The Democratic Underground Thread Of The Day: The Bush Administration's Anthrax Plot
It has been quite a while since the anthrax mailings have stopped and the FBI was never able to find out who was responsible. However, like OJ, those crazy kids at the Democratic Underground have never given up their search for the real killers, and now they've cracked the case!
So was it a rogue US scientist? An Al-Qaeda terrorist? A militia group? A secret Iraqi plot? No, according to these DU'ers, it was that nefarious source of all evil on planet earth, the Bush administration...
Whoa_Nelly:"Anthrax: Why did the "threat" stop so suddenly? have been wondering why there was such a spate of anthrax threats/findings/deaths just after Bush was selected in 2000, and then why did all so suddenly stop? Was this a Rove/Bush scheme to begin the state of terror in the US?"
Sentinel Chicken:"They were trying to use anthrax to drum up support for ... their planned war in Iraq. They were trying to create an excuse to attack Saddam. When 9/11 happened they had all the excuse they needed for their war plans. They found out it was semi-traceable later. This is why when people talk about 9/11 conspiracies I think they're looking at the wrong crime."
fertilizeonarbusto:"Dust for Shrubby's fingerprints...I always thought all of that smelled."
MadAsHellNewYorker:"It was after 9/11. only democratic leaders (Daschel and Leahy were the two most prominent Dem's to get letters) who were in a position to oppose the patriot act received the letters. No republicans ever got an anthrax letter.
They stopped because the administration did not need to keep the Dem's in line--they had already showed them who was boss."
Warpy:"Right, I think the origianl plan was for a much wider "attack."
They planned it to justify their war against Iraq, the centerpiece of their idiotic foreign policy of imperial domination.
9/11 happened and the attack was scaled back to just those people who needed the most intimidation: journalists (including the one who published photos of the Bush brats falling down drunk, an attack that proved fatal) and Democratic congressmen. They just couldn't resist those targets, and that's how we know who ordered it.
Typically arrogant and hamfisted, they never expected the wide contamination as the spores exited through the paper of the envelopes, nor did they expect it to be traced to Fort Detrick so quickly.
They don't care. Journalists and Democrats in Congress were sufficiently warned. Neither will dare voice criticism of the boy king."
spanone:"Why have ALL the threats stopped???? Election Over."
gratuitous:"It had served its purpose
Once the media and Democratic leaders were sufficiently intimidated, the threat went away. Mobsters don't usually have to break a guy's legs twice, and all that screaming and yelling a victim does can hurt your ears, ya know?"
notadmblnd:"because their purpose was served
Two Dem Senators were given a warning and the real target (the guy that was responsible for piblishing the photo of the bush twins falling down drunk in the tabloid) died."
International Law Should Be Irrelevant To Decisions Made By Supreme Court Justices By Betsy Newmark
I watched this discussion on C-Span between Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on whether or not the Supreme Court should make references to International court decisions in their own decisions. It was fascinating. To my mind, Scalia was so much more persuasive. He pointed out that the justices are selective, only choosing those foreign decisions that supported their own position.
Scalia bemoaned a recent trend on the high court in citing international opinion to support decisions interpreting the U.S. Constitution, including those decriminalizing gay sex and banning the execution of the mentally retarded.
"What you're looking for are the standards of decency of American society," Scalia said. "What does an opinion of a wise Zimbabwe judge have to do with what Americans believe?
"Doesn't it seem arrogant to think I can decide moral views for penology, death penalty and abortion?" he said, arguing that elected legislatures should make those decisions.
Breyer, who seems like a very nice man but does have a tendency to ramble on and on in his responses before he gets to the point, kept saying that shouldn't he be interested in what other human beings have thought when they wrestled with similar decisions. Scalia had the perfect riposte. "Indulge your curiousity. Just don't cite them in your opinion." Sounds good to me.
It just makes no sense why American justices should pick and choose foreign decisions to back up what they want to do. Isn't the Constitution and American history of jurisprudence good enough for them? Apparently not.
UPDATE: I just wanted to add another point that Scalia made. He said that there were some issues that the Constitution is mute on. Abortion for example. Scalia said that since the Constitution doesn't say anything one way or another, what's wrong with leaving it up to democratically elected legislators making the decisions? He felt that it was hubristic of judges to make decisions for which there was no guidance from the Founders. Gosh, it sounds so logical when he says it. Breyers meanderings about how he likes to see what other people in other countries when there is a hard decision just shows how it doesn't even seem to occur to him to defer to legislatures.
Content used with permission of Betsy Newmark from Betsy's Page. You can read more of her work here.
As the mainstream media give more attention to blogs and more Americans hear about them for the first time, there are many myths about blogging being spread (many by the MSM itself). As a service to the public (an IMAO exists solely to the benefit of the public), I will now list those myths and the real facts about blogging.
BLOG MYTHS AND FACTS
MYTH: A blog is the mixture of hair and unidentifiable gunk that clogs up a drain.
FACT: "Blog" is short for "weblog," and, while sometimes more disgusting than what's found in a drain, blogs hardly ever interrupt the flow of water.
MYTH: Bloggers are partisan hacks.
FACT: We lack the editing and proofreading to have the status of "hacks."
MYTH: Bloggers are just a bunch of ill-informed polemicists writing in their pajamas.
FACT: Not all bloggers wear pajamas while blogging. I myself wear boxers, a gun belt, and a bandolier. One of the contributors to Power line is famous for wearing a gorilla costume while writing.
MYTH: Bloggers are a bunch of ankle-biters to the mainstream media.
FACT: Our affect to the MSM is more akin to a strong kick to the groin. Thus, we are "groin-kickers."
MYTH: Most bloggers are paid off by politicians to assert certain viewpoints.
FACT: Only 8% of bloggers are bribed for their viewpoints. The remaining 92% have too few readers to bother bribing them. OT, I would just like to once again gratuitously mention that Bush's plan for Social Security is the way to go.
MYTH: Bloggers just criticize the media and have no new information to add.
FACT: Bloggers often add new information to the debate since there are so many of them in different parts of the U.S. and other countries with different expertise. For example, there is no better expert on what a jerk my coworker Simmons is than me. I know you stole my stapler, Simmons, and now the world knows!
MYTH: Bloggers are no threat to the mainstream media.
FACT: Many bloggers are mentally deranged to the point of being able to harm a news anchor and need to be carefully monitored by the government.
MYTH: People only blog for the money and the babes.
FACT: People also blog for power, out of sense of arrogance, and because they like the clickity-clack sound of the keyboard.
MYTH: Bloggers like to drink smoothies made from putting puppies in blenders.
FACT: Only one blogger does this. The average diet of a blogger is bourbon and Pop-Tarts.
MYTH: The Daily Kos is written by ten monkeys fighting over one keyboard.
FACT: It is also edited by Koko "Screw 'em" the Signing Gorilla.
MYTH: The most popular blog is Instapundit.
FACT: The most popular blog is mine. If you don't read it everyday, you are dumb and ill-informed.
MYTH: Democratic Underground is a popular blog.
FACT: DU is actually a digital bulletin board and not a blog. It was started by Shannon Daughty of the University of Georgia as psychological experiment of what happens when a number of people suffering for diagnosable paranoid delusions interact online. So far, results are inconclusive.
MYTH: Blogging was predicted by Nostradamus as a precursor to the end of the world.
FACT: Most scholars believe the passage referred to is actually about Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. When clothes no longer operate properly, the end is nigh.
The satire was used with permission of Frank J. from IMAO. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
The Main Cause Of Global Warming? It's Tree Huggers!
Hey all you tree hugging, electric car driving, solar panel hippies, it's people like you who're responsible for global warming....or so say climate change scientists like Dr Peter Cox ...
"Cutting down on fossil fuel pollution could accelerate global warming and help turn parts of Europe into desert by 2100, according to research to be aired on British television on Thursday. "Global Dimming", a BBC Horizon documentary, will describe research suggesting fossil fuel by-products like sulphur dioxide particles reflect the sun's rays, "dimming" temperatures and almost cancelling out the greenhouse effect.
The researchers say cutting down on the burning of coal and oil, one of the main goals of international environmental agreements, will drastically heat rather than cool climate.
"When the cooling affect goes away -- and it must do because particles like sulphur dioxide are damaging to humans -- global warming will be much stronger," climate change scientist Dr Peter Cox told Reuters on Wednesday.
Temperatures could increase in the worst case by up to 10 degrees by the end of the century, the researchers said -- much more than current estimates.
Scientists differ as to whether global warming is caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, by natural climate cycles or if it exists at all."
So some scientists say man is causing global warming and this guy says we're helping to prevent it. This just proves what conservatives have been saying for more than a decade: we just don't know enough about climate change to make far reaching decisions that may have an enormous impact on our economy & lifestyles.
Just look at that last paragraph that I quoted,
"Scientists differ as to whether global warming is caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, by natural climate cycles or if it exists at all."
How do you go to people in government and tell them to make decisions today, very painful decisions with real world consequences, in order to prevent some questionable catastrophe 50-100 years from now, based on that?
Armstrong Williams, Kos, Spirit of America, & Blogger Ethics
You can tell there's a hot topic at Instapundit when Glenn Reynolds actually opens up a post for comments.
In this case, there's a little blowback over the whole Armstrong Williams debacle for Kos who got sanctimonious over the whole thing and in effect said that until it was revealed who else -- if anybody -- the White House paid off, that...
"...we can assume every conservative pundit is on the White House's payola rolls."
Unfortunately for Markos, he looked a little bit foolish after this post from Zephyr Teachout saw the light of day...
"In this past election, at least a few prominent bloggers were paid as consultants by candidates and groups they regularly blogged about. . . .
On Dean’s campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients.
While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime. To be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal. . . . Imagine Howard Dean hiring Maureen Dowd!"
Now given that Kos disclosed that he was doing work for the Dean campaign and that there was no explicit agreement to give Dean positive coverage, did Kos do anything wrong? Honestly, I don't think so.
I mean would anyone expect Kos to bite the hand that's feeding him and trash Dean while he's taking consulting fees from him? Of course not....and the Dean campaign knew it.
Along the same lines, why do you think the Bush campaign asked Rush Limbaugh to be an unpaid consultant for them? Sure, they wanted to get his advice, but have no doubt that they were also hoping to flatter him enough to mute any criticism he might aim at them. Punditry and blogging is full of those sorts of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of deals.
For example, take the right side of the blogosphere's favorite charity, Spirit of America. While they do good work, they certainly don't have the name recognition of say the Salvation Army or the Red Cross.
Yet, I bet you that over the last year or two they've been linked more than any other charity by conservative & libertarian bloggers and they've had enormous success raising funds through the blogosphere. Heck, here at RWN I bet I've linked them a dozen times over the last 12-18 months either on the main page or in the daily news section.
Why is that?
Well, when SOA first hit the scene, they spent a few months buying Blogads and along with those ads came name recognition, goodwill on the right side of the blogosphere, and bloggers hoping to acquire more lucre from SOA in the future. So even when SOA stopped buying blogads, they still got enormous amounts of attention and positive coverage from the people they spent money with.
Is there something nefarious or unethical about that? Not at all. In fact, it was a brilliant strategy that I guarantee you has paid off many times over for Spirit of America.
There's really not that big of a difference between what the Dean campaign did with Kos and what the SOA guys did on the right side of the blogosphere. Both of them paid money for a service, but as an extra-added bonus, got a lot of positive coverage out of it.
Where Armstrong Williams got in trouble was by not properly disclosing that he was taking money specifically to support "No Child Left Behind." Had he simply done NCLB ads or informed his audience that he was being paid to promote the program when he did so, even though it's something he believes in anyway, there would have been no ethical issue for Armstrong Williams.
It's just not the same situation for Kos who disclosed his relationship with the Dean campaign and was not paid to promote the Dean campaign...
*** Update #1 ***: I've had a couple of people ask in the comments section if Rush was really an unpaid adviser to the Bush campaign. Actually, I can tell you definitively that he was because I remember hearing him make the announcement on the radio. Moreover, it was posted on his website. Here's a mirror of the original post (which has since been removed) from the lefty site Buzzflash....
"I made an official announcement to open the program today. I have become, and have been for a while, an official, unpaid advisor to the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, and we decided to go public with this because there's no problem with it whatsoever.
There was thought about my stepping down from the Golden EIB Microphone two or three days a week on the days that I was giving advice, but we decided not to do that. There's no conflict here. There's absolutely no conflict whatsoever. The line has been successfully blurring now for years and years and years.
I will not be giving up my precious seat behind the Golden EIB Microphone. I will continue to serve both functions with credibility on both sides, an official unpaid advisor to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign '04, as well as your host here on the EIB Network."
*** Update #2 ***: In the initial post, I was defending Kos against charges of impropriety in his work with the Dean campaign and I still stand by that.
However, I did not want to leave the impression that I think that there's nothing to be concerned about here. This part of his disclosure statement is actually troubling...
"But for the record, I will not discuss my role within the Dean campaign, other than to say it's technical, not message or strategy. I will also not discuss any of my other clients, including their identities (I have non-disclose agreements to which I must adhere).
Some of you may be upset, but there's nothing I can do about it. I have to make my living, and if I can do so helping Democrats win elections, I can't imagine anything more exciting and fulfilling."
Basically what Kos is saying here is that he could have conflict of interest problems every bit as bad as the ones Williams has, but he's just not going to reveal them to his readers. At the very least, Kos should come out and say that he has never talked about any of his clients with whom he has non-disclosure agreements and that he pledges never to discuss them. If he's not willing to do that much, then I think it leaves an open question about his integrity hanging in the air.
"Polls find young blacks less likely to call racism America's No. 1 issue. A Time/CNN poll found 89 percent of black teens consider racism in their own lives to be "a small problem" or "not a problem at all." Twice as many black teens as white believe that "failure to take advantage of available opportunities" is a bigger problem for blacks than discrimination. Polls and focus groups show younger blacks less likely to identify themselves as Democrats, and more likely to support partial privatization of Social Security, school vouchers and the abolition of race-based preferences. This spells trouble for the Democratic Party and its monolithic black vote."
In other words, blacks who have grown up in modern America aren't as willing as their parents to go along with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, and the rest of the race grievance industry who are essentially trying to deliver the black vote to the Democratic Party in mass.
That makes a lot of sense considering the times we live in. Condi Rice and Colin Powell have been power players in the Bush administration, the most popular conservative radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh, has a black fill-in host, and there are extremely influential black pundits on the right including Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, & Walter Williams. In fact, most of the race based attacks that you see these days aimed at conservative blacks by Democrats, whose tolerance level for minorities who disagree with them has gotten quite low indeed.
Judging by the polling numbers, there's still a lot of work the GOP needs to do in order to convince black Americans that they're welcome in the Party, but I would not be surprised if the GOP is pulling 20-40% of the black vote in a decade or two. Maybe it's not a majority of the black vote, but it would likely be enough to cripple the Democratic Party...
The Anarchist Resistance to the 2005 Presidential Inauguration
Normally, I don't bother to talk about anarchists because well....they're pretty much irrelevant losers. However, today I stumbled across a passage written on the Anarchist Resistance to the 2005 Presidential Inauguration that was too good to pass up...
"Four years ago anarchists marched on the Inauguration, hundreds strong. The police set up check points forcing thousands to adhere to bag and body searches, in response - we smashed a secret service check point, opening up the parade route for all. While some waved the American flag, we burned it. While some booed, we pelted the motorcade with trash. Bush was crowned, but the black flag was hoisted high on that cold January day. In the four years that have passed, the country has grown afraid and the Left docile. As we have always known, it's not just Bush - it's the system, and his campaign of fear makes us more fearless everyday.
This January, let the world see not a display of American Patriotism from the right and American "free speech" from the left but a massive resistance to the latest representation of 200+ years of murder, slavery, greed and genocide that has been the American way from George Washington to George W. Bush. There's nothing left to salvage in this empire that is the U.S. government. It's time to bring it down.
We Are Resisting
For those of us who envision a world without rulers, a world without borders and a world with freedom for all, not just those within a particular nation, class, race, gender or religion - the time to act is now - with all out resistance to capitalism and centralized power. From empires, occupation, and colonialism by governments, to a culture based on patriarchy, domestic violence, child abuse, and so many forms of oppression - the system is broken. It cannot be fixed, or reformed as many will try and tell us. It is from the ashes of the system, that the new world that we envision can arise."
First off, it's so hilarious that they're so pleased with themselves ("the black flag was hoisted high on that cold January day") for smashing a "secret service check point" & pelting the President's motorcade with garbage. Their mothers must be so proud.
The "utopian vision" of the world is funny as well,
"For those of us who envision a world without rulers, a world without borders and a world with freedom for all, not just those within a particular nation, class, race, gender or religion - the time to act is now - with all out resistance to capitalism and centralized power. "
Ah yes, freedom for all! Freedom for a gang of thugs to batter down your down and plant a pick-axe in your head without fear of the police showing up. Freedom to live in crushing poverty without those capitalist corporations and governments.....
You want to know what kind of world we'd end up living in if these anarchists somehow got their wish? Watch "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" sometime -- if you can stand Tina Turner's atrocious overacting -- and you'll get a pretty good idea of how it would probably turn out.
Remember that when you see these Black Block anarchists who are welcomed with open arms by the left at their "peace rallies"...
Illegal Alien Rights 'Job #1' for Homeland Nominee By Scott Ott
Michael Chertoff, President George Bush's nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security, said today that if he's confirmed by the Senate his "job number one" will be to protect the civil rights of illegal aliens suspected of terrorist activities.
"We've been over-eager in the past to detain men whose crimes consisted of little more than breaking our laws," said Mr. Chertoff, currently a judge on the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. "Protecting Americans from death and dismemberment is important, but it must never stand in the way of guarding the civil rights of illegal aliens."
Mr. Chertoff noted that "a person's disregard for U.S. laws should not spawn prejudice against them or subject them to the inconvenience of detention in jail."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid predicted a smooth confirmation process, adding that he is "encouraged to hear that Judge Chertoff is coming to share our progressive Democrat views."
"When I think of Homeland Security," said Mr. Reid, "my heart immediately goes out to the illegal aliens whose homes are not yet secure from government intrusion and whose lives have been disrupted by our myopic zeal to prevent a highly-unlikely terror attack."
Satire used with permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of Scott's work by clicking here.
Democrats And The Al Qaeda “Boogeyman” By Bill Roggio
The Los Angeles Times’ Robert Scheer thinks the global threat posed by al Qaeda is just a figment of our overactive imaginations. To back up his assertions, he relies on a documentary aired on the BBC:
"The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear," a three-hour historical film by Adam Curtis recently aired by the British Broadcasting Corp., argues coherently that much of what we have been told about the threat of international terrorism "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media."
So what “facts” do this ground-breaking documentary put forward to support the thesis that al Qaeda does not pose the global threat we think it is?
"If Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist organization with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as claimed by Bush, why, despite torture of prisoners, has this administration failed to produce hard evidence of it?"
President Bush isn't the only one claiming al Qaeda is a global threat. The United Nations also supports this claim, as does France, Germany, Britain, Israel, Russia, China, NATO and a host of domestic and international security experts. What exactly is the hard evidence he seeks? There is evidence, if he took time to read the 9-11 Commission Report. Much of the background information is taken from interrogations from Hambali, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and others. These men are al Qaeda terrorists with global ties in South East Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Africa and the United States. Perhaps he would have liked these terrorists (or are they just suspects to Mr. Scheer?) to be physically brought before the 9-11 Commission to testify in person?
Some other “hard evidence” exists of al Qaeda’s global reach. He should review al Qaeda's attacks on 9-11, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Jakarta, Iraq, the USS Cole in Yemen, the US Embassies in Kenya & Tanzania, the attacks on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the ongoing attacks by al Qaeda in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan...just for starters. Simply plotting these attacks on a world map will demonstrate the global reach of al Qaeda.
"How can it be that in Britain since 9/11, 664 people have been detained on suspicion of terrorism but only 17 have been found guilty, most of them with no connection to Islamist groups and none who were proven members of Al Qaeda?"
Prosecutions in terrorism cases are difficult to obtain in a court of law due to the high standards of evidence required for a conviction. Evidence in terrorism cases is often inadmissible in domestic courts due to the methods used by intelligence agencies to obtain the information. Intelligence gathering is a secretive business by it very nature, and exposing information from ongoing interrogations is dangerous business, as it can threaten ongoing investigations, operations, agents and methods. Intelligence agencies do not like to divulge information due to risks of operational security, and leaks can be very damaging. An example of the risk of using intelligence in domestic trials was the release of information in a federal case that US was tracking satellite phones of al Qaeda members. This alerted terrorists to methods of monitoring and forced them to change their methods of communication, harming future intelligence operations. In the case of Britain, there are documented reasons for the low number of convictions: problems with existing British laws, police and prosecutors "hamstrung" by laws and the harsh criticism of the detention of foreign suspects. As far as “none who were proven members of Al Qaeda” goes, perhaps Mr. Scheer would like for al Qaeda member to carry al Qaeda registration cards so we can easily confirm their identity. The very nature of al Qaeda and its organization of the International Islamic Front are designed to obscure the identity of its members.
"Why have we heard so much frightening talk about "dirty bombs" when experts say it is panic rather than radioactivity that would kill people?"
The threat from a “dirty bomb” – a radiological bomb – is not the immediate loss of life (except for those in close proximity of the detonation), but the inevitable contamination caused by its detonation. Large areas of cities could be "rendered uninhabitable" until the costly cleanup is completed and those exposed to radiological materials can have long term health problems. Dirty bombs are true terror weapons with serious psychological, physiological, economic and ecological impact that Mr. Scheer should intuitively understand but conveniently ignores.
"Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on "Meet the Press" in 2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan, when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing?"
Because there were advanced cave systems that were discovered after the fall of the Taliban. The media ran extensive reports on this, based on the failures of the Soviets to root out Afghan fighters and items were found in caves after battles in Afghanistan, which included stockpiles of ammunition, food, water, communications equipment, weapons, vehicles, fuel and even tanks. Perhaps these caves were not sophisticated enough for Mr. Scheer.
Mr. Scheer concludes by stating the threat posed by al Qaeda is intentionally exaggerated by the U.S. government and refers to the tired “military-industrial complex” conspiracy theory – that the government and industry seek and maintain perpetual war for profit. (Note: a military-industrial complex does exist, but the motives attributed to it by antiwar activists do not.)
"Everything we know comes from two sides that both have a great stake in exaggerating the threat posed by Al Qaeda: the terrorists themselves and the military and intelligence agencies that have a vested interest in maintaining the facade of an overwhelmingly dangerous enemy.
Such a state of national ignorance about an endless war is, as "The Power of Nightmares" makes clear, simply unacceptable in a functioning democracy."
There is no serious debate in the Democratic Party on how to fight the war on terror. When The New Republic’s editor Peter Beinart attempted to stimulate a discussion on the Democrat’s weakness in fighting terrorism and the need to shed the support of antiwar groups like Moveon.org, he was shouted down by the likes of Eric Alterman as a Neoconservative imperialistic stooge.
If the Democrats want to be serious about this war and enter into an honest debate about fighting terrorism, they should resoundingly denounce the rantings of Mr. Scheer and the pervasive conspiracy theories repeated by many of its party leaders and activists. So far, there is no indication they have the courage, will, desire or inclination to do this. Until the Democratic Party decides to distance themselves from the powerful, vocal and conspiracy-minded antiwar wing, they should get used to living in the political wilderness.
Content used with the permission of Bill Roggio from The Fourth Rail. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
The invaluable Walter Williams has a few facts about our health care here in the United States that you may not be aware of....
"The recently published "Miracle Cure," by Sally Pipes, president of the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute, exposes health-care myths while explaining why the sometimes-touted Canadian style health care isn't the answer. Myth: Uninsured individuals have no access to medical care. Fact: It turns out that in 2004 uninsured Americans received $125 billion of health care, of which $41 billion was provided totally free of charge.
Myth: Skyrocketing prescription drugs are driving health-care spending up. Fact: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as a whole, Americans spend about 1 percent of their income on drugs. Seniors spend about 3 percent on drugs, less than the amount they spend on entertainment. Spending on drugs, as a percent of total health-care spending, was 10 percent in 1960. It's roughly the same today.
The fact of business is, pharmaceutical spending actually lowers total health-care spending. It often replaces expensive and invasive surgical procedures and the time spent in the hospital. For example, in a yearlong disease-management program, Humana Hospitals studied 1,100 congestive heart failure patients. While pharmaceutical costs increased by 60 percent, the medications reduced hospital costs by 78 percent -- a net savings of $9 million.
Among other myths exposed in "Miracle Cure" is the myth that our health-care problems derive from the fact that we have a free-market health-care system. Little can be further from the truth. The government has been the largest participant in our health-care system since the 1960s. Today, the government directly pays for 45 percent of health-care spending. Government intervenes in the form of tax subsidies and costly regulations on private insurers. Regulations imposed on medical practitioners are oppressive. According to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, for every four hours that a physician devotes to caring for a Medicare patient, hospital administrators spend 30 minutes on Medicare paperwork. For emergency room care, it's one hour spent on paperwork per one hour spent caring for a patient."
Williams concludes by saying,
"Americans shouldn't (be) looking to Canada's socialized medicine as a solution to our health-care problems and lose what we have. A much smarter move is to repeal previous government-created "solutions" that have marched us nearer to socialism in the provision of medical services. In a word or two, get government out of our hospitals and doctor's offices."
Exactly.
We need to cut the red tape by easing the enormously burdensome rules and regulations we have for bringing drugs to market here in the US and get more free market forces involved in health care by promoting savings accounts. Then if we slash legal costs and instead of moving towards socialized medicine, fight price controls on American drugs in other countries, we can make a big difference in health care costs.
The costs and difficulties involved in our health care system can best be fixed not by socializing it, but by lessening government imposed rules, regulations, and burdens on the system.
Many people have taken notice of the fact that Democrats running for national office -- like John Kerry -- often end up defining themselves as "unrepublicans." In other words, they spend most of their time talking about why they oppose Republican policies, instead of trying to get elected based on what they believe in.
There's a reason why they do that and that is: their agenda is so odious and unpopular with the American people that the Democratic Party as exists today would be largely destroyed if they actually ran on what the liberal elite who run the party believe in.
Take a look at this article that features Ted Kennedy "outlining a progressive agenda" for the Democratic Party and you'll see what I mean.
Early on in the piece, Kerry throws a meaningless bone out to people who disagree with the party on abortion...
"But at the same time, Kennedy said fellow Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's narrow election loss also showed that the party must "speak more directly to the issues of deep conscience in policy positions we take." Referring to abortion, he said Democrats should not yield on a woman's right to choose, but should also acknowledge that "we are a better society when abortions are rare."
Reading about Ted Kennedy saying that he wants abortions to be "rare" is like listening to the CEO of Bojangles claim that the most important thing to him is the life and welfare of the chickens his restaurant serves up. It's just a joke.
When Dems like Kennedy oppose any and every legislative measure that might make abortion more "rare" like banning late term abortions or requiring parental consent for abortions by minors, deride people who are pro-life as fanatical, misogynistic kooks and try to block judges simply based on the fact that they're anti-abortion, why would anyone believe their lip service about wanting abortion to be rare?
But, Kennedy didn't just toss out fluff, he did talk -- at least in part -- about the real Democratic agenda. For example...
"To punctuate his progressive push, Kennedy said Medicare should be gradually expanded to cover all citizens, and the cost would be funded through payroll taxes and general revenues and offset by savings through technology advances."
So in essence, Kennedy is advocating socialized medicine, an enormous growth of government, and enormous tax hikes. No big suprise. This issue has been something near and dear to the hearts of Democrats for a long time.
Here's more from Kennedy...
"He also called for greater federal support for college costs, saying that every student who is admitted to college should be guaranteed the cost of earning a degree."
So he wants to socialize our education system as well which would also mean an enormous growth of government and enormous tax hikes. I think I see a pattern here...incidentally, don't you just love the idea of ponying up more of your tax money to pay for somebody else's kid spending six years in college getting a philosophy degree?
Here's the conclusion of the article...
"Wednesday, Kennedy laid down markers for the coming congressional session, vowing to defeat President Bush's efforts to revamp Social Security, and reject policies that send jobs overseas. And he ratcheted up his assault against the administration's handling of the war and its aftermath in Iraq.
Raising the specter of Iraq as Bush's Vietnam, Kennedy said the administration has bogged America down "in an endless quagmire."
So, Kennedy finishes up by refusing to fix Social Security, rejecting "policies that send jobs overseas" (let me translate that; for the most part it means opposing free trade) and then emphasizes that Democrats can't be trusted to handle national security because to them, every war is Vietnam.
Put another way, Kennedy, like most liberal Democrats, is a socialist at heart, and he wants America to emulate the shining examples of nations like France, Germany, and Spain.
If only the rest of the Democratic Party would be as honest, especially around election time...
Dean: Democrats Must Pass Torch To New Generation Of Losers By Andy Borowitz
Promises Fresh Approach to Defeat as DNC Head Former Vermont Governor
Howard Dean today announced his candidacy for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, proclaiming, “It is time for the Democrats to pass the torch to a new generation of losers.”
Mr. Dean made his announcement in Burlington, Vermont to a crowd of supporters and well-wishers, many of whom were instrumental in helping him lose in 2004.
“As Democrats, we cannot afford to continue with our old ways of losing,” he said. “We must find new ways of losing.”
Promising “a fresh approach to defeat,” Mr. Dean told his audience, “In the past, we have lost by being boring and uncharismatic, but I believe we must lose by being crazy and wild-eyed.”
But just hours after his speech, Mr. Dean received a sharp rebuke from two of the Democratic Party establishment’s most prominent losers, former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis and former Vice President Walter Mondale.
“So, Howard says he has all kinds of new-fangled ways to lose,” said a skeptical Mr. Mondale. “What I’d like to know is, ‘where’s the beef’?”
“Say what you will about being boring and uncharismatic, but it certainly helped me lose in 1988,” Mr. Dukakis added.
Political science professor Jude Krenzel of the University of Minnesota says he is not surprised that the race for DNC chair has grown so heated: “It’s pretty much the only office that a Democrat has a shot at winning.”
Elsewhere, experts said that if a toxic train wreck occurred in Washington, D.C. it would look a lot like the Department of Homeland Security.
Satire used with permission of Andy Borowitz of the Borowitz Report. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
Liberals often accuse conservatives of "seeing things in black and white" and being unable to comprehend that everything is actually a wondrous shade of grey. That's a fair point. Conservatives are often willing to take a stand and say "That's right and that's wrong" even as liberals are just starting a long diatribe about nuances & tolerance.
But, have you ever noticed that myriad of distinctions the left likes to refer to go right out the window when liberals discuss defending America? Listen to liberals talk about the military & war and you'll often find that...
-- To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, liberals seem to see little "moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest" -- at least when a Republican is in office.
-- Liberals often seem to be unable to tell the difference between things like sleep deprivation and let's say chopping someone's fingers off. To the left, it all just seems to fall under "torture."
-- Where their precious Geneva Convention is concerned, the left seems to see no difference between professional, uniformed soldiers who attempt to follow "rules of war" and terrorists who wear no uniforms, deliberately target civilians and behead captives.
-- When it comes to how we treat prisoners, the left is unable to see any significant difference between small numbers of unsupervised National Guardsmen getting out of hand and few more interrogators going too far and the entire military being directly ordered by the Bush administration to torture detainees.
-- The left sees no little difference in how we should legally handle American criminals who have been captured by the police and Al-Qaeda terrorists who may have been captured using sensitive intelligence data, in foreign nations, during a time of war.
-- They seem unable to tell the difference between "insurgents"/terrorists deliberately murdering civilians and American soldiers accidentally killing them -- that is, if they don't just blame the Americans in both cases.
A big part of the reason that the modern left, on the whole, is so entirely ineffectual during times of war is because they are either unwilling or unable to see & understand the moral distinctions in the sort of situations I've described above.
Fear And Loathing On The Left Coast By Bryan Preston
What do rank-and-file Democrats fear? What do they think is a threat to them? An article in the Seattle Weekly, written by a Democrat who participated in the hand recounts that ended up "finding" votes for the Democrat gubnernatorial candidate, gives us a few clues.
Contrary to my usual stance, I do not recommend that you "read the whole thing." It's long, self-absorbed and dull. Read it all if you want, but be warned: You'll feel your life being sucked away as you do.
That said, here's what one rank-and-file Democrat thinks is baaaaad:
"On this last day, I learned something that confounded my notion of what had been going on in the GOP Lounge. That morning I was surprised to see that the Sean Hannity look-alike had also been selected by his party for the final day. In retrospect, I shouldn't have been. After all, I knew he was a GOP party faithful. He was a precinct officer for his Eastside district and worked on the Rossi campaign. Seeing him for the first time in the nonpartisan break room that morning, I decided to seize the opportunity to ask, "How come I see you going in and out of the GOP Lounge at breaks and lunch?" It was a good question, since counters and observers were explicitly instructed not to talk to one another, and the observer rooms on both sides—Democrat and Republican—were supposedly off-limits to ballot counters. But I had personally witnessed several other ballot counters, Ben among them, disappearing inside the GOP Lounge, some even emerging with doughnuts and other tasty contraband. The answer the Sean Hannity look-alike gave me came as a shock.
It was for prayer time, he said barely above a whisper. I had to ask the other people standing with us—one other Democratic ballot counter and two Republican ballot counters—to confirm what he said. This was something I had never considered. That a political party interested in the results of an election would conduct daily prayers, formally or informally, inside an office building in which the express purpose is to conduct civic business left me speechless. Apparently, because they had paid for the space, they felt entitled to do whatever they wanted—or, more precisely, whatever they could get away with. The revelation that prayers were being conducted in the GOP Lounge, together with the fact that the Republican candidate for governor once said he thought creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools, gave me a chilling new understanding of the phrase "party faithful." What I had thought was a contest for governor turned out to be more like a religious war.
The separation of church and state is one of the most cherished tenets of our democracy. Many would argue, myself among them, that those who seek to blur or erase the line are the real enemies of the American way of life. While I started out not caring much about who among the disappointing choices would be our next governor, suddenly I found that I care a great deal."
Cue the Psycho music please! I've had it wrong all this time. It's not those fanatics who turn planes into missiles that are the "real enemies of the American way of life!" It's a bunch of donut-eating Sean Hannity lookalikes who....PRAY. And BELIEVE IN GOD. Is there no defense from this menace?
This content was used with the permission of Bryan Preston from JunkYardBlog. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
Louis Farrakhan, Theocracy, & His Democratic Supporters
One of the things I think the Democrats have gotten away with for too long is their association with that demented, anti-semitic, nutball Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. Despite the fact the NOI is a wacko, racialist cult that believes (I kid you not) that white people were genetically engineered by an evil scientist named Yacub in order to harm black people and that there's a spaceship orbiting the planet that's going to bomb all the "white devils" into oblivion one day, Democratic heavies apparently aren't embarrassed to be seen with Farrakhan.
For example, if you look at the NOI homepage you'll find something called Minister Farrakhan & Rev. Jackson hold an historic conversation. Of course, if Jesse "hymietown" Jackson or even kookie congresswoman Cynthia McKinney whose dad blamed Jews for costing her a seat in 2002 were the only Democrats meeting with Farrakhan, you wouldn't be surprised. But, Farrakhan was actually invited by John Conyers to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus back in 2002.
How ironic is it that a loon like Farrakhan can get meetings with Democratic congressmen when he himself doesn't believe in....oh, you hadn't heard, is promoting theocracy over Democracy? Well, take a look at excerpts from this speech Farrakhan made last month...
What is going on in the world is a battle between “theocracy” and “democracy.” “Theo” and “cratis” are Greek words. “Cratis” in Greek means “rule.” In Latin, it’s “craci.” In English, you change the “i” to a “y”—“cracy” (rule). “Theo” in Greek means “god.” The Greek word is “demos”—demos cratis. In Latin, it’s demon craci. In English, you drop the “n,” put a “y” on the end, and you have democracy. “Democracy” is “the rule of the people,” but what kind of people? It’s the very opposite of theocracy. It’s the rule of a devil.
Are you fighting for democracy? You have lived under it. It’s the rule of that which opposes the way of God, where the rich get money and power at the expense of the ignorance of the masses. Democracy presupposes an enlightened electorate that knows its self-interest, then has the right to choose what is in their best interest. How enlightened are you to what is in your self-interest? Right now, you have a large percentage of students graduating from high school as functional illiterates. Some of you who are in Rutgers University, Seton Hall and Princeton, if I asked you to write me something—not go to a computer—you would not know how to compose a letter, because you do not know how to spell and do not know the language sufficiently to set your ideas in written form. How then did you graduate? You were programmed for failure. There is a dumbing down of the masses of the American people, so that your thinking is between your legs and not between your ears.
...The enemy is plotting, through democracy, to make the whole world submit to so-called democratic values, so that the demons of the West can rule all the darker peoples of the world under “demo cracy.”
...That’s why when you see Muslims in Iraq fire a rocket and it destroys an American tank, they cry out, “Allah-u-Akbar! God is great!” Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld already told the Shiites in Iraq, “We’re not going to permit you to have an Islamic government.” What is an Islamic government? It is a government where God’s laws govern the people. When you pray for the Kingdom to come, you are praying to live under God’s rule because you believe that under His rule, freedom, justice and equity will become a reality."
The next time Louis Farrakhan is buddying up with some prominent Democrat like John Conyers or Sheila Jackson Lee, I'd love to see someone in the press ask them,
"Mr. Farrakhan says Democracy is the "rule of a devil" and advocates theocracy as a form of government. Do you agree?"
I know, don't hold your breath waiting. I'm sure the press will be too busy working on stories like "More details on the story we think all of America is still fascinated with after six years: George Bush -- was he or was he not AWOL from the National Guard in 1973?"
Here's my view of using "torture" in a nutshelll...
1) A state of war needs to exist as a precursor.
2) The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, so even if we're talking about someone like John Walker Lindh who has switched sides, "torture" isn't an option for American citizens.
3) You have to consider the political implications of what you're doing and how the media will treat it if word gets out. Regrettably, since the Democrats are trying to score political points by calling everything up to not giving a member of Al-Qaeda enough milk with his Fruit Loops "torture," our men have been handcuffed in what they can do in interrogations.
Of course, that means American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are dying for lack of the information that those interrogations could provide and all so that Democrats like Ted Kennedy & Joe Biden can try to get fawning mentions in the press. I guess everybody "supports the troops" in their own way, huh?
4) Some people might bring up the Geneva Convention at this point, but since no nation we've ever fought has abided by it and since it was never intended to apply to non-uniformed terrorists who deliberately murder civilians, I'd say it's irrelevant to the war on terrorism.
5) Normally, we might not use some interrogation techniques on our enemies out of fear that the same would be done to our men. In other words, we'd follow the "Golden Rule" when it comes to torture. However, we're fighting terrorists who promise nothing but beheading when they capture our men, so again, this issue us turning out to be largely irrelevant.
6) The last and most important point is simply what our own morals will allow us to do to other human beings in a time of war. The naked piggy piles, sexual molestation, and S&M show put on by those deviant National Guardsmen? No, that's just not something American soldiers should be involved in.
What about real "torture"? Only in the admittedly rare sort of situation that I discussed yesterday, where you have a terrorist who has details about an imminent attack, would I acquiesce to injuring a captive in order to get information.
On the other hand, I have no ethical problem, given what I've already said in 1-5, with a lot of the things that are being erroneously referred to as "torture". I'm talking about things like hooding prisoners, taking away the Koran, manipulating diets, loud music, shaving beards, isolation, threatening (not attacking) them with dogs, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, stress positions...I approve of our troops doing those things to get information from "insurgents"/terrorists.
Think that's too tough of a policy? Well, remember that breaking suspects may mean stopping terrorist attacks and saving the lives of American soldiers, Iraqi civilians, or maybe even preventing the next 9/11. In my view, that's worth it...
Although to be frank, I thought it was entirely possible that Dino Rossi had been cheated out of his governorship in Washington State by a Democratic county that kept "finding" votes, and finally put the Democrat, Christine Gregoire, ahead on the third manual recount, I was not initially in favor of his fighting it in the courts.
The reality is that it's very difficult to overturn election results, even controversial ones, and so it usually makes more sense to bow out gracefully and put yourself in a position to run again (Ex: John Thune, who came back after questionable defeat to beat Tom Daschle). The reverse of that is also true, that coming across as a "crybaby," who won't accept defeat, hurts your chances in future elections (See Al Gore). On top of that, elections, even close ones, should be decided at the ballot box, not in the court system, because legal challenges undermine people's faith in the system.
But, after reading all the irregularities in this election that was decided by 129 votes, I think Rossi has a pretty good shot at actually getting a revote and winning this election outright. What irregularities you ask? John Fund has the goods...
"At least 1,200 more votes were counted in Seattle's King County than the number of individual voters who can be accounted for. Other counties saw similar, albeit smaller, excess vote totals. More than 300 military personnel who were sent their absentee ballots too late to return them have signed affidavits saying they intended to vote for Mr. Rossi. Some 1 out of 20 ballots in King County that officials felt were marked unclearly were "enhanced" with Wite-Out or pens so that some had their original markings obliterated.
Most disturbing is the revelation last week by King County officials that at least 348 unverified provisional ballots were fed directly into vote-counting machines. "Did it happen? Yes. Unfortunately, that's part of the process in King County," elections superintendent Bill Huennekens told the Seattle Times. "It's a very human process, and in some cases that did happen."
...Much of the evidence uncovered on King County's flouting of election laws first appeared on Soundpolitics.com, a blog run by computer consultant Stefan Sharkansky. A former liberal who worked for Michael Dukakis in 1988, Mr. Sharkansky calls himself a "9/11 conservative mugged by reality." He uses his knowledge of statistics and probability to illustrate how unlikely some of the reported vote count changes are. He also uncovered the fact that in Precinct 1823 in downtown Seattle, 527, or 70%, of the 763 registered voters used 500 Fourth Avenue--the King County administration building--as their residential address. A full 61% of the precinct's voters only registered in the last year, and nearly all of them "live" at 500 Fourth Avenue. By contrast, only 13% of all of King County voters registered in 2004."
Add to all of that the fact that felons & the dead were turning out to vote -- mostly Democratic -- in Washington State, and it's crystal clear that the number of fraudulent and questionable votes goes far beyond the infintesimal margin that Gregoire won by on the third, less reliable, manual count.
This is a rare enough circumstance that you may literally never see me write this again, but Rossi, take it to court, get a revote, and win that governorship -- best 3 out of 4.
CBS 'Memogate' Report Sparks Calls To Fire Rumsfeld By Scott Ott
While CBS News anchor Dan Rather will be permitted to retire on schedule in March, today's release of a 224-page report on the so-called "memogate" scandal sparked Congressional Democrats to call on President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
CBS responded to the results of its internal investigation by firing four producers, but taking no action against Mr. Rather because his errors were the result of being overworked and over-ethusiastic about the story. However, Mr. Rumsfeld cannot claim a similar alibi, said one unnamed Democrat Senator.
"It's appalling that Rumsfeld faces no consequences," said the Senator. "This arrogant administration never admits mistakes."
Congressional Democrats immediately launched three concurrent investigations that will invite Mr. Rumsfeld to testify about his alleged lack of involvement in the CBS story about Mr. Bush's Air National Guard service in the early 1970s.
This content was used with the permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
Where Does The Spin Stop On How Nice Democrats Are?
Sometimes when you're talking about liberals, it can be hard to figure out where the spin stops and where the things they really believe begin.
For instance, how many times have you heard liberals say, in some form or fashion, that Democrats keep losing elections because Republicans are vicious, steely-eyed, political gunslingers while the Dems are just big ole, lovable, huggable carebears who just can't stand up to them in a fight?
Of course, they do have half of that right, politics is figurative knife fight in a phone booth and Republicans usually give as good as the get. But.....Democrats don't? That's what some people say, like Jill Lawrence from USA Today. Here's how she opened a column called "Character issue puts Dems on the defensive"....
"Imagine a Democratic presidential candidate and his allies assailing the character of the Republican nominee in ads and speeches every day for eight months.
Having trouble? That's because Democrats generally don't have the stomach or the discipline to do it. Often they don't even effectively fight back when under attack themselves."
Really? So accusing someone of going AWOL from the National Guard isn't an attack on their character? How about accusing Bush of being another Hitler in MoveON ads? What sort of character does a person have who'd order an invasion of Iraq "for oil," to help out his business buddies, or to get revenge because "Saddam tried to kill his daddy"? When Democrats say Republicans hate black people, want to help the rich at the expense of the poor, and are looking to poison the environment, how can that be anything other than an attack on their characters? This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say, I don't know "where the spin stops and where the things they really believe begin".
Here's more from Jill Lawrence's piece...
"Democrats "as a group are uneasy" about attacking and defending on character, says Harold Ickes, a former Clinton aide who heads the Media Fund, a political ad organization. "But they damn well better get the stomach," he adds, because "we've seen way too many of our candidates taken down on issues of character."
..."We were caught off guard by this perennial Republican attack-dog mentality," says Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a potential 2008 presidential candidate, reflecting on 2004. "We've got to find ways to develop our own.
...Another problem for Democrats: They can't shake the idea that people of integrity shouldn't have to, and don't need to, talk about their integrity. So when they come under attack, they often shrug it off and assume voters will, too.
...Some Democrats want killer instinct in their next nominee. They also pray for a candidate and campaign with the discipline to choose a line of attack and stick to it. "You don't want your central critique to be a secret," Clanton says. "You want it to be well-known so it can be repeated" by your allies in e-mails, on talk radio and cable TV."
I thought Kerry did have a line of attack, that Bush was wrong about EVERYTHING, particularly the war in Iraq? Kerry's whole campaign was nothing but slamming Bush -- and to be fair, "I went to Vietnam!" -- butressed by enormous amounts of money spent democratic 527 groups.
May I suggest that Democrats lose not because they don't fight back or because of Republican spin, but because they're on the wrong side of the issues?
For example, in this last election, John Kerry got on the wrong side -- or in many cases, simply tried to take both sides of the issue -- of the war in Iraq, gay marriage, and Bush's tax cuts. But are they looking to make changes? Maybe a few of them are, but most of them just think they need to talk about faith more, send Northern liberals down to the South to waste money and time campaigning in states where they can't win, and most importantly, they need to start FIGHTING BACK instead of being such "nice guys"...
Question Of The Day: Is It Ever Ethical To Torture A Terrorist To Save American Lives?
Given that "torture" is in the news, it might be interesting to see what you thought about an intriguing, "torture related" ethical dilemma...and we're not talking silly stuff like putting an Israeli flag over someone's head or sleep deprivation, we're talking real torture.
The situation is based on something that happened in last night's episode of "24" (incidentally, I just started watching "24" last night and wow, it's fantastic).
You are a government agent and your agency has just captured a fairly well known, non-American, terrorist and the timing couldn't be better. About 30 minutes ago, terrorists blew up a train in the United States.
You believe, but you don't know for certain, that there's a bigger attack coming in exactly 30 minutes and you think it's highly likely that the terrorist who has been captured has all the details. Other people from your agency have been interrogating him, but they've been getting absolutely nowhere.
You walk into the room where he's being held, take off his shoes, and pull out a hammer. You ask him to tell you about the terrorist attack occurring in 30 minutes. He says nothing.
You believe that if you start smashing toes with that hammer, he'll talk and you may be able to prevent a terrorist attack on American soil. Forget about the legal consequences, what the enemy may do in retaliation, the media, etc.
Just answer one question: In that situation and in that situation alone, would it be ethical to torture that terrorist for information?
Given that scenario, I say yeah, it's ethical to torture him.
Some of you may be wondering, "Hey, why hasn't Hawkins weighed on in on the Memogate report"?
I'll tell you why: The speed of the blogosphere has made the report anti-climactic. If you regularly read RWN, Power Line, RatherBiased, Little Green Footballs, INDC Journal, & Instapundit and the plethora of other blogs that covered the story, you knew 95% of the important details that came out in this report way back in mid-September.
So people can argue about whether Rather should have been fired (he should have) and whether or not CBS is guilty of liberal bias (stop laughing, some people are debating this), but when it's all said and done, the blogosphere laid the smackdown on Dan Rather and CBS news by beating them to the punch on their OWN STORY.
Never have so many opined at such great length to so little effect... Reading about Social Security reform this weekend, my tortured brain finally exploded. Depending on who is blathering at the moment:
1. There is no Social Security crisis.
2. The End Is Near: bend over and kiss your tuckus goodbye.
3. Social Security reform is no fit task for a Presidential legacy. Instead, Bush should blow up something really big, or hurl enormous and potentially costly objects into space.
4. The Shrub is on the right track with SS reform, but is going about it all wrong... see paragraphs 2-159....yada, yada, yada...
After two days of intense, alcohol-mediated, throbbing pain, I came to appreciate the value of brevity. Of everything I read, my favorite was this response to Paul Krugman's aptly-named "Confusions on Social Security":
This is so tortured it is hardly worth reading or answering.
Paul: baby boomers retiring means too many recipients getting benefits, too few workers paying into system. Which word don't you understand?
Of course when folks like Charles Rangel (D, Hyperbole) insist on just randomly making stuff up as they go along, you take your laughs where you can find them. Because he so rarely makes sense, I have taken the liberty of translating Rep. Rangel's remarks for you below:
"But the facts prove that there is no imminent crisis with Social Security. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says Social Security can pay full benefits for nearly 50 years. So, there is no crisis."
TRANSLATION: Current estimates show payroll tax receipts falling short of outgoing benefits as early as 2018. Social Security can pay full benefits for nearly 50 years: if we raise taxes to replace the depleted Social Security trust funds lent out to cover current spending.
But there is a challenge, because people are living longer.
TRANSLATION: If people live longer, but the retirement age at which Social Security kicks in remains at 65, they collect benefits for a longer period of time while fewer younger people pay into the system. BUT THERE IS NO CRISIS. We'll just raise taxes.
"Unfortunately, the President's proposal for privatized accounts makes Social Security weaker, not stronger. It drains $2 trillion from the trust fund, leading to drastic cuts in benefits of more than 40 percent."
TRANSLATION: This worked like a charm during Kerry's campaign. No point in mentioning that unless we raise taxes, there won't be enough money to pay out benefits anyway. It's one or the other: you can't make something out of nothing.
Fortunately for my sanity, some commentators actually had serious things to say about Social Security reform. The WaPo, for once resisting the temptation to be snarky, did a credible job of explaining the Bush cost-cutting plan. Currently, increases in Social Security benefits are indexed to national wage growth. The new plan would index benefits to inflation. The benefit of this system is that if wages increase faster than inflation (which they will as long as productivity continues to rise), money flows into the trust fund faster than it is paid out:
If the commission's plan were implemented, the average earner who works until the age of 65 would get a tenth less than under the current system if he or she retired in 2022. By 2042, it would be a quarter less; by 2075, just over half of what's promised by the current system.
If these cuts sound harsh, that's partly because the current system makes promises that aren't affordable. The practice of wage indexing that the administration appears keen to scrap is one source of this excessive generosity. The indexing works by taking the 35 highest-paid years of a person's career, then upping the numbers by the rate of national wage growth in the intervening period. Suppose, for example, you earned $40,000 in 1988. Wages have increased by about 80 percent since then, so your 1988 earnings are upped to around $72,000 for the purposes of calculating your pension entitlement. Because of this system, benefits are on an expensive growth path. The average earner who retires this year at 65 gets an annual benefit of about $14,000, whereas an average earner who retires in 2050 is projected to get over $20,000 in today's dollars.
The Post argues the cuts are too drastic. But like the vast majority who write about Social Security reform, they mistakenly treat it as a retirement system rather than a safety net. Benefits should be indexed to the cost of living, as they are with most retirement plans. The beneficiary of a safety net has no reason to demand a rising standard of living at the government's expense. As the Post points out, beneficiaries can postpone retirement or supplement their Social Security benefits with a private savings or a retirement plan.
One of the more interesting proposals I read was another WaPo article that proposed solving the shortage of younger workers by using the payroll tax to incent couples to have more children:
There are many reasons birthrates are falling, but Social Security itself is likely a major cause because of the raw deal it creates for parents and the enormous subsidies it provides to non-parents. By raising and educating their children, parents provide the system with essential human capital. The cost of this contribution, in both direct expenses and forgone wages, is often measured in the millions.
Yet parents get no compensation from Social Security, nor from the wider economy, for the investments they make in their children. Instead, Social Security pays the same benefits, and often more, to people who avoid the burdens of parenthood. So long as Social Security effectively penalizes people for having the very children the system requires, it contributes to a downward spiral of falling birthrates leading to higher and higher tax rates.
Here's a possible solution. Instead of slashing benefits across the board and borrowing trillions to create a risky system of personal accounts, use the same money to offer substantial tax relief, and extra benefits, to married parents who successfully raise their children. For example, have one child, and the payroll tax you pay (and that your employer nominally pays) drops by one-third. A second child would be worth a two-thirds reduction in payroll taxes. Have three or more children and you wouldn't have any payroll taxes again until your youngest child turned 18.
When it came time to retire, your Social Security benefit (and your spouse's) would be calculated just as if you had both been contributing the maximum Social Security tax during the period in which you were raising children, provided that all your children graduate from high school.
Can't you just hear the Blue state shrieking now?
David Brooks had some observations on the politics of getting SS reform through Congress. Overall, good advice - he thinks Bush needs to sell reform to voters in a general way and leave the rest up to Congress, endorsing the following values:
First, Social Security reform should liberate our kids, not shackle them. It should eliminate the fiscal overhang so they have the money to tackle the problems that will arise in their own day.
Second, the reform should be transparent, so that people can see what kind of return they are getting on the money they put into the system. People should have information about their own lives.
Third, it should enhance people's control over their own retirement. In a self-governing democracy, citizens should do for themselves what they can do for themselves.
Fourth, people should be encouraged to work longer. In an age in which many live into their 90's, we should be making better use of people in their 70's and 80's.
Fifth, we need a savings revolution. The plan should encourage the nation to save more, to create more capital for America's future greatness.
This is a time to trust the legislative process. Social Security has a better chance of passage if Congress leads. It's also time to think big. Social Security reform plus tax reform go a long way toward getting you to an ownership society.
Finally, in the Weekly Standard, Irwin Seltzer has a very detailed treatment of SS reform that's too involved to excerpt here. A few points:
1. "...we should be careful before spending a great deal of energy worrying about the financial condition of retiring baby boomers". I wasn't aware that this was the point of Social Security. Again, it's a safety net, not a retirement system. Not all beneficiaries will be affluent DINC's, but the projected shortfall affects the ability to pay out benefits to all beneficiaries.
2. While I agree entirely with his point about changing the escalator to a cost-of-living index, this is not precisely a 'cut in benefits', but a "cut in the rate of increase in benefits". Semantics, but important when you're living in a world of Charles (40% cut in benefits!!!!) Rangels. This is the oldest game in the world, and it matters.
3. When retirement plans are generally cost-of-living based, why on earth shouldn't SS be?
4. I agreed (as did the Unit) with his points on the government as an insurer of risk on private retirement accounts.
5. Yes, yes, yes:
Where the president and his team might benefit most from further reflection is in the financing of Social Security. The current system of levying a 12.4 percent payroll tax gives us the worst of all possible worlds. First, it is a tax on jobs--payroll taxes make it more costly for employers to hire, and less attractive for workers to work. These taxes raise employers' cost of hiring by 6.2 percent, and reduce the employees' incentive to work by cutting their take-home pay.
Worse still, the system is regressive. Only salaries up to $87,900 (in 2004) are taxed, meaning that Wall Street mega-earners pay no more than their secretaries. This regressivity is ameliorated by the fact that most high earners continue working after the date at which they receive retirement benefits, and those benefits are taxed at the high rates that apply to all of the income earned by these older but unretired workers. Still, not the fairest of systems.
No, no, no:
...why tax a good thing, like jobs, rather than the many bad things that currently go untaxed? Two leap to mind: pollution and imported oil.
As the Unit pointed out, are these sustainable revenue sources? At any rate, they both amount to a tax on business - if you don't like taxing jobs, it's hard to see why either of these is better.
Anyway, interesting article. Assorted villainous snark aside, I can't imagine a finer legacy than combining tax and Social Security reform.
Content used with permission of Cassandra from Villainous Company. You can read more of her work by clicking here.
Bush May Have Paid Michael Moore to Oppose Him By Scott Ott
Even as Tribune Media Services announced it had dropped columnist Armstrong Williams after he admitted receiving $241,000 from the Department of Education to promote 'No Child Left Behind', new allegations surfaced today that the Bush administration may have paid Michael Moore to oppose the president's reelection.
Mr. Moore and the White House both deny the charges, but critics point to the "almost scary" relationship between Mr. Bush's electoral success and the vigorous efforts of the Oscar-winning filmmaker to tarnish the president's image.
"The more he attacked Bush, the more Americans loved the president," said an unnamed spokesman for the American Society of Correspondents, Editors and Writers. "You don't have to be Oliver Stone to see the outlines of a conspiracy there. Michael Moore practically handed Bush his second term on a silver platter."
"The outcry from professional journalists over these pay-for-commentary scandals is not surprising," the source added. "They violated the journalistic code of honor. It's appalling to think that these men received compensation for weaving their biases into their work. Meanwhile, thousands of hard-working journalists do the same thing every day at no extra charge."
This content was used with permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
I was delighted to get an opportunity to do a 2nd interview with one of the most brilliant and insightful columnists in the business, Victor Davis Hanson. Many of you have read his books & regularly read his columns at National Review, and I hope you enjoy this interview as well.
