global warming. One possible alternative is solar activity, usually sunspot activity. Increased sun spot activity coincides with past warm periods, and could be part or all of the warming source seen today.
Another alternative could be changes in ocean temperatures as known currents shift. Changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Southern Decadal Oscillation (SDO), and others can raise or lower atmospheric temperatures.
Some climatologists claim that the models used to predict climate change are seriously flawed, and don't accurately take into account aerosols in the atmosphere.
This a complex debate, and since we are not scientists we can only report what we see, hear, and read about the subject. We will continue to report on this important subject as the situation warrants.
Some links that can help inform on this important subject:
GlobalWarming.org
JunkScience.com
PittsburghLIVE.com
ReasonOnline
RealClimate.org
Reid Bryson
Competitive Edge Institute
IPCC Scientist withdraws from panel under protest
The "Bible" on global warming from the majority view is the Third Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The IPCC is a UN-sponsored organization charged with investigating global warming and its causes. This report (the 4th is due soon) says essentially that the Earth is warming, and that human activity is primarily responsible. The IPCC and their reports are the basis for the Kyoto Protocols, an international treaty not yet (and not likely to be) ratified by the United States. [For more detail the IPCC website has links to all their reports.]
However, new research has lead some scientists to suggest other causes of global warming. One possible alternative is solar activity, usually sunspot activity. Increased sun spot activity coincides with past warm periods, and could be part or all of the warming source seen today.
Another alternative could be changes in ocean temperatures as known currents shift. Changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Southern Decadal Oscillation (SDO), and others can raise or lower atmospheric temperatures.
Some climatologists claim that the models used to predict climate change are seriously flawed, and don't accurately take into account aerosols in the atmosphere.
This a complex debate, and since we are not scientists we can only report what we see, hear, and read about the subject. We will continue to report on this important subject as the situation warrants.
Some links that can help inform on this important subject:
GlobalWarming.org
JunkScience.com
PittsburghLIVE.com
ReasonOnline
RealClimate.org
Reid Bryson
Competitive Edge Institute
IPCC Scientist withdraws from panel under protest
Does the Mainstream Media Report Accurately on Iraq?
We have often written about our dissatisfaction with the mainstream media (MSM) and its reporting from Iraq, but we were stunned when we saw this long but very astute commentary in the World Tribune by the US Army's LTC Tim Ryan. LTC Ryan lays out specific examples of why the MSM is not only not giving the American People and the world the whole story, but that they are actually impairing the Coalition's ability to complete their work. It is our belief that the MSM doesn't necessarily do this consciously, but that since they are generally biased to the left, that they believe the war should be going wrong and seek validation of their beliefs. The Rathergate story is similar. Since Dan Rather and CBS News believed the story, they didn't want to let the facts cloud their journalistic judgement.
Here is the full article.
Here is the full article.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Saturday, January 15, 2005
It's been a long time since our last post
Yes, it has been. We had to take a much-needed break from blogging since we exhausted ourselves during the election.
With our batteries now recharged, we will resume blogging at least on a weekly basis. So come back for more fun soon!
With our batteries now recharged, we will resume blogging at least on a weekly basis. So come back for more fun soon!
Friday, December 03, 2004
"Bush is Playing Chess" —Dick Morris
As Dick Morris put it so brilliantly prior to the election on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor,
"Bush is playing chess and Kerry is playing checkers."
That statement was referring to the election, of course, but may be applicable to the Iran nuclear situaion as well. Despite all the rhetoric from the left about what an idiot George W. Bush is, he keeps beating them at every turn. If he is such an idiot, why is it he keeps winning?
In retrospect, the Iraq war looks like a brilliant chess move, the second such move after taking out al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obviously, there were clear, immediate, and justified reasons for those actions separately, but when the security and future stability of the region are also taken into account, the overarching strategy reveals itself.
Does anyone doubt that Iran would have pursued a nuclear weapons program regardless of the coalition invasion of Iraq? Of course they would have, no matter what happened in Iraq. Was anyone even talking seriously about Iran and the potential for their development of nuclear weapons BEFORE the invasion of Iraq? The coalition certainly did Iraq a favor in removing Saddam, and has freed them to build weapons for potential use on Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and even parts of southeastern Europe. Given the Iranian nuclear situation, we feel better having American armed forces, particularly American air power, now in position on both sides of Iran, along with carrier-based air power in the Persian Gulf.
"Bush is playing chess and Kerry is playing checkers."
That statement was referring to the election, of course, but may be applicable to the Iran nuclear situaion as well. Despite all the rhetoric from the left about what an idiot George W. Bush is, he keeps beating them at every turn. If he is such an idiot, why is it he keeps winning?
In retrospect, the Iraq war looks like a brilliant chess move, the second such move after taking out al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obviously, there were clear, immediate, and justified reasons for those actions separately, but when the security and future stability of the region are also taken into account, the overarching strategy reveals itself.
Does anyone doubt that Iran would have pursued a nuclear weapons program regardless of the coalition invasion of Iraq? Of course they would have, no matter what happened in Iraq. Was anyone even talking seriously about Iran and the potential for their development of nuclear weapons BEFORE the invasion of Iraq? The coalition certainly did Iraq a favor in removing Saddam, and has freed them to build weapons for potential use on Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and even parts of southeastern Europe. Given the Iranian nuclear situation, we feel better having American armed forces, particularly American air power, now in position on both sides of Iran, along with carrier-based air power in the Persian Gulf.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Democrats and the Election
We are all growing weary of the endless election analysis, but an article in The Weekly Standard caught our eye. It is a very succinct dissection of the poor efforts of the Democrats to woo voters in middle-class America, but it illustrates an even deeper and more insurmountable problem for the Democrats in the future.
The problem Democrats face, and is well described in the article, is that the party that once represented working class America is now the party of the rich, limosine liberals from the coasts, and the far left-leaning progressives who look back fondly on the glory days of socialism in the first part of the last century. It is these two groups, along with the elitists of higher education and their accomplices in the Old Media who now control the party. They hate corporate America, a significant source of jobs and income for millions of average Americans. They want to stop all logging, oil exploration, and new housing construction to 'save the environment', but at the cost of the jobs of many of the working class Americans they claim to want to help!
While these bi-coastal elites jet across "flyover county" in their fuel-guzzeling private jets, and are chauffered around Manhattan and Beverly Hills in their equally gas-guzzleing super stretch limosines, they can't understand why "the red neck masses" below them or waiting at the bus stops as they streak by don't support their brand of politics.
Given how these groups have taken control of the party, we don't see how the Democratic party can ever regain their lost political power. Only when the true Democrats in the tradition of Democrats in the past rise up and wrest control of their party from these elites will the Democratic party be a force for positive good.
Here is the link to the article.
The problem Democrats face, and is well described in the article, is that the party that once represented working class America is now the party of the rich, limosine liberals from the coasts, and the far left-leaning progressives who look back fondly on the glory days of socialism in the first part of the last century. It is these two groups, along with the elitists of higher education and their accomplices in the Old Media who now control the party. They hate corporate America, a significant source of jobs and income for millions of average Americans. They want to stop all logging, oil exploration, and new housing construction to 'save the environment', but at the cost of the jobs of many of the working class Americans they claim to want to help!
While these bi-coastal elites jet across "flyover county" in their fuel-guzzeling private jets, and are chauffered around Manhattan and Beverly Hills in their equally gas-guzzleing super stretch limosines, they can't understand why "the red neck masses" below them or waiting at the bus stops as they streak by don't support their brand of politics.
Given how these groups have taken control of the party, we don't see how the Democratic party can ever regain their lost political power. Only when the true Democrats in the tradition of Democrats in the past rise up and wrest control of their party from these elites will the Democratic party be a force for positive good.
Here is the link to the article.
((Kofi Annan+the UN) x (most of Europe+Sadam Hussein))/Oil for Food = Corruption
With the election now past, and the future of Iraq riding on the upcoming elections in January, the long-simmering Oil-for-Food (OFF) scandal is beginning to heat up. The pot may soon boil over, spilling out corruption of the highest order, along with several deposed world leaders.
Senator Norm Coleman, chaiman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, wrote in today's Wall Street Journal Online that he believes Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, should resign. Senator Coleman's committee has been investigating the OFF scandal for seven months now, and as many of us have suspected, and as the Duelfer Report (discussed here) suggested, the OFF program turned into the biggest get-rich-quick scheme in history. Even Kofi Annan's son has been implicated, as well as many companies and leaders throughout the world, mostly in France, Russia, and Germany, though the investigation is not yet complete and will likely expose other countries, companies, and individuals. No wonder so much of Europe was opposed to the Iraq war; they never wanted the 'gravy train' to stop!
Here is an excerpt from Senator Coleman's column:
Our Investigative Subcommittee has gathered overwhelming evidence that Saddam turned this program on its head. Rather than erode his grip on power, the program was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets and actually strengthen his position at the expense of the Iraqi people. At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions. We continue to amass evidence that he used the overt support of prominent members of the U.N., such as France and Russia, along with numerous foreign officials, companies and possibly even senior U.N. officials, to exploit the program to his advantage. We have obtained evidence that indicates that Saddam doled out lucrative oil allotments to foreign officials, sympathetic journalists and even one senior U.N. official, in order to undermine international support for sanctions. In addition, we are gathering evidence that Saddam gave hundreds of thousands -- maybe even millions -- of Oil-for-Food dollars to terrorists and terrorist organizations. All of this occurred under the supposedly vigilant eye of the U.N.
Here is a link to the whole article.
Senator Norm Coleman, chaiman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, wrote in today's Wall Street Journal Online that he believes Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, should resign. Senator Coleman's committee has been investigating the OFF scandal for seven months now, and as many of us have suspected, and as the Duelfer Report (discussed here) suggested, the OFF program turned into the biggest get-rich-quick scheme in history. Even Kofi Annan's son has been implicated, as well as many companies and leaders throughout the world, mostly in France, Russia, and Germany, though the investigation is not yet complete and will likely expose other countries, companies, and individuals. No wonder so much of Europe was opposed to the Iraq war; they never wanted the 'gravy train' to stop!
Here is an excerpt from Senator Coleman's column:
Our Investigative Subcommittee has gathered overwhelming evidence that Saddam turned this program on its head. Rather than erode his grip on power, the program was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets and actually strengthen his position at the expense of the Iraqi people. At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions. We continue to amass evidence that he used the overt support of prominent members of the U.N., such as France and Russia, along with numerous foreign officials, companies and possibly even senior U.N. officials, to exploit the program to his advantage. We have obtained evidence that indicates that Saddam doled out lucrative oil allotments to foreign officials, sympathetic journalists and even one senior U.N. official, in order to undermine international support for sanctions. In addition, we are gathering evidence that Saddam gave hundreds of thousands -- maybe even millions -- of Oil-for-Food dollars to terrorists and terrorist organizations. All of this occurred under the supposedly vigilant eye of the U.N.
Here is a link to the whole article.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Letter to Europe
The American Thinker published this Open Letter to Europe on November 11th of this year. It is well worth a read.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
The Left Exposed
Dan Rather, long time news anchor of CBS News, announced this last week that he would be stepping down this spring. Rather, who did everything he could to help defeat George Bush's re-election efforts, including run a poorly researched story based on forged documents, put the final nail in the coffin of the traditional news media. Our colleagues in the Blogosphere that exposed this latest blatant effort by the Old Media (OM) to influence the elections to the left, shows that the internet and Bloggers specifically are the hammer that drove that nail. Were it not for Bloggers, the sham story run by Rather and CBS would likely never have been challenged, and could have influenced the outcome of the election.
In the days before blogging, no one really understood how far leftward the OM actually was, and now we know that they have always been so. We all foolishly assumed that we were being told the truth about the world, when in fact the truth was so often lost in the partisan efforts of the OM political goals. Because of this episode, we can never again trust the OM, or any single media source as a source of "truth".
How would the Vietnam war been percieved by the American people and the world if the internet and Bloggers had existed during that conflict? How many millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian people died because America lost her stomach for finishing the war we were winning militarily? If the daily television reports by the OM had actually shown balance, instead of bias, perhaps we could have seen what was sure to happen to those innocent people in the killing fields of Cambodia.
The OM portrayed the Tet Offensive of 1968 as a big victory for the North Vietnamese, when in fact it was a decisive win for our side. How many of our service men and women died because of emboldened Viet Cong and NVA regulars that knew they had allies in the news rooms in New York and Washington? Because of the OM and their anti-war bias tainted every single report from Vietnam to show that we were losing when we were actually winning, they are directly responsible for the catastrophic results of our early withdrawl from the Vietnan war.
Even "the most trusted man in America", Walter Cronkite, has admitted that most of the OM is biased toward the left. The left now complains about Fox News, and mocks their tag line of "fair and balanced" as being anything but. What Fox News and the Blogosphere have taught us is that all media sources have a point of view. The OM tried for decades to portray themselves as unbiased and a reliable source of truth. We know now, and Dan Rather put a fine point on the fact that the OM is very biased to the left, politically, and we at the Lost Tooth Society, as well as the world in general need to review history with a cold new dose of skepticism.
But the situation is even more grave than a simple review of history. While we conservatives were going about our lives, the partisans of the left have spent at least the last six decades infiltrating and taking control of our school systems and universities, our courts, the film industry, and as we have been discussing here, the news media. While we weren't looking, the left has been working quietly, but doggedly to gain control of 'thought'.
They seek to further their agenda first through controlling perception of our daily lives and the goings on of life. Second, they seek to control and mold the thought processes of our children through control of how history is written, and through control of what is taught in primary, secondary, and higher education. Third, they seek control of the democratic process by controlling the legal system and the courts, which in turn control how votes are cast and counted. And fourth, they have worked steadily to, at a minimum severely reduce, and ultimately eliminate religion and religious observances from society. (Note how we no longer have "Easter Break", or "Christmas Break", it's Spring and Winter Break, and Thanksgiving is now a secular holiday.)
By controlling these four aspects of our world, information, knowledge, the courts, and religion, they hope to influence the will of the people as excercised through the democratic process.
It is very clear now that conservatives have lots and lots of catching up to do. We need to take back these institutions, despite the obvious and very large head start on the part of the left. Fortunately, We the People are smarter than the left have always believed we are and counted on. By the democratic vote of the people, conservatives control two of the three branches of government, and actually extended that control in the last election, and this fact is especially troublesome for the left.
The left's reaction to their electoral defeat has exposed their now obvious elitism and condescension to the average working-class American, and their hatred of traditional values. They are in such a fit over the elections that they have, just like Dan Rather in "Memogate", tipped their hand and revealed how much they truely despise the masses and how desparately they want to "Lord" over the very people they purport to want to help the most: average Americans. Why any union or ordinary working man or woman, or anyone with any religious faith at all would support the Democrats is beyond our ability to understand.
In the days before blogging, no one really understood how far leftward the OM actually was, and now we know that they have always been so. We all foolishly assumed that we were being told the truth about the world, when in fact the truth was so often lost in the partisan efforts of the OM political goals. Because of this episode, we can never again trust the OM, or any single media source as a source of "truth".
How would the Vietnam war been percieved by the American people and the world if the internet and Bloggers had existed during that conflict? How many millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian people died because America lost her stomach for finishing the war we were winning militarily? If the daily television reports by the OM had actually shown balance, instead of bias, perhaps we could have seen what was sure to happen to those innocent people in the killing fields of Cambodia.
The OM portrayed the Tet Offensive of 1968 as a big victory for the North Vietnamese, when in fact it was a decisive win for our side. How many of our service men and women died because of emboldened Viet Cong and NVA regulars that knew they had allies in the news rooms in New York and Washington? Because of the OM and their anti-war bias tainted every single report from Vietnam to show that we were losing when we were actually winning, they are directly responsible for the catastrophic results of our early withdrawl from the Vietnan war.
Even "the most trusted man in America", Walter Cronkite, has admitted that most of the OM is biased toward the left. The left now complains about Fox News, and mocks their tag line of "fair and balanced" as being anything but. What Fox News and the Blogosphere have taught us is that all media sources have a point of view. The OM tried for decades to portray themselves as unbiased and a reliable source of truth. We know now, and Dan Rather put a fine point on the fact that the OM is very biased to the left, politically, and we at the Lost Tooth Society, as well as the world in general need to review history with a cold new dose of skepticism.
But the situation is even more grave than a simple review of history. While we conservatives were going about our lives, the partisans of the left have spent at least the last six decades infiltrating and taking control of our school systems and universities, our courts, the film industry, and as we have been discussing here, the news media. While we weren't looking, the left has been working quietly, but doggedly to gain control of 'thought'.
They seek to further their agenda first through controlling perception of our daily lives and the goings on of life. Second, they seek to control and mold the thought processes of our children through control of how history is written, and through control of what is taught in primary, secondary, and higher education. Third, they seek control of the democratic process by controlling the legal system and the courts, which in turn control how votes are cast and counted. And fourth, they have worked steadily to, at a minimum severely reduce, and ultimately eliminate religion and religious observances from society. (Note how we no longer have "Easter Break", or "Christmas Break", it's Spring and Winter Break, and Thanksgiving is now a secular holiday.)
By controlling these four aspects of our world, information, knowledge, the courts, and religion, they hope to influence the will of the people as excercised through the democratic process.
It is very clear now that conservatives have lots and lots of catching up to do. We need to take back these institutions, despite the obvious and very large head start on the part of the left. Fortunately, We the People are smarter than the left have always believed we are and counted on. By the democratic vote of the people, conservatives control two of the three branches of government, and actually extended that control in the last election, and this fact is especially troublesome for the left.
The left's reaction to their electoral defeat has exposed their now obvious elitism and condescension to the average working-class American, and their hatred of traditional values. They are in such a fit over the elections that they have, just like Dan Rather in "Memogate", tipped their hand and revealed how much they truely despise the masses and how desparately they want to "Lord" over the very people they purport to want to help the most: average Americans. Why any union or ordinary working man or woman, or anyone with any religious faith at all would support the Democrats is beyond our ability to understand.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Bush Won
***Election Analysis***
We have taken a week's break from Blogging at this site, first as a rest from the fury of the days and weeks leading up to the recent election, but also as a way of reviewing the post-election positions of the MSM (mainstream media), the Democrats, Republicans, and all those in between and on the fringes to either side of the major parties.
We are obviously delighted at the re-election of George W. Bush, and at the gains by the Republican party in the House and Senate, as we believe that the overall direction of the country under Republican control will be the right direction. That is not to say that we agree completely with all of the positions of the Bush administration or of those in Congress, but the general goals of less government, less regulation, lower taxes, and more local control are worthy and noble goals that should be vigorously pursued. Conversely, we believe that the general goals of John Kerry and the Democrats—more government, higher taxes, more regulation, less local control— are not desirable goals, and should be resisted with equal vigor.
We are struck by the post-election analysis that has been generally discussed in the MSM that the people who voted for GWB did so for reasons of "morality", and that a 'bunch of redneck hicks from 'flyover country'' could have been so stupid as to have voted for the 'idiot' Bush.
According to exit polling conducted by a consortium of MSM organizations, the most important factor in deciding which candidate to vote for for president was "moral values" (22%), followed closely by "economy/jobs" (20%), "terrorism" (19%), "Iraq" (15%), then a big drop to "healthcare" (8%), "taxes" (5%), and finally "education" (4%). As near as we can tell, respondents to this survey were only given these choices, and could choose only one from the list.
Based on these results, 83% of those polled felt that moral values, economics, and the war on terrorism (we're lumping together those who ranked "terrorism" and "Iraq" together) are the most important issues facing the country, whereas only 17% feel that healthcare, education, and taxes are the most pressing issues. If that is true, then why didn't pre-election polls indicate such a low rating for healthcare? We thought, based on listening to the barrage of MSM converage prior to the election, that healthcare would be at least 2nd in the minds of voters to terrorism.
By examining how those polled voted based on their answers to the above categories we may find a possible answer. Those who replied that they thought 'moral values' was the most important reason to choose a candidate, 80% voted for Bush, while just 18% voted for Kerry. For those who thought 'economy/jobs' was the most important, 80% voted for Kerry, and 18% for the president. For people who thought 'terrorism' was the key to choosing their candidate, 86% chose the president, while just 14% voted for Kerry. For those voters for whom 'Iraq' was the key issue, 73% voted for Kerry, while 26% voted Bush. For those who thought that 'healthcare' and 'education' were the most important considerations in choosing a president, about 75% voted for Kerry, and about 25% for Bush.
Could it be that the MSM, so closely aligned with the Democrats and John Kerry, don't accurately reflect the true "will of the people"? Apparently not.
The most interesting part about the post-election analysis, particularly by the MSM and those ont the Left, is the absence in their analyses that any of their policies could be wrong. That's, of course, impossible. To listen to them, they believe that the reason people in "those red states" voted for Bush are because: a) "They're stupid"; and b) "We didn't get our message across".
These two messages are related, of course, but in ways the Democrats and the Left don't want to admit. First, they really do think that anyone who doesn't agree with their view of the world is stupid. Some of these idiots can be brought around, according to the Leftist way of thinking, especially if they (the Left) haven't spoken slowly enough or used simple wording to educate those common, simple people in the Red States.
If they have gotten their message across well, in their view, and they still lose elections, then it's obvious that the people who continue to disagree with their brilliant point of view are not smart enough to vote or to govern themselves. It is for that reason that they believe in government action: they are convinced that they know better, and if you idiots can't see it then goverment needs to re-educate you. It sounds eerily similar to the socialist revolutionaries of the last century. In the words of Karl Marx, the father of modern socialism, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
We don't believe those on the Left have the ability to move even closer to Marx's position on religion than they already have, but we do believe that the Democratic party has been taken over by anti-religious zealots who have been slowly, methodically, and relatively quietly working to eliminate all references to religion from society, and to try to marginalize religion and religious people to such an extent that religion is considered a crude artifact of a society that no longer exists.
We have taken a week's break from Blogging at this site, first as a rest from the fury of the days and weeks leading up to the recent election, but also as a way of reviewing the post-election positions of the MSM (mainstream media), the Democrats, Republicans, and all those in between and on the fringes to either side of the major parties.
We are obviously delighted at the re-election of George W. Bush, and at the gains by the Republican party in the House and Senate, as we believe that the overall direction of the country under Republican control will be the right direction. That is not to say that we agree completely with all of the positions of the Bush administration or of those in Congress, but the general goals of less government, less regulation, lower taxes, and more local control are worthy and noble goals that should be vigorously pursued. Conversely, we believe that the general goals of John Kerry and the Democrats—more government, higher taxes, more regulation, less local control— are not desirable goals, and should be resisted with equal vigor.
We are struck by the post-election analysis that has been generally discussed in the MSM that the people who voted for GWB did so for reasons of "morality", and that a 'bunch of redneck hicks from 'flyover country'' could have been so stupid as to have voted for the 'idiot' Bush.
According to exit polling conducted by a consortium of MSM organizations, the most important factor in deciding which candidate to vote for for president was "moral values" (22%), followed closely by "economy/jobs" (20%), "terrorism" (19%), "Iraq" (15%), then a big drop to "healthcare" (8%), "taxes" (5%), and finally "education" (4%). As near as we can tell, respondents to this survey were only given these choices, and could choose only one from the list.
Based on these results, 83% of those polled felt that moral values, economics, and the war on terrorism (we're lumping together those who ranked "terrorism" and "Iraq" together) are the most important issues facing the country, whereas only 17% feel that healthcare, education, and taxes are the most pressing issues. If that is true, then why didn't pre-election polls indicate such a low rating for healthcare? We thought, based on listening to the barrage of MSM converage prior to the election, that healthcare would be at least 2nd in the minds of voters to terrorism.
By examining how those polled voted based on their answers to the above categories we may find a possible answer. Those who replied that they thought 'moral values' was the most important reason to choose a candidate, 80% voted for Bush, while just 18% voted for Kerry. For those who thought 'economy/jobs' was the most important, 80% voted for Kerry, and 18% for the president. For people who thought 'terrorism' was the key to choosing their candidate, 86% chose the president, while just 14% voted for Kerry. For those voters for whom 'Iraq' was the key issue, 73% voted for Kerry, while 26% voted Bush. For those who thought that 'healthcare' and 'education' were the most important considerations in choosing a president, about 75% voted for Kerry, and about 25% for Bush.
Could it be that the MSM, so closely aligned with the Democrats and John Kerry, don't accurately reflect the true "will of the people"? Apparently not.
The most interesting part about the post-election analysis, particularly by the MSM and those ont the Left, is the absence in their analyses that any of their policies could be wrong. That's, of course, impossible. To listen to them, they believe that the reason people in "those red states" voted for Bush are because: a) "They're stupid"; and b) "We didn't get our message across".
These two messages are related, of course, but in ways the Democrats and the Left don't want to admit. First, they really do think that anyone who doesn't agree with their view of the world is stupid. Some of these idiots can be brought around, according to the Leftist way of thinking, especially if they (the Left) haven't spoken slowly enough or used simple wording to educate those common, simple people in the Red States.
If they have gotten their message across well, in their view, and they still lose elections, then it's obvious that the people who continue to disagree with their brilliant point of view are not smart enough to vote or to govern themselves. It is for that reason that they believe in government action: they are convinced that they know better, and if you idiots can't see it then goverment needs to re-educate you. It sounds eerily similar to the socialist revolutionaries of the last century. In the words of Karl Marx, the father of modern socialism, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
We don't believe those on the Left have the ability to move even closer to Marx's position on religion than they already have, but we do believe that the Democratic party has been taken over by anti-religious zealots who have been slowly, methodically, and relatively quietly working to eliminate all references to religion from society, and to try to marginalize religion and religious people to such an extent that religion is considered a crude artifact of a society that no longer exists.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Stolen Honor
Stolen Honor, the documentary recently broadcast by the Sinclair Broadcast Group is available for viewing online FREE.
See it here.
See it here.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Too Close to Call
The presidential race is too close to call at this writing, as almost all the polling data we have seen shows a slim lead for GW Bush, but within the margin of error. Zogby shows a slight lead for Kerry, and John Zogby himself is calling the race for Kerry. He was right in 1996 and again in 2000, so many on the left will be comforted by this news. However, this race is so polarized and so close compared to 2000 and 1996 that we don't think any of the polling is really very accurate. Based on RealClearPolitics' nationally averaged polls, however, Bush is UP by 2.5% over Kerry (at this writing).
Zogby, we wouldn't be surprised, is calling this race to try to cement his reputation among pollsters as the One Who Got it Right, but the race is so tight that a flip of the coin would be as accurate.
If more polling comes out prior to election day that shows a clear trend to one or the other candidate, then it may be prudent to make a prediction. But there are so few truely "undecided" voters out there that it may come down to one word: turnout.
If John Kerry should end up winning this presidential election, this is one Blogging Group who will not stoop to the hate-mongering of those opposed to Bush for the last 4 years have done, nor as those opposed to Clinton for his term did. We are disgusted with the level of partisanship that has gripped the nation in these last twelve years. The LTS has been on one side of the debate, as the blogging world and some of the electronic media and talk radio are the only voice of the conservative point of view, but everyone who is active in the political debate needs to tone down the rhetoric and turn UP the civility.
We hope that we will know for sure the result of the election on Tuesday night, but don't count on it. The Democrats have plans in place for challenging almost any close race with charges of "voter intimidation" and "voter disinfranchisement", and have teams of lawyers across the country waiting to file their lawsuits.
Zogby, we wouldn't be surprised, is calling this race to try to cement his reputation among pollsters as the One Who Got it Right, but the race is so tight that a flip of the coin would be as accurate.
If more polling comes out prior to election day that shows a clear trend to one or the other candidate, then it may be prudent to make a prediction. But there are so few truely "undecided" voters out there that it may come down to one word: turnout.
If John Kerry should end up winning this presidential election, this is one Blogging Group who will not stoop to the hate-mongering of those opposed to Bush for the last 4 years have done, nor as those opposed to Clinton for his term did. We are disgusted with the level of partisanship that has gripped the nation in these last twelve years. The LTS has been on one side of the debate, as the blogging world and some of the electronic media and talk radio are the only voice of the conservative point of view, but everyone who is active in the political debate needs to tone down the rhetoric and turn UP the civility.
We hope that we will know for sure the result of the election on Tuesday night, but don't count on it. The Democrats have plans in place for challenging almost any close race with charges of "voter intimidation" and "voter disinfranchisement", and have teams of lawyers across the country waiting to file their lawsuits.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Liberal Observations
Why are liberals so concerned about what the Europeans think of America? One of the more common themes to emerge when a liberal is talking or writing about why they don't like GW Bush is their strong desire to for the world, especially Europeans (and even more so the French), to "like us". Their feelings seem to get hurt if they think the Europeans don't like us, as they tend to go on and on about how much "the world has grown to hate America under George Bush."
What they don't seem to understand, apparently, is that much of Europe, and ESPECIALLY the French have NEVER liked Americans, and nothing we can do will ever change that! At best the French and many of the European elites have considered Americans to be loud, obnoxious, crude oafs, useful only for swatting back the occasional genocidal maniac.
Another common feature of liberal argument today is the liberal's penchant for labeling anyone who disagrees with them politically as "brainwashed", or "robots", or sometimes "clueless". It is frankly quite odd to us that so many liberals cannot understand nor accept any point of view other than their own. If someone does dare to disagree, and is not convinced by the liberal's 'obviously brilliant argument', then the only conclusion the liberal can arrive at is that this person is clearly brainwashed or simply to stupid to understand. How classically leftist is this line of thinking?
Dr. John Ray, MA, PhD, a psychometrician from Australia has an excellent site (here and in Interesting Links, right) with links to many of his acedemic publications on the psychology of the Left.
What they don't seem to understand, apparently, is that much of Europe, and ESPECIALLY the French have NEVER liked Americans, and nothing we can do will ever change that! At best the French and many of the European elites have considered Americans to be loud, obnoxious, crude oafs, useful only for swatting back the occasional genocidal maniac.
Another common feature of liberal argument today is the liberal's penchant for labeling anyone who disagrees with them politically as "brainwashed", or "robots", or sometimes "clueless". It is frankly quite odd to us that so many liberals cannot understand nor accept any point of view other than their own. If someone does dare to disagree, and is not convinced by the liberal's 'obviously brilliant argument', then the only conclusion the liberal can arrive at is that this person is clearly brainwashed or simply to stupid to understand. How classically leftist is this line of thinking?
Dr. John Ray, MA, PhD, a psychometrician from Australia has an excellent site (here and in Interesting Links, right) with links to many of his acedemic publications on the psychology of the Left.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Reader Comment
We at the LTS love to hear from readers. An anonymous reader commented recently about our recent post (below) regarding a report from Fox News discussing how the media portrayed the economy in 1994 versus 2004. Here are his comments:
[T]his first problem with such ridiculous analysis is that '96 and '04 are not even close economically. The second is that republicans need to get over Clinton.
Apparently, our reader misunderstood the article's objective, which was to show how differently the "mainstream media" has portrayed economic conditions in this economy today versus those in the fall of 1996. No doubt there are differences between the underlying economic forces at work on the economy today compared to 1996, but the resulting key indicators are virtually the same, yet these nearly identical numbers were reported in a positive light in 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for re-election, and negatively today. The authors of the Fox article cite Business Week's chief economist Michael J. Mandel's article in the September 6th issue about how strikingly similar the economic situations are today and in 1996. We don't know the credentials of our anonymous commenter, and since no supporting data or references were cited in his comments, we have no facts on which to place value on the commenter's point of view.
We thought it also worth noting that the unemployment rate in 1996 was 5.6%, but is only 5.4% today.
As far as our commenter's point about Clinton, we believe that almost all Republicans are "over" Clinton. The economy, thanks in part to Clinton, was good in the 1990's. In fact, we believe that presidents get too much blame and too much credit for good or bad economies. We believe that government has very little effect on the economy, except when it is an excessive burden by way of high taxes and excessive regulation. The only role we would like to see government take in the economy is one to help foster a positive, commerce-friendly environment where individuals by themselves or collectively in businesses and corporations are free to create jobs, wealth, and prosperity for all Americans. Regulation should be used to protect the health and safety of all Americans, but not as a tool for social engineering. The government should get out of the way of the Free Market and let market forces come to bear on the problems of our society.
Healthcare is an area where much more market forces can and should be brought to bear. For most people with health insurance, and that is by far the large majority of Americans, going to the doctor costs $10. Yup, a $10 or $20 copay is all most Americans pay, and as a result, we have no idea how much these things actually cost, and have no incentive to shop around or to let the market determine what these costs should be. We haven't yet done the research, but we suspect that if a graph was drawn showing the average annual cost per person for healthcare, that that line would spike up and remain on a high trend line immediately after the start of Medicare and Medicaid. These programs, while well intentioned, quickly removed any market forces from the costs associated with healthcare. No one actually had to pay for things from their own pocket, so they didn't care how much it cost. The only cost containment structure in place are bureaucrats in Washington.
For those of us not yet on Medicare, most of us have a similar health insurance plan, which still has no real ability to apply market forces on the cost of healthcare, not with the behemoth of Medicare/Medicaid sucking up the lion's share of our national healthcare dollars.
We agree that healthcare is broken in this country. We strongly DISAGREE that more government intervention is the answer. On the contrary, more government intervention, as espoused by the Democrats, would only bring rationing and even poorer healthcare for all but the most privileged.
[T]his first problem with such ridiculous analysis is that '96 and '04 are not even close economically. The second is that republicans need to get over Clinton.
Apparently, our reader misunderstood the article's objective, which was to show how differently the "mainstream media" has portrayed economic conditions in this economy today versus those in the fall of 1996. No doubt there are differences between the underlying economic forces at work on the economy today compared to 1996, but the resulting key indicators are virtually the same, yet these nearly identical numbers were reported in a positive light in 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for re-election, and negatively today. The authors of the Fox article cite Business Week's chief economist Michael J. Mandel's article in the September 6th issue about how strikingly similar the economic situations are today and in 1996. We don't know the credentials of our anonymous commenter, and since no supporting data or references were cited in his comments, we have no facts on which to place value on the commenter's point of view.
We thought it also worth noting that the unemployment rate in 1996 was 5.6%, but is only 5.4% today.
As far as our commenter's point about Clinton, we believe that almost all Republicans are "over" Clinton. The economy, thanks in part to Clinton, was good in the 1990's. In fact, we believe that presidents get too much blame and too much credit for good or bad economies. We believe that government has very little effect on the economy, except when it is an excessive burden by way of high taxes and excessive regulation. The only role we would like to see government take in the economy is one to help foster a positive, commerce-friendly environment where individuals by themselves or collectively in businesses and corporations are free to create jobs, wealth, and prosperity for all Americans. Regulation should be used to protect the health and safety of all Americans, but not as a tool for social engineering. The government should get out of the way of the Free Market and let market forces come to bear on the problems of our society.
Healthcare is an area where much more market forces can and should be brought to bear. For most people with health insurance, and that is by far the large majority of Americans, going to the doctor costs $10. Yup, a $10 or $20 copay is all most Americans pay, and as a result, we have no idea how much these things actually cost, and have no incentive to shop around or to let the market determine what these costs should be. We haven't yet done the research, but we suspect that if a graph was drawn showing the average annual cost per person for healthcare, that that line would spike up and remain on a high trend line immediately after the start of Medicare and Medicaid. These programs, while well intentioned, quickly removed any market forces from the costs associated with healthcare. No one actually had to pay for things from their own pocket, so they didn't care how much it cost. The only cost containment structure in place are bureaucrats in Washington.
For those of us not yet on Medicare, most of us have a similar health insurance plan, which still has no real ability to apply market forces on the cost of healthcare, not with the behemoth of Medicare/Medicaid sucking up the lion's share of our national healthcare dollars.
We agree that healthcare is broken in this country. We strongly DISAGREE that more government intervention is the answer. On the contrary, more government intervention, as espoused by the Democrats, would only bring rationing and even poorer healthcare for all but the most privileged.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
So, Senator Kerry, was Iraq a Threat or Not?
We can't figure out John Kerry. For several weeks now, he has been saying that Iraq was a "diversion" from the War on Terror, and was not an imminent threat, but now with the FALSE report (as outlined on this site previously) of missing high explosives he has been saying that Bush was guilty of gross incompetence for not securing these explosives, and they may have fallen into the hands of—terrorists! So which is it today, Mr. Flip-Flopping Kerry, was Iraq a threat, or not?
Here is another article showing the true gross incompetence: John Kerry.
Here is another article showing the true gross incompetence: John Kerry.
A Vietnam Veteran for Bush (and he's a life-long Democrat)
We received an email from a reader with a link to a site run by a Vietnam veteran who pulled three tours of duty so that his two brothers would not have to go themselves. The rules in those days wouldn't allow brothers to be deployed to Vietnam at the same time, so this brave man went for them all. He was badly injured during his third tour. He is a life-long Democrat but is stronly supporting George W. Bush. His site is excellent, and we especially urge you read "Ashley's Story".
The link.
The link.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Economic SPIN
Fox News has a great article about the bias of the news media.
We can't do it justice, so read it here.
We can't do it justice, so read it here.
Attempted UN Intervention in the US Elections
The recent October Surprise from the left, the "missing" 380 tons of high-explosives MDX and RDX from the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility in Iraq, is a clear attempt by the UN to interfere and influence next week's US presidential elections.
The story first broke yesterday in the NY Times, citing a letter from the Iraqi interim government to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressing concern about the missing high explosives. However, NBC News reported today that they had embedded reporters with the 101st Airborne Division when US forces first arrived at the Al-Qaqaa facility, three weeks into the war, and that while they found larger stockpiles of bombs, there was no sign of any of MDX or RDX.
The now clear fact that these highly explosive weapons had already disappeared from huge Al-Qaqaa complex, a site described by CNN in January of 2003 as belonging "to the Iraqi Military Industrialization Commission and was listed on a dossier of weapons of mass destruction facilities released by the British government last year.", is apparently lost on John Kerry, the Democrats, and the mainstream media, with the notable exception of NBC. Kerry was quick to jump on this now false story and continues today to deny the facts.
Even more disturbing than the left's continous disregard for the truth, is the fact that the UN, though the IAEA, have deliberately involved themselves in the US election is trying to discredit the Bush administration and boost the flagging Kerry campaign. Any American even considering voting for Kerry should think long and hard about a candidate who so strongly supports the UN, an agency who has proven over an over its utter uselessness.
One last comment on this subject: while the missing 380 tons of highly explosive material, that was intended, by the way, be used on Iraq's NUCLEAR weapons program (WMD's), is scary, to suggest as some on the left have, that the US has failed at securing WMD's (we thought Iraq didn't have any?), remember that those 380 tons pales in comparison to the over 400,000 tons of ordinance already destroyed or about to be destroyed.
The story first broke yesterday in the NY Times, citing a letter from the Iraqi interim government to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressing concern about the missing high explosives. However, NBC News reported today that they had embedded reporters with the 101st Airborne Division when US forces first arrived at the Al-Qaqaa facility, three weeks into the war, and that while they found larger stockpiles of bombs, there was no sign of any of MDX or RDX.
The now clear fact that these highly explosive weapons had already disappeared from huge Al-Qaqaa complex, a site described by CNN in January of 2003 as belonging "to the Iraqi Military Industrialization Commission and was listed on a dossier of weapons of mass destruction facilities released by the British government last year.", is apparently lost on John Kerry, the Democrats, and the mainstream media, with the notable exception of NBC. Kerry was quick to jump on this now false story and continues today to deny the facts.
Even more disturbing than the left's continous disregard for the truth, is the fact that the UN, though the IAEA, have deliberately involved themselves in the US election is trying to discredit the Bush administration and boost the flagging Kerry campaign. Any American even considering voting for Kerry should think long and hard about a candidate who so strongly supports the UN, an agency who has proven over an over its utter uselessness.
One last comment on this subject: while the missing 380 tons of highly explosive material, that was intended, by the way, be used on Iraq's NUCLEAR weapons program (WMD's), is scary, to suggest as some on the left have, that the US has failed at securing WMD's (we thought Iraq didn't have any?), remember that those 380 tons pales in comparison to the over 400,000 tons of ordinance already destroyed or about to be destroyed.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
A Soldier's Blog from Iraq
Little Green Footballs has a link to a US soldier's blog who is stationed in Iraq. It is very interesting reading. An excerpt:
A quick touch on the headlines for today. As I sit and write this, explosions rock the area and we are unsure if it is outgoing or incoming. We have gotten used to it and we usually don't think twice about it.
I had a reader inform me of something I already knew about. Ramadan. I know that this month is supposed to be a month of charity, fasting and cleanliness, however, I see no charity in all of this. Five churches bombed this morning, one of them near us. Where is the charity in this? Car bomb kills troops in Iraq. Nope, not there either. Explosions rock central Baghdad. Still searching. Bombing, killing and violence seem to be the order of the day.
Also I wished to touch on the item regarding the soldiers who refused their mission because of their equipment. This is an extremely isolated incident, however black the mark on the military it may leave. The United States military is some of the best equipped and supplied forces in the world and there is absolutely no excuse for cowardace or using this excuse because of fear. Our platoon consists of at least 18 well equipped soldiers, 2 heavily armored HMMWVs, (I hate mine because I cannot see or hear) and 2 lighter armored HMMWVs. I prefer to ride in the lighter ones for they are faster, more mobile and I can see and hear anything that may be coming. The excuse given by at least one of the soldiers that refused the mission, is that some of their vehicles were deadlined (not mission capable). Well, genius, whose fault is that?? The operator, that is who.
Here is the link.
A quick touch on the headlines for today. As I sit and write this, explosions rock the area and we are unsure if it is outgoing or incoming. We have gotten used to it and we usually don't think twice about it.
I had a reader inform me of something I already knew about. Ramadan. I know that this month is supposed to be a month of charity, fasting and cleanliness, however, I see no charity in all of this. Five churches bombed this morning, one of them near us. Where is the charity in this? Car bomb kills troops in Iraq. Nope, not there either. Explosions rock central Baghdad. Still searching. Bombing, killing and violence seem to be the order of the day.
Also I wished to touch on the item regarding the soldiers who refused their mission because of their equipment. This is an extremely isolated incident, however black the mark on the military it may leave. The United States military is some of the best equipped and supplied forces in the world and there is absolutely no excuse for cowardace or using this excuse because of fear. Our platoon consists of at least 18 well equipped soldiers, 2 heavily armored HMMWVs, (I hate mine because I cannot see or hear) and 2 lighter armored HMMWVs. I prefer to ride in the lighter ones for they are faster, more mobile and I can see and hear anything that may be coming. The excuse given by at least one of the soldiers that refused the mission, is that some of their vehicles were deadlined (not mission capable). Well, genius, whose fault is that?? The operator, that is who.
Here is the link.
The George Soros Email Exchange
Dissecting Leftism today posts a link to an email exchange between George Soros and RayD of Davids Medienkritik. It is a long exchange, but well worth it. Mysteriously, the link to this exchange on Soros' website disappeared after it was posted. Apparently Mr. Soros doesn't like to be 'bested' on such matters.
Here is the link.
Here is the link.
Monday, October 18, 2004
An Insider's View of Iraq
We came across this excellent site regarding Iraq and Iraqis, whose principle contributor was a senior advisor to Ambassador Bremmer in Iraq when the Provisional Coalition was in control. Mr. Moore was a pollster for the ambassador, and has keen insight into how the Iraqi people think about many subjects, as well as the Iraq situation in general.
The Truth About Iraq
The Truth About Iraq
The FY04 Federal Budget Numbers Are In
The financial health of the country is much better off than the mainstream media and the Democrats (not that there is any difference between the two) would have us believe.
Larry Kudlow writes in today's NRO that the picture is getting brighter, and tax cuts are the reason. Here is an excerpt:
And the Budget Says . . .
. . . the supply-siders were right all along.
Is there more sanity in the federal budget than people think?
The latest budget numbers closing out fiscal year 2004 show slower spending growth, stronger tax receipts, and a $413 billion deficit that came in about $100 billion less than the Office of Management and Budget predicted at the start of the year and $64 billion lower than the Congressional Budget Office estimate.
Overall, according the Treasury Department, tax receipts increased 5.5 percent in fiscal year 2004 compared to a 3.8 percent decline in fiscal year 2003. Income-tax withholdings gained 2.5 percent versus a loss of 2.2 percent in the prior year. Corporate tax collections exploded 43.7 percent on the shoulders of near-record corporate profits.
What’s going on? It’s clear: At lower marginal tax rates, the rising economy is throwing off a lot more tax revenues. Score one for the supply-siders.
Here is the article.
Larry Kudlow writes in today's NRO that the picture is getting brighter, and tax cuts are the reason. Here is an excerpt:
And the Budget Says . . .
. . . the supply-siders were right all along.
Is there more sanity in the federal budget than people think?
The latest budget numbers closing out fiscal year 2004 show slower spending growth, stronger tax receipts, and a $413 billion deficit that came in about $100 billion less than the Office of Management and Budget predicted at the start of the year and $64 billion lower than the Congressional Budget Office estimate.
Overall, according the Treasury Department, tax receipts increased 5.5 percent in fiscal year 2004 compared to a 3.8 percent decline in fiscal year 2003. Income-tax withholdings gained 2.5 percent versus a loss of 2.2 percent in the prior year. Corporate tax collections exploded 43.7 percent on the shoulders of near-record corporate profits.
What’s going on? It’s clear: At lower marginal tax rates, the rising economy is throwing off a lot more tax revenues. Score one for the supply-siders.
Here is the article.
Some Unfiltered News from Iraq
A reader's email today regarding what is really happening on the ground in Iraq:
"Our 40 year old son, who is a 20 year retired Marine, is still over there in Baghdad. He was to be done with his contract the end of Sept but they couldn't get a replacement for him and was asked to stay until the end of this year which he has agreed to do. He has been there for over a year on a government contact that he took. He was able to be with us this summer for our family reunion in July at which time we helped him celebrate his big 40 birthday. He brought back pictures to show us where he is and what he does. Its all security so don't know much but he did have some great pictures to show us on his lap top that he brought back and I feel much better about him being there since I seen them. He is in the green zone and fairly safe (I think and Hope). We will be glad when he is back in the states. He too was telling us some of the good things that we are doing there and many we never hear about. It’s so much better than before so keep those military and non military that are there trying to do their jobs in your prayers. I think you'll get a good view of what's going on when you read this.
"Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games
This is one of the postings from a real Marine CI network (NMCI); reviewed within DoD, screened for classified info before allowed on the discussion board by the board moderators (also DoD). They’re legitimate postings from real people stationed over there.
Interesting reading.
Subject: [MCCIA] Report from a Marine Officer on duty in Iraq - - -A thought from Iraq - "Doom & Gloom about Iraq's future. I don't see it from where I'm sitting."[For those of you who haven't gotten my "Thoughts" before, I'm a Major in the USMC on the Multi-National Corps staff in Baghdad. The analysts and pundits who don't see what I see on a daily basis, in my opinion, have very little credibility to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. Everything Americans believe about Iraq is simply perception filtered through one's latent prejudices until you are face-to-face with reality. If you haven't seen, or don't remember, the John Wayne movie, The Green Berets, you should watch it this weekend. Pay special attention to the character of the reporter, Mr. Beckwith. His experience is directly related to the situation here. You'll have a different perspective on Iraq after the movie is over.]
The US media is abuzz today with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's web site says, "[The] National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war." That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days are being portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency.
From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn't the case. Let's lay out some background, first about the "National Intelligence Estimate." The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring - in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September.
The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close. The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr's enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to "court" and never seen again. Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.
You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a "No-go" area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.
Boom, boom, just like that two major "hot spots" cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The US commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it - probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. Things will still happen in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days - especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people's homes and lives.
So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it's looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of "cutting our losses" and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war "Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here - not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It's terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we're doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week."
"Our 40 year old son, who is a 20 year retired Marine, is still over there in Baghdad. He was to be done with his contract the end of Sept but they couldn't get a replacement for him and was asked to stay until the end of this year which he has agreed to do. He has been there for over a year on a government contact that he took. He was able to be with us this summer for our family reunion in July at which time we helped him celebrate his big 40 birthday. He brought back pictures to show us where he is and what he does. Its all security so don't know much but he did have some great pictures to show us on his lap top that he brought back and I feel much better about him being there since I seen them. He is in the green zone and fairly safe (I think and Hope). We will be glad when he is back in the states. He too was telling us some of the good things that we are doing there and many we never hear about. It’s so much better than before so keep those military and non military that are there trying to do their jobs in your prayers. I think you'll get a good view of what's going on when you read this.
"Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games
This is one of the postings from a real Marine CI network (NMCI); reviewed within DoD, screened for classified info before allowed on the discussion board by the board moderators (also DoD). They’re legitimate postings from real people stationed over there.
Interesting reading.
Subject: [MCCIA] Report from a Marine Officer on duty in Iraq - - -A thought from Iraq - "Doom & Gloom about Iraq's future. I don't see it from where I'm sitting."[For those of you who haven't gotten my "Thoughts" before, I'm a Major in the USMC on the Multi-National Corps staff in Baghdad. The analysts and pundits who don't see what I see on a daily basis, in my opinion, have very little credibility to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. Everything Americans believe about Iraq is simply perception filtered through one's latent prejudices until you are face-to-face with reality. If you haven't seen, or don't remember, the John Wayne movie, The Green Berets, you should watch it this weekend. Pay special attention to the character of the reporter, Mr. Beckwith. His experience is directly related to the situation here. You'll have a different perspective on Iraq after the movie is over.]
The US media is abuzz today with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's web site says, "[The] National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war." That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days are being portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency.
From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn't the case. Let's lay out some background, first about the "National Intelligence Estimate." The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring - in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September.
The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close. The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr's enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to "court" and never seen again. Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.
You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a "No-go" area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.
Boom, boom, just like that two major "hot spots" cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The US commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it - probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. Things will still happen in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days - especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people's homes and lives.
So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it's looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of "cutting our losses" and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war "Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here - not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It's terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we're doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week."
Kerry's Discharge from the Navy
Since John Kerry has made his Vietnam service such an important part of his
campaign for president, and his supporters have gone so hard after president
Bush for his service in the National Guard, we thought this article in the NY
Sun regarding his discharge very interesting.
Here is an excerpt:
An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.
According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.
Read the article here.
campaign for president, and his supporters have gone so hard after president
Bush for his service in the National Guard, we thought this article in the NY
Sun regarding his discharge very interesting.
Here is an excerpt:
An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.
According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.
Read the article here.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Kerry-Edwards Quotes on Iraq
Little Green Footballs has a fabulous link to many quotes from Kerry-Edwards on Iraq. It is clear again that Kerry-Edwards has flip-flopped on the war many times, but in the days and weeks leading up to the war they were supporters. Only after Howard Dean found success as an anti-war candidate did the Kerry Team change.
Here are the quotes.
Here are the quotes.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
45 Million Uninsured?
Norm Weatherby posted yesterday on his site Quantum Thought-A Palette for Thinking about John Kerry and the Democratic spin machine's recent statements regarding the US Census Bureau's reporting that there are 45 million American's without health insurance.
Here is what he wrote:
45 Million Uninsured? In A Pig's Eye. Notice how Kerry/Edwards and the liberal media are flashing on the Census Bureau figures of "45 million uninsured Americans"?
There's only one little problem: It's a bold faced lie!
Consider that the Census Bureau admits that their figures include people who were between jobs and had no insurance for as little as one day! The average time was less than a week...and the Census Bureau counts them as not having insurance for the whole year! This figure of "transient unemployed" is 20 million. Counting them is an insult to our intelligence...something the government has practiced to perfection.
OK...45-20 million is 25 million.
Next consider that included in these Census figures is a figure that allows for "undocumented residents" (That's illegal immigrants folks, criminals.) Get that? Twelve million illegals don't have health insurance and that's supposed to be Bush's fault right? What kind of funny tobacco these people smoking? I biggest they return to their legal countries to obtain health care. Don't clog our statistics tables with their illegal presence.
25 million minus 12 million leaves 13 million US citizens without "Health Insurance".
Guess what folks? It's estimated that 6 million of these people actually qualify for Medicaid, various State medical programs and free county hospital plans like Dallas Parkland Hospital. The federal government has been trying to find ways to let these people know of this care availability and sign them up. So who's to blame because these people who are too lazy or stupid to sign up? This is like blaming me because some otherwise able bodied dolt is too stupid to put food in his mouth and starves to death.
13 minus 6 leaves....7 million.
7 million that have no " Health Insurance"...but guess what again? It's estimated that 60% of these people are in the upper income brackets and choose to be self -insuring or just don't want health insurance even though they can afford it. (Talk to a health insurance agent about this one. He sees it every day.)
That leaves 2.8 million people, too poor to afford health insurance and need ... what? Health insurance? Why health insurance? These people can just walk into any Emergency room in any hospital in the nation and all the care is free. That fact is posted conspicuously on the wall of every ER by Federal law! Or didn't you know that?
So when you hear Kerry /Edwards or other liberal cycloids quoting the 45 million figure understand that they figure you are to stupid or uncaring to search out and learn the real situation. That's someone you want for President?
Here is what he wrote:
45 Million Uninsured? In A Pig's Eye. Notice how Kerry/Edwards and the liberal media are flashing on the Census Bureau figures of "45 million uninsured Americans"?
There's only one little problem: It's a bold faced lie!
Consider that the Census Bureau admits that their figures include people who were between jobs and had no insurance for as little as one day! The average time was less than a week...and the Census Bureau counts them as not having insurance for the whole year! This figure of "transient unemployed" is 20 million. Counting them is an insult to our intelligence...something the government has practiced to perfection.
OK...45-20 million is 25 million.
Next consider that included in these Census figures is a figure that allows for "undocumented residents" (That's illegal immigrants folks, criminals.) Get that? Twelve million illegals don't have health insurance and that's supposed to be Bush's fault right? What kind of funny tobacco these people smoking? I biggest they return to their legal countries to obtain health care. Don't clog our statistics tables with their illegal presence.
25 million minus 12 million leaves 13 million US citizens without "Health Insurance".
Guess what folks? It's estimated that 6 million of these people actually qualify for Medicaid, various State medical programs and free county hospital plans like Dallas Parkland Hospital. The federal government has been trying to find ways to let these people know of this care availability and sign them up. So who's to blame because these people who are too lazy or stupid to sign up? This is like blaming me because some otherwise able bodied dolt is too stupid to put food in his mouth and starves to death.
13 minus 6 leaves....7 million.
7 million that have no " Health Insurance"...but guess what again? It's estimated that 60% of these people are in the upper income brackets and choose to be self -insuring or just don't want health insurance even though they can afford it. (Talk to a health insurance agent about this one. He sees it every day.)
That leaves 2.8 million people, too poor to afford health insurance and need ... what? Health insurance? Why health insurance? These people can just walk into any Emergency room in any hospital in the nation and all the care is free. That fact is posted conspicuously on the wall of every ER by Federal law! Or didn't you know that?
So when you hear Kerry /Edwards or other liberal cycloids quoting the 45 million figure understand that they figure you are to stupid or uncaring to search out and learn the real situation. That's someone you want for President?
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Economics, Jobs, and Politics
Donald Luskin, of Trend Macrolytics, writes in today's National Review Online a decisively complete dissection of Paul Krugman's recent column in the New York Times. He includes lots of footnoted detail that clearly shows how wrong the partisan Mr. Krugman is again regarding Kerry and Bush's policies and proposals on the taxes, the economy, and jobs.
Read Mr. Luskin's column here.
Economists J. Edward Carter & Cesar V. Conda also write in today's NRO an article titled, "368 Economists Against Kerrynomics".
Here is an excerpt:
Leading economists have a message for America: “John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people.”
That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”
You can read the article here.
William Saffire's column today discusses in detail the French-damning Duelfer Report, as we discussed at length in several posts this and last week. We are constantly amazed at the difference between what the actual report says, and what is written about the report by the "fair and balanced" mainstream media.
Read Mr. Luskin's column here.
Economists J. Edward Carter & Cesar V. Conda also write in today's NRO an article titled, "368 Economists Against Kerrynomics".
Here is an excerpt:
Leading economists have a message for America: “John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people.”
That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”
You can read the article here.
William Saffire's column today discusses in detail the French-damning Duelfer Report, as we discussed at length in several posts this and last week. We are constantly amazed at the difference between what the actual report says, and what is written about the report by the "fair and balanced" mainstream media.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
John Kerry's Family History
HundredPercenter has an interesting post today regarding John Kerry's family history.
(Link via Dissecting Leftism.)
(Link via Dissecting Leftism.)
Monday, October 11, 2004
Iraq's WMD Program
Claudia Rosette, of the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute, writes in today's National Review Online a scathing review of Saddam Hussein's WMD program and how Saddam was positioning Iraq for a post-sanctions build-up of WMD's. As reported here last week, the Duelfer Report outlines a chilling and outrageous corruption scandal involving the UN, and many of the countries most opposed to the war in Iraq.
Here is an excerpt:
"CIA chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer may not have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but he sure found information enough to blow the lid off the simmering scandal of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. As it turns out, Oil-for-Food pretty much was Saddam Hussein's weapons program.
As Duelfer documents, Oil-for-Food allowed Saddam to replenish his empty coffers, firm up his networks for hiding money and buying arms, corrupt the U.N.'s own debates over Iraq, greatly erode sanctions and deliberately prep the ground for further rearming, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons. As set up and run by the U.N., Oil-for-Food devolved into a depraved and increasingly dangerous mockery of what was advertised by the U.N. as a relief program for sick and starving Iraqis.
The report notes that the start of Oil-for-Food, in 1996, marked the revival of Saddam's post-Gulf War fortunes. His regime amassed some $11 billion in illicit funds between the end of the Gulf War in 1991, and his overthrow by the U.S.-led Coalition in 2003. Most of that money flowed in from 1996-2003, during the era of Oil-for-Food. One might add that what allowed this dirty money to stack up was U.N. policy — urged along and overseen by Annan, in the name of aid — that allowed Saddam to import the equipment to revive Iraq's oil production, all of it accruing to Saddam. Saddam's regime had virtually no other source of income; there was no tax base. It was out of these oil flows, condoned (but not well metered) by the U.N., that Saddam derived virtually all income for the astounding roster of political bribery and illicit arms transactions detailed in this report."
Here is the whole article.
Here is an excerpt:
"CIA chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer may not have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but he sure found information enough to blow the lid off the simmering scandal of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. As it turns out, Oil-for-Food pretty much was Saddam Hussein's weapons program.
As Duelfer documents, Oil-for-Food allowed Saddam to replenish his empty coffers, firm up his networks for hiding money and buying arms, corrupt the U.N.'s own debates over Iraq, greatly erode sanctions and deliberately prep the ground for further rearming, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons. As set up and run by the U.N., Oil-for-Food devolved into a depraved and increasingly dangerous mockery of what was advertised by the U.N. as a relief program for sick and starving Iraqis.
The report notes that the start of Oil-for-Food, in 1996, marked the revival of Saddam's post-Gulf War fortunes. His regime amassed some $11 billion in illicit funds between the end of the Gulf War in 1991, and his overthrow by the U.S.-led Coalition in 2003. Most of that money flowed in from 1996-2003, during the era of Oil-for-Food. One might add that what allowed this dirty money to stack up was U.N. policy — urged along and overseen by Annan, in the name of aid — that allowed Saddam to import the equipment to revive Iraq's oil production, all of it accruing to Saddam. Saddam's regime had virtually no other source of income; there was no tax base. It was out of these oil flows, condoned (but not well metered) by the U.N., that Saddam derived virtually all income for the astounding roster of political bribery and illicit arms transactions detailed in this report."
Here is the whole article.
Friday, October 08, 2004
We Were Right to Go into Iraq
We have been studying the Duelfer Report on Iraq in more depth, and are now more convinced than ever that the United States and our allies were absolutely correct in going into Iraq. The decision to go in was based, in part, on what we now know to be faulty intelligence that Iraq had WMD's. At the time, of course, there was universal acceptance that Iraq HAD WMD's. The only disagreement was how to effectively deal with them.
On the one side were those who felt that "containment" was the correct approach, and on the other was the argument that only the use of armed forces could remove the threat. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair both felt that in the context of the post-9/11 world that the potential for state-sponsored terrorism, especially given a regime like Saddam's and his record on supporting terrorism, was too great a threat to leave to inspectors and diplomats. That no weapons have been found, and none are likely to be found, had been troublesome to us at the Lost-Tooth Society and to many others.
The Duelfer Report, however, makes clear (as outlined briefly in our post below) that Saddam had a very clear strategy:
On the one side were those who felt that "containment" was the correct approach, and on the other was the argument that only the use of armed forces could remove the threat. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair both felt that in the context of the post-9/11 world that the potential for state-sponsored terrorism, especially given a regime like Saddam's and his record on supporting terrorism, was too great a threat to leave to inspectors and diplomats. That no weapons have been found, and none are likely to be found, had been troublesome to us at the Lost-Tooth Society and to many others.
The Duelfer Report, however, makes clear (as outlined briefly in our post below) that Saddam had a very clear strategy:
- Use the Oil for Food (OFF) program to line the pockets of politicians and diplomats from countries sympathetic to Iraq and thereby gain additional support, especially from countries with veto power in the UN Security Council.
- By 'sort of' cooperating—albeit reluctantly—with the UN, he would work to have all the sanctions removed, while at the same time he was working to have in place all the pieces and people to quickly restart work on the WMD's, once the international scrutiny was removed.
- To avoid appearing weak, Saddam also chose to put forth the illusion that he may very well have WMD's during this process.
The fatal flaw in his strategy was trying to avoid the appearance of weakness, mostly to feed his own ego, but probably also out of a concern that unfriendly neighbors might see weakness as an opportunity to strike. Had he instead chosen to open wide the doors of his country to all who wanted to see that he no longer possessed WMD's, his plan may have succeeded. Certainly the invasion undertaken by coalition forces would not have taken place.
Despite the loss of life on both sides of the conflict, removing Saddam from power, and stopping his plan to re-acquire WMD's was the right thing the do.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Iraq WMD Strategy
Little Green Footballs (see Interesting Links) posts today a link to the Duelfer Report, a report to the Director of the CIA by the Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, regarding Iraq's WMD's and Sadam Hussein's WMD strategy since the first Gulf War. The report is long, and LGF has an excellent summary of the allegations of the $60 billion Oil For Food (OFF) program and how it related to the possible resumption of Iraq's WMD program.
The Key Findings section is particularly interesting, as this excerpt from the report shows:
"Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."
As reported by LGF, "How quickly could he have done this? We have an answer to this question too, because last month Saddam’s former nuclear chief, Mahdi Obeidi, wrote a piece for the New York Times [Sept 26, 2004] saying that the Iraqi nuclear weapons programs could have been reconstituted within months."
Read the Key Findings (PDF) here.
James Tarantino's Best of the Web Today, appearing in the OpinionJournal.com, has another excellent article regarding Iraq's WMD program and the Duelfer Report.
The Key Findings section is particularly interesting, as this excerpt from the report shows:
"Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."
As reported by LGF, "How quickly could he have done this? We have an answer to this question too, because last month Saddam’s former nuclear chief, Mahdi Obeidi, wrote a piece for the New York Times [Sept 26, 2004] saying that the Iraqi nuclear weapons programs could have been reconstituted within months."
Read the Key Findings (PDF) here.
*****
Iraq WMD Strategy (part 2)
James Tarantino's Best of the Web Today, appearing in the OpinionJournal.com, has another excellent article regarding Iraq's WMD program and the Duelfer Report.
Read it here.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Federal Spending Analysis
The Economics division of the Lost-Tooth Society has been studying historical spending rates of the federal government, and wanted to post some of the preliminary findings. We have noticed many unsubstantiated complaints from the left regarding spending by the Bush administration, so we thought a review of the facts was warranted.
We began by looking at the Tax Foundation's website (see "Interesting Links"), and found an analysis of the president's FY'04 budget. It compares the 2004 budget with the historical averages of Post WW2 budgets, Bill Clinton's budget averages, George HW Bush's budget averages, and the averages of Ronald Reagan's budgets, all as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. (GDP, for those of you who don't already know, is the measure of the whole of the national economy.)
Some of the key findings:
We began by looking at the Tax Foundation's website (see "Interesting Links"), and found an analysis of the president's FY'04 budget. It compares the 2004 budget with the historical averages of Post WW2 budgets, Bill Clinton's budget averages, George HW Bush's budget averages, and the averages of Ronald Reagan's budgets, all as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. (GDP, for those of you who don't already know, is the measure of the whole of the national economy.)
Some of the key findings:
- Total receipts (% of GDP) 17% (versus 17.9 post WW2)
- Total outlays 19.7% vs 19.5 (post WW2)
- Deficit 2.7% vs. 1.6%
- Annual growth in receipts 2.7% vs. 2.9%
- Annual growth in outlays 2.2% vs. 2.3%
- Debt held by public 36.9% vs. 44%
- Gross public debt 64.8% vs. 56%
It's even more interesting when GWB's 2004 budget is compared with Bill Clinton's. You can read the entire article and review the table here.
****
We also looked further into the details of federal spending between the Bush (43) and Clinton budgets to see how their spending patterns differed.
We compared Clinton's first four years to Bush (estimated 04), using Office of Management and Budget spreadsheets(Budget Authority by Agency) (constant $), and discovered that:
- Clinton's spending on veteran's affairs increased by an average of 8%, Bush increased by 27%.
- EPA under Clinton up 1%, under Bush the EPA saw an increase of 10%.
- Education spending under Clinton increased 25%, but increased 58% by Bush.
- Labor department budget authority under Clinton decreased 16%. Under Bush Labor Dept. spending increased 35%.
- Small Business Administration spending under Clinton's watch decreased a whopping 59%, and increased under Bush by an equally eye-popping 6,125%!
****
We at the LTS are not very happy with GWB's large spending increases, but the data above clearly debunks the liberal view that he has gutted education and environmental spending. On the contrary, he is spending far more that Clinton did on the very programs they cry the loudest over.
You can find all the OMB spreadsheets here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
