« January 2005 | WILLisms.com | March 2005 »

John Chaney: A Goon-gate Update.

Over the weekend, WILLisms.com commented on "Goon-gate," where Temple's head basketball coach sent in a player to purposely hurt players on St. Joe's squad.

Today, an update:

John Chaney "suspended himself" for the Atlantic Ten tournament. No word if he plans to coach in the NIT (or NCAA, should the Owls win the A-10 tourney); also no word on next year.

This is a move in the right direction, but it is unfortunate that Temple offered Chaney the dignity to determine his own fate.

Chaney's dismissal should not be his own decision. He made his decision when he sent a "goon" (his own word) to break a player's arm. With that action, in the larger context of his career of thuggery, he forfeited any right to coach another basketball game for the rest of his life. This should not be a difficult choice.

And it should not be Chaney's choice.

Also, still no word on the matter from Temple alumnus Bill Cosby, Chaney's personal friend.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 February 2005 09:52 PM · Comments (0)

Random, Relevant Paul Wolfowitz Comment.

Paul Wolfowitz is often the poster child for the "neocon cabal" running America, demonized by liberals as an agent of Israel. Wolfowitz is also often caricatured by left-wingers as a single-minded war-mongerer who wrecklessly took us to war in Iraq; Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11 showed Wolfowitz unflatteringly, licking his fingers to fix his hair for a television interview in high winds.

With freedom on the march in nations around the world, often in peaceful revolutions rather than through direct military intervention, an anecdote Wolfowitz made in Congressional testimony (at the Senate Armed Services Committee) on February 3, 2005 needs to be mentioned:

"We've seen an incredible expanse of freedom in Central and Eastern Europe and, most recently, in Georgia and Ukraine.

It's stunning, and every one of those cases happened without American combat forces.

And I would hope that that is the kind of change we can see in the Middle East going forward.

And I hope the governments that feel, correctly, that they're being called upon to reform will understand that it's not to destabilize, it's not to bring about revolutions, but that in fact, I think, reform is the best way for them to preserve stability.

I go back, in fact, when I was ambassador to Indonesia and I had my farewell call on President Suharto, who was the dictator of that country at the time -- a mild dictator compared to Saddam Hussein, I would note, but a dictator nonetheless -- and he -- I talked in sort of oblique ways about the need to have political change in Indonesia and he talked less obliquely about the need to preserve stability.

And I said, 'Well, Mr. President, you talk about dynamic stability. You don't actually preserve stability by standing still. You have to move forward.'

And I would submit that what happened to him 10 years later is because he didn't move forward, because he tried to stop progress, because he tried to suppress civil society in Indonesia, because he drew more and more power around him.

And then there are examples elsewhere.

Taiwan's a stunning one. Actually, South Korea's a stunning one, where authoritarian leaders -- Spain is another one, actually, if you go back 30 years -- where authoritarian leaders have seen the need to prepare the way for something that's less authoritarian after them.

And it's possible, it happens -- the whole world is better off for it."

Dictators around the world are realizing, some too late for their own good, that the world is changing. They can either change with it, or become left behind by the advance of history. Under dictatorships, there is no stability, and with freedom on the march, we're beginning to see some tyrants understand this and acquiesce to democratization.

Some, however, grasp in vain to their power, clutching it for a few remaining moments of glory. History will not judge them kindly.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 February 2005 04:20 PM · Comments (6)

Unprecedented Events In Lebanon.

WILLisms.com previously noted the strange and wonderful recent events in Lebanon.

Today, the process took another step forward, as Lebanon's Syrian-backed Prime Minister Omar Karami resigned.

"Out of concern that the government does not become an obstacle to the good of the country, I announce the resignation of the government I had the honor to lead." Karami told parliament in Beirut on Monday.

The move came following protests in Lebanon and at the U.N. for Lebanese freedom and independence from Syrian Ba'ath Party (yes, that Ba'ath Party) domination.

This will pave the way for new elections, which now have the opportunity to be both free and fair. Freedom is on the march. This is now undeniable.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here are several pictures:

UPDATE:
Captain's Quarters Blog, as always, has great commentary on the implications of today's events:

"This is Assad's worst nightmare come true. With the Syrians, especially the Kurds in the northeast, watching the Iraqis vote in the first free multi-party elections ever on their east and the Lebanese on their west showing how fragile the Syrian grip on power truly is, the Assad government may wind up facing similar demonstrations in the streets of Damascus, demanding free multi-party elections -- which would end Assad's grip on power, unless he got in front of the effort immediately.

Will Assad get ahead of history and lead Syria out of Lebanon and into a freely-elected, multiparty democracy? Or will he dither and stand pat and attempt to survive the avalanche headed his way? These are the choices that the Anglo-American strategy of democratization have left with Assad. His father would choose the latter; Bashar might just be smart enough, like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, to opt for the former. Either way, he only has weeks, possibly even days, to make his choices before the choices are made for him."

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 February 2005 03:23 PM · Comments (0)

Euro-Bush: Redux.

WILLisms.com brought you extensive coverage of President Bush's trip to Europe ("A Preview" ; "Part Two" ; "Grading Thus Far" ; "Brings Up China, European Integration" ; "Well, It Was Real, It Was Fun, But Was It Real Fun?"), but WILLisms.com's favorite Canadian writer Mark Steyn has a must-read recap of the adventure.

Steyn:

"A week ago, the conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush had seen the error of his unilateral cowboy ways and was setting off to Europe to mend fences with America's 'allies.'

I think not. Lester Pearson, the late Canadian prime minister, used to say that diplomacy is the art of letting the other fellow have your way. All week long President Bush offered a hilariously parodic reductio of Pearson's bon mot, wandering from one European Union gabfest to another insisting how much he loves his good buddy Jacques and his good buddy Gerhard and how Europe and America share -- what's the standard formulation? -- 'common values.' Care to pin down an actual specific value or two that we share? Well, you know, 'freedom,' that sort of thing, abstract nouns mostly. Love to list a few more common values, but gotta run.

And at the end what's changed?

Will the United States sign on to Kyoto?

No.

Will the United States join the International Criminal Court?

No.

Will the United States agree to accept whatever deal the Anglo-Franco-German negotiators cook up with Iran?

No.

Even more remarkably, aside from sticking to his guns in the wider world, the president also found time to cast his eye upon Europe's internal affairs. As he told his audience in Brussels, in the first speech of his tour, 'We must reject anti-Semitism in all forms and we must condemn violence such as that seen in the Netherlands.'

The Euro-bigwigs shuffled their feet and stared coldly into their mistresses' decolletage. They knew Bush wasn't talking about anti-Semitism in Nebraska, but about France, where for three years there's been a sustained campaign of synagogue burning and cemetery desecration, and Germany, where the Berlin police advise Jewish residents not to go out in public wearing any identifying marks of their faith.

The 'violence in the Netherlands' is a reference to Theo van Gogh, murdered by a Dutch Islamist for making a film critical of the Muslim treatment of women. Van Gogh's professional colleagues reacted to this assault on freedom of speech by canceling his movie from the Rotterdam Film Festival and scheduling some Islamist propaganda instead."

Steyn then turns his attention to the European Union's proposed Constitution, arguing that it:

"...would be unrecognizable as such to any American. I had the opportunity to talk with former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing on a couple of occasions during his long labors as the self-declared and strictly single Founding Father. He called himself 'Europe's Jefferson,' and I didn't like to quibble that, constitution-wise, Jefferson was Europe's Jefferson -- that's to say, at the time the U.S. Constitution was drawn up, Thomas Jefferson was living in France. Thus, for Giscard to be Europe's Jefferson, he'd have to be in Des Moines, where he'd be doing far less damage.

But, quibbles aside, President Giscard professed to be looking in the right direction. When I met him, he had an amiable riff on how he'd been in Washington and bought one of those compact copies of the U.S. Constitution on sale for a buck or two. Many Americans wander round with the constitution in their pocket so they can whip it out and chastise over-reaching congressmen and senators at a moment's notice. Try going round with the European Constitution in your pocket and you'll be walking with a limp after two hours: It's 511 pages, which is 500 longer than the U.S. version. It's full of stuff about European space policy, Slovakian nuclear plants, water resources, free expression for children, the right to housing assistance, preventive action on the environment, etc.

Most of the so-called constitution isn't in the least bit constitutional. That's to say, it's not content, as the U.S. Constitution is, to define the distribution and limitation of powers. Instead, it reads like a U.S. defense spending bill that's got porked up with a ton of miscellaneous expenditures for the 'mohair subsidy' and other notorious Congressional boondoggles. President Ronald Reagan liked to say, 'We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around.' If you want to know what it looks like the other way round, read Monsieur Giscard's constitution.

But the fact is it's going to be ratified, and Washington is hardly in a position to prevent it. Plus there's something to be said for the theory that, as the EU constitution is a disaster waiting to happen, you might as well cut down the waiting and let it happen. CIA analysts predict the collapse of the EU within 15 years. I'd say, as predictions of doom go, that's a little on the cautious side.

But either way the notion that it's a superpower in the making is preposterous. Most administration officials subscribe to one of two views: a) Europe is a smugly irritating but irrelevant backwater; or b) Europe is a smugly irritating but irrelevant backwater where the whole powder keg's about to go up."

Steyn then goes one step further, describing Europe's impending demise:

"For what it's worth, I incline to the latter position. Europe's problems -- its unaffordable social programs, its deathbed demographics, its dependence on immigration numbers that no stable nation (not even America in the Ellis Island era) has ever successfully absorbed -- are all of Europe's making. By some projections, the EU's population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025. Already, more people each week attend Friday prayers at British mosques than Sunday service at Christian churches -- and in a country where Anglican bishops have permanent seats in the national legislature.

Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. But getting there is certain to be messy, and violent.

Until the shape of the new Europe begins to emerge, there's no point picking fights with the terminally ill. The old Europe is dying, and Mr. Bush did the diplomatic equivalent of the Oscar night lifetime-achievement tribute at which the current stars salute a once glamorous old-timer whose fading aura is no threat to them. The 21st century is being built elsewhere."

His last line is particularly necessary to understand. India and China, and to a lesser extent, Brazil, are the emerging powers in the world. The United States, meanwhile, unlike Europe, does not have to witness our own decline from the sideline. There is very little reason America can't go on being the world's greatest power for the next century or more if we do the right things, but it will require major education reform, major immigration reform, major tax reform, major legal reform, major medical reform, major pension reform, and a litany of other reforms to keep the U.S. as the most powerful engine of commerce in the world.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 February 2005 11:29 AM · Comments (0)

"Goon-gate" Strikes College Basketball: The Downfall of John Chaney.

John Chaney: Certified Unclassy.

John Chaney, Temple University's head basketball coach, has a career record of 722-294, good enough for fourth place among active coaches. Chaney's zone defenses are, year-in, year-out, among the best in the country; high school coaches across the country show film of Chaney's teams to teach the nuances of playing his brand of basketball.

He was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame in 2001 for his career accomplishments.

Chaney threw all that away this week, tarnishing his legacy and disgracing his school.

Chaney, upset by what he considered poor officiating in a 63-56 loss to St. Joseph's University, sent in a "goon" to "send a message" (his own words) to the St. Joe's Hawks. The result: St. Joe's, a 15-9 team (12-1 in conference play) that still likely needs to win its conference tournament to make the NCAA tournament, now has a 6th-man with a broken arm. Chaney, at this point, has gotten off with a slap on the wrist.

The goon: Nehemiah Ingram, a 6-foot-8, 250-pound bench-warmer. Before the cheap shot that led to the broken arm, Ingram also threw elbows, landing blows on the jaws on at least two other Hawks players. Sports Illustrated reports that a "Temple spokesman said no disciplinary action was taken against Ingram."

The victim: St. Joseph's University's John Bryant, co-captain of his team, a model student athlete who has already graduated and is now attending graduate school. His basketball career is most likely over. Bryant said, of Chaney:

"I grew up watching Chaney, I still admire him, but I don't really understand the situation fully. It was just weird."

It was more than just weird, yet the incident was completely typical of John Chaney, a characteristic about which even the most devoted college basketball fanatics knew very little, because of always-glowing media coverage of Chaney.

As CBS points out, Chaney has a distinguished history of thuggery:

"Chaney once grabbed the neck of a rival coach, George Washington's Gerry Gimelstob, in 1984. Everyone looked the other way. That's just John Chaney.

Chaney once threatened to kill a rival coach, Massachusetts' John Calipari, in 1994. The threat was captured on video. It was embarrassing, a career-ending move for most coaches. Not for Chaney. Everyone looked the other way."

That's not the half of it. MSNBC notes a bizarre story from twelve years ago, very reminiscent of the latest incident:

"Remember the physical, 1993 NCAA West Region final? The day before the Michigan-Temple game in a news conference, Chaney asked his freshman brute of a center, William Cunningham, 'William, are you going to attack Chris Webber?'

'Answer,' the coach said to his embarrassed player.

'Yes,' Cunningham said.

Chaney raised his hands. 'We win,' he said. Temple went out and obliterated the line between aggressive and dirty before losing."

Not only was the "hit" Chaney put out on St. Joe's horrific, it was pre-meditated rather than in the heat of coaching passion (not that doing it in the heat of the moment would have made his actions any more acceptable)[also from MSNBC]:

"The day before he sent Ingram out as an enforcer, Chaney was on a conference call with reporters. He bemoaned what he called illegal screens set by Saint Joseph's players and said he would dispatch 'one of my goons and have him run through one of those guys and chop him in the neck or something.'"

After the game, when it became clear that Bryant was seriously injured, Chaney did not seem concerned:

"That's what happens. I'm a mean, ornery SOB."

Rick Majerus, former coach of Utah (and for about a week this season, of U.S.C.) and current analyst for ABC and ESPN, was ready to excuse Chaney for his actions on Saturday, saying that any young man would be lucky to have the opportunity play for John Chaney. Majerus went even further over the top, saying he personally would have been honored to have been able to play for Chaney. While still a coach, it must be noted that Majerus was removed as a voter in the ESPN/USA Today's basketball coaches' poll for slotting in Temple at number 9, despite the Owls' 6-12 record. Majerus subsequently wrote a letter of apology for the incident, blaming the flub on his assistant.

Majerus said Chaney's suspension for the remainder of the regular season is appropriate, because of Chaney's history, and because Chaney was contrite. Indeed, Chaney labels himself "contrite," according to Sports Illustrated:

"Chaney said he called Bryant on Friday morning to apologize and also said he planned to talk to his parents. Chaney also offered to pay for Bryant's medical bills."

That's too little, too late. Chaney could have expressed contrition before he realized his legacy was on the line. But he didn't. He chose to tell reporters, "that's what happens."

In a just world, Chaney would face both criminal and civil charges, spend at least a few nights in jail, and be removed from the Basketball Hall of Fame. At the least. His entire career also ought to have an asterik by it. Any biography of Chaney must have the word "goon" in the title.

Chaney has been exposed as a fraud. His punishment, a mere 3-game suspension, is not enough. Chaney should not even be given the dignity of resigning. He should be fired, and fired very publicly. He should be humiliated and disgraced, an example made of his recent actions within the context of his entire nefarious career of bullying.

What's even worse is that Chaney's unclassy leadership has created an atmosphere of hooliganism at his school (as described by USA TODAY):

"Some Temple students spit in the direction of Bryant and Saint Joe's cheerleaders and booed when Bryant got up and walked off the court....

'These actions are not indicative of what I represent and I regret them immensely,' Chaney said."

Actually, John, they are precisely indicative of everything you have represented over your career, and while you may have regret, the students were merely following your example.

One wonders what Bill Cosby, proud Temple alumnus, would have to say about all this this, given his recent history of controversies.

Bottom line, John Chaney ended a player's career through cheap violence. For that, he should forfeit his own career. If John Chaney coaches another basketball game this or any other year, it will be a travesty.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 February 2005 04:57 PM · Comments (0)

Egypt: Freedom On The Way?

Previously, WILLisms.com noted some strange and wondering happenings in Lebanon, including these comments from Lebanese intifada leader Walid Jumblatt:

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

Now Egypt is showing signs of change.

Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak today announced that he intends to move Egypt toward democratic reforms. Mubarak told Egyptians:

"...that the election of the president of the republic should be made through a secret public direct voting, allowing political parties to take part in the presidential elections and providing guarantees that allow more than one candidate to participate in the elections for the president of the republic so that people can make a free choice between them."

Egypt, currently rated "Not Free" by Freedom House (civil liberties rating- 6, political rights- 6; with 1 being best, 7 being worst), has received more than fifty billion dollars in American aid over the thirty years. The aid's main purposes:

1. Increase stability of the Egyptian regime, preventing an Islamic fundamentalist ideology from seizing power.

2. Provide incentive for Egypt, widely accepted as the leading Arab nation, to stop incessantly going to war with Israel, which would lead to peace in the region.

3. Ensure U.S. access to the Suez Canal (particularly during the Cold War).

4. Make Egypt supportive of U.S. policies and ideals in the region.

5. Help Egypt modernize its economy and its infrastructure, because it was thought that a strong economy would lead to Egypt's eventual democratization.

The aid has only served some of its intended purposes, failing miserably in others.

Egypt's inclusion in the Iraq coalition could have potentially helped frame the conflict less as "the U.S. versus Muslims," but Egypt strongly denounced the Iraq war. And why wouldn't they? If America is in the business of ridding the world of tyrannies, the Egyptian tyranny must surely be on the list somewhere.

U.S. aid to Egypt has created a sort of "Dutch Disease" effect, which simply means that the Egyptian economy has become dependent on a free lunch, so it failed to modernize and diversify the rest of its economy.

While the U.S. might have, in the short-term, staved off fundamentalist extremists from gaining power, Egypt has paradoxically become one the worst hotbeds for anti-Americanism, fueled in part by virulently anti-American state-run Egyptian media. Egyptians express deep and broad levels of hostility toward the U.S, despite the fact that U.S. dollars have provided major roads, sewage systems, power grids, and other necessities of modern life. More Egyptians know that Japan helped build the Cairo Opera House than know the U.S. has been providing tens of billions of dollars over the years; America gets ever-diminishing returns on its foreign aid to Egypt.

Of those Egyptians who do realize America has provided vast sums of money to Egypt over the years feel that the U.S. is propping up a corrupt and tyrannical regime, the regime of Hosni Mubarak.

Mubarak said that the proposed reform,

"...allows for the first time in Egypt's political history the opportunity to all who have the ability to give, the desire to serve the country, to cope with the responsibility of protecting people's achievements and providing care for the people and their future, to submit their nominations, within a framework of the parliamentarian and popular support, for the direct election of the president of the republic."

Perhaps the most telling part of Mubarak's speech, however, was this line:

"...this historical decisive moment is the fruit of economic stability which we enjoy."

You think Mubarak's actions are due to his wonderful benevolence, out of the goodness of his heart? Mubarak knows that in order for Egypt to continue receiving U.S. money, the status quo is not going to cut it. U.S. Secretary of State Dr. Condoleeza Rice cancelled her trip to Egypt after Egyptian opposition leader Ayman Nour was jailed.

But those are not the only reasons.

It is also happening because Egyptians have witnessed the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, Egyptians have witnessed the power of freedom, and they are now demanding a taste.

Mubarak is seeking reforms, because he has no choice. Egypt is much like the ungrateful teenager who refuses to do the chores but still expects an allowance. But no more. The parent, the U.S., after years of neglecting to require anything in return for the aid, has finally decided to put its foot down.

The conversation probably went something like this:
If you, Egypt, are to keep receiving gobs of American money every year, you are going to earn it, starting with, but not limited to, election reforms. Period. End of story. Now get to it. Now.

The old foreign policy calculus involved looking the other way when a regime like Egypt's abused the rights of its citizens. Afterall, what happens in Egypt, stays in Egypt. A nation has a sovereign right to govern its own people in whatever way it wishes, the old thinking went. Indeed, a member of Mubarak's administration recently echoed these sentiments when Dr. Rice expressed displeasure to Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit about Mr. Nour's incarceration. The New York Times:

"After the meeting, Mr. Gheit protested that Mr. Nour's arrest was an internal Egyptian matter, and Suleiman Awad, the spokesman for President Hosni Mubarak, said he rejected 'any foreign interference in Egypt's internal affairs.'"

In the past, Egypt could get away with such an argument. No longer, however. Beginning with President George W. Bush, the U.S. now links the way it treats other regimes with the way those regimes treat their citizens. Additionally, America can no longer afford to assume that what happens within the borders of a sovereign nation, stay within the borders of that sovereign nation (Does the name of Egyptian Mohammed Atta ring a bell?).

It is a good policy change. And it clearly is working.

UPDATE:

The Pajama Hadin blog notes:

"Quite an amazing development indeed. Open elections! Secret Ballot! Freedom of the Press! Historic indeed. Let us hope (for Egypt, the Middle East, and the world) that Mubarak's commitment to this is as profound as the import of his proclamation."

Meanwhile, Captain's Quarters Blog has some worthwhile comments:

"Once again, we see the transformative power of democracy and the fulfillment of the so-called 'neocon' philosophy of security through democratization. Egypt has produced some of the most radical -- and dangerously Westernized -- terrorists of the past generation, including Ayman al-Zwahiri, al-Qaeda's number two under Osama bin Laden. With the ability to express political dissent through the ballot box instead of the bomb, Egypt's moves hold the promise of defusing one of the main intellectual producers of terror in the region....

The question will be how the American media can cover this without having to credit American policy in the region. Can CNN and the New York Times ignore free Egyptian elections? We'll see."

UPDATE 2:

Patrick Ruffini explains that "Egypt's Velvet Revolution" validates President Bush's comments leading up to the Iraq war:

"First Palestine. Then Iraq. Then Lebanon. And now Egypt. Not bad for a month's work....

Today, President Bush's predictions in this major policy address before the war in Iraq look dead on:

'A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.'

This is exactly how diplomacy (and a little firepower) in the service of freedom should work. You push, you push, you push, until liberty prevails."

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 February 2005 05:11 PM · Comments (0)

Classiness To The Max From Around The Blogosphere.

Click to explore more WILLisms.com.

Wizbang blog-

In a post called "THE TRIUMPH OF THE EMPTY SUITS,"

Explains that Democrats need to think about nominating a candidate with some qualifications, for a change:

"I don't hate Hillary Clinton. But I do find her emblematic of a rather odd phenomenon going on in politics these days, especially among the Democrats....

...every single one of her achievements can be directly tied to Bill Clinton's political successes. This is hardly the resume' of a supposed 'strong, intelligent, accomplished woman,' as her backers like to describe her.

Similarly, look at the Democrats' nominee this last time around. Repeatedly during the campaign I challenged Kerry supporters to cite three major accomplishments of his during his 20 years in the Senate, and they repeatedly failed miserably."

Although, with regards to Hillary Clinton, how do we know it's not the opposite, that she is the reason for her husband's success? Republican underestimation of Hillary Clinton is not something WILLisms.com wants to be responsible for.

Patrick Ruffini (Bush/Cheney 2004 official blogger)-

In a post called "Congressional Blogging: A Guide,"

Notes the emergence of blogging amongst elected officials, and offers answers to blog-skeptics, as well as a guide for blogging, answering the following questions:

"What if the Blog is Off-Message?

So How Can I Be a Good Blogger and Still Get My Message Across?

My Blogging is Ripe for Attack and Will Be Taken Out of Context.

Blogging Is Not as Important as Other Forms of Media, Like TV.

What If My Principal Doesn't Have Time to Blog?"

In a decade or so, the public will expect that every candidate and public official maintain a blog.

Pejmanesque-

In a post titled, "THE CONSEQUENCES OF EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE,"

Makes the case that eminent domain expansion has broader consequences:

"There are not that many people who in their lifetimes will be in the position occupied by the homeowners in Kelo, though to be sure, it is vital to prevent eminent domain abuse when it comes to real property. But millions of Americans will have their lives directly and negatively impacted by the placement of additional barriers obstructing pharmaceutical research, development and distribution. Those millions of Americans cannot read stories discussing and advocating the taking of a patent for pharmaceutical products and be sanguine about it. And the policy chickens that come home to roost if such takings occur will leave no one in a happy frame of mind."

Property rights are a fundamental building block of a free society, and while eminent domain makes sense sometimes (especially, say, national security reasons, or for ambitious public works projects), but unlimited eminent domain should trouble Americans deeply.

Classy, all.

Posted by Will Franklin · 25 February 2005 05:01 PM · Comments (0)

Euro-Bush: Well, It Was Real, It Was Fun. But Was It Real Fun?

The President's European adventure has come to an end. The President is Euro-Bush no longer. Now he can get back to the work of Social Security reform, which, unfortunately, looks to be a tough task ahead.

Click on the picture for a full transcript of the event.

The President met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in, appropriately enough, Bratislava, Slovakia. Bush pressed Putin on the issue of Russia's backpeddling human, civil, and political rights, but not too heavy-handedly.

Can you imagine John Kerry, or Al Gore, leaning on Vladimir Putin for his poor record on freedom and democracy? Either way, a veritable World's Fair of patronizing, pedantic haughtiness.

A few somewhat humorous moments from the Bush-Putin meeting:

First, a weird, rambling question from a reporter-

"Q First of all, I wanted to ask another question, but we have an interesting conversation now, therefore I'm going to ask about the following: It seems to me that you have nothing to disagree about. The regimes that are in place in Russia and the U.S. cannot be considered fuller democratic, especially when compared to some other countries of Europe, for example -- for example, The Netherlands. It seems to me, that as far as Russia is concerned, everything is clear, more or less. But as far as the U.S. is concerned, we could probably talk at length. I am referring to the great powers that have been assumed by the security services due to which the private lives of citizens are now being monitored by the state. This could be explained away by the consequences of September 11th, but this has nothing to do with democratic values. How could you comment on this? I suggest that you can probably agree -- you can probably shake hands and continue to be friends in future."

We'll just place one big [sic] after that whole question, and call it even, how about that?

The President gave a nice answer, succinctly explaining the U.S. Constitution and the system of checks and balances. If he had WILLisms.com handy on his PDA, he could have also explained that the U.S. has a much broader, much deeper, much longer tradition of democracy than the Dutch; the U.S., even post-Patriot Act, earns perfect scores from Freedom House.

Putin, however, delivered the punch-line, proving just how sharp and quick-witted the former Soviet KGB agent really is. Putin explained:

"You have cited a curious example -- The Netherlands. The Netherlands is a monarchy, after all."

The reporter's question sort of proves the effect of media bias. The reporter had probably read all kinds of articles in American and international media about how the U.S. is becoming some kind of police state under President Bush. If that was the reporter's only frame of reference, the question becomes less awkward, one could suppose.

But awkward nevertheless. And, the nerve of it, comparing Russia and the U.S. like that! The U.S. is the world's most long-enduring democracy. Russia is still recovering (with a significant relapse in the past year) from decades of occupation under the thumb of the Communist Party.

Next, was another odd question from a reporter-

"Q To follow up on the issue of democratic institutions, President Bush recently stated that the press in Russia is not free. What is this lack of freedom all about? Your aides probably mentioned to you that our media, both electronic and our printed media -- full coverage of the manifestations and protests in our country. Our regional and national media often criticize the government institution. What about you? Why don't you talk a lot about violations of the rights of journalists in the United States, about the fact that some journalists have been fired? Or do you prefer to discuss this in private with your American colleague?"

This one made President Bush laugh, as it was another example of distorted media leading to distorted perception. The journalist must have read somewhere about Eason Jordan or, perhaps, Rathergate, and determined that freedom of the press in the U.S. is not as solid as previously thought, as if Bush personally fired those recalcitrant reporters for refusing to paint him in a positive light. The reporter's question also revealed a thorough lack of understanding of the First Amendment in the U.S., which has been the poster child for the manifesto of the greatest force for freedom in the past two centuries, the American Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The United States, with its First Amendment, is the supreme example in the history of the world with regards to freedom of the press, and that is no hyperbole; few other countries guarantee such broad freedom in law, fewer still guarantee it in practice. The President took his turn at smacking down an idiot reporter:

"PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't know what journalists you're referring to. Any of you all still have your jobs? No, I -- look, I think it's important any viable democracy has got a free and active press. Obviously, if you're a member of the Russian press, you feel like the press is free. And that's -- feel that way? Well, that's good. (Laughter.) But I -- I talked to Vladimir about that. And he -- he wanted to know about our press. I said, nice bunch of folks. And he wanted to know about, as you mentioned, the subject of somebody getting fired. People do get fired in American press. They don't get fired by government, however. They get fired by their editors or they get fired by their producers, or they get fired by the owners of a particular outlet or network.

But a free press is important. And it is -- it is an important part of any democracy. And if you're a member of the press corps and you feel comfortable with the press in Russia, I think that is a pretty interesting observation for those of us who don't live in Russia to listen to.

But no question, whether it be in America or anywhere else, the sign of a healthy and vibrant society is one in where there's an active press corps. Obviously, there has got to be constraints. There's got to be truth. People have got to tell the truth, and if somebody violates the truth, then those who own a particular newspaper or those who are in charge of particular electronic station need to hold people to account. The press -- the capacity of the press to hold people to account also depends on their willingness to self-examine at times when they're wrong. And that happens on occasion in America. And that's -- that's an important part of maintaining a proper relationship between government and press.

I can assure you that the folks here are constantly trying to hold me to account for decisions I make and how I make decisions. I'm comfortable with that. It's part of the checks and balances of a democracy.

And so I'm glad to hear you're editorial comment, so to speak, on your comfort with the situation of the press corps in the Federation of Russia."

Ouch. One almost wonders if that journalist was planted there for comic relief, and/or to lob a softball at the President.

The meeting with Putin, however, was just one part of the trip, a trip with many missions.

The Wall Street Journal explains that Europe has decided, in some ways at least, that "Bush may be right after all" (which they borrowed from Der Spiegel, noted at Chrenkoff's blog):

"For much of Europe, the idea that President Bush is the real and legitimate face of America came a few years late. But it has come, as has the realization that a hopeful era is dawning in the Middle East thanks to U.S. 'unilateralism' and force of arms. In this sense, the purpose of Mr. Bush's trip isn't to present himself anew to Europe. It is to allow European leaders--France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder and Russia's Vladimir Putin--to present themselves anew to Mr. Bush.

This is precisely on-target. Many Europeans felt that Bush had stumbled into his first term in office by some kind of fluke, and obviously America would come to its senses after one failed term. President Bush's record-breaking reelection victory, stunned many Europeans, but stunned them into the realization that, hey, this guy is for real, and he is going to be there for four more years. America, even, might be there, where Bush is, for longer than that.

The Wall Street Journal continues:

... Contrary to expectation a year ago (and with the qualified exception of Spain), the leaders who supported the war in Iraq have all been returned to office, while Messrs. Chirac, Putin and Schroeder languish in polls.

Again, dead on. This phenomenon is often underreported, but the policy of liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein has been confirmed at ballot box after ballot box, all around the world, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. A year ago, most counted Tony Blair out, yet he is likely to win reelection in the U.K.'s upcoming parliamentary elections.

In short, on Iraq, the international community agrees. France and Germany are on the outside of history, looking in.

More from The Wall Street Journal:

"Probably the most important component is that President Bush's vision of spreading democracy--of getting to the 'tipping point' where tyrannies start to crumble--seems not only to be working but also winning some unexpected converts. Just ask the Lebanese who are suddenly restive under Syrian occupation. As a result, European politicians are in a poorer position to lecture this President about the true ways of the world."

Indeed, many critics of the President's foreign policy like to fashion themselves as realists, deriding the President from the left as some kind of crazed right-wing neo-con crusader, or from the right as a crazed liberal hippie neo-con crusader. It doesn't get any more real than the volcano of freedom that is just beginning to gurgle in the Middle East.

Dick Morris describes the scene in Europe, explaining that, "It's a good time to be an American in Paris." Bush, Morris notes, "is going over the heads of the leftist European media and speaking directly to eastern and western Europe."

Morris:

"The statesmen of Old Europe seem to have lost their way in the thicket of self-interest, while Bush is holding out a clarifying lantern of idealism and commitment to democracy."

The President seems to have enjoyed himself a great deal on his European tour. He seemed relaxed, free from the first-term pressures to meet or exceed expectations, confident that his vision for freedom in the world is working, assured that he is on the right side of history. All in all, a successful journey for the President.

UPDATE: Polipundit has more on Putin's confusion about American freedom of the press.

So does YoungPundit, noting this passage from a Time article:

"But when Bush talked about the Kremlin's crackdown on the media and explained that democracies require a free press, the Russian leader gave a rebuttal that left the President nonplussed. If the press was so free in the U.S., Putin asked, then why had those reporters at CBS lost their jobs? Bush was openmouthed. 'Putin thought we'd fired Dan Rather,' says a senior Administration official. 'It was like something out of 1984.'"

More on the subject, from Time:

"The Russians did not let the matter drop. Later, during the leaders' joint press conference, one of the questioners Putin called on asked Bush about the very same firings, a coincidence the White House assumed had been orchestrated. The odd episode reinforced the Administration's view that Putin's impressions of America are often based on urban myths fed to him by ill-informed aides. (At a past summit, according to Administration aides, Putin asked Bush whether it was true that chicken producers split their production into plants that serve the U.S. and lower-quality ones that process substandard chicken for Russia.) U.S. aides say that to help fight against this kind of misinformation, they are struggling to build relationships that go beyond Putin. 'We need to go deeper into the well into other levels of government,' explains an aide."

Putin may be sly, but he is also a product of his KGB days: paranoid and prone to conspiracy theories.

Posted by Will Franklin · 24 February 2005 11:49 PM · Comments (0)

Rock The Vote + AARP = WAY LAME.

In a previous post, WILLisms.com noted that Rock the Vote has gone off the deep end, deviating far from its "non-partisan" status, becoming a mouthpiece for the far-left wing of the DNC, teaming up with other left-wing groups to maximize their power. They have dropped all pretense of open-mindedness, all illusion of fairness to both sides.

For example, Rock the Vote is single-mindedly and persistently trying to scare young people about a draft:

Before the election, Rock the Vote sent an email out to all of its email subscribers, telling them if they didn't vote the right way, they would be drafted. This had a clear and powerful effect on the youth vote, which had been trending toward Republicans, whipping people up into a panic over nothing.

Rock the Vote also has links on its website to This Is Rumor Control blog and Alliance for Security, two obviously affiliated far-left groups (although it is hard to tell just how they are organized).

Rock the Vote is even selling these t-shirts on his website:

If Rock the Vote really loved Social Security, they would not oppose reforming it. Keeping Social Security as-is is not even an option, as that would require massive benefit cuts and/or massive tax increases, guaranteed, down the line. Here is just one glorious example of Rock the Vote ridiculousness, completely misrepresenting the plan, from a post called "A solution that is worse than the problem" (are they now at least acknowledging there is a problem?):

"Proponents of the plan would be quick to retort that in exchange for reduced traditional Social Security benefits, privatized personal accounts will be available to supplement.

This sounds good in theory. The stock market gets great returns, right? Of course it does.

Unless the stock market crashes. But, how often does that happen? We haven’t had a recession in three years!

Or unless you make a bad investment. But, that would never happen to us - we have learned a lot from Giovanni Ribisi in 'Boiler Room' and Michael Douglas in 'Wall Street.'"

Ugh.

The inane movie references aside, this just distorts the facts so profoundly, probably on purpose. The personal retirement accounts would not resemble anything from the scenarios in Boiler Room or Wall Street. The accounts would resemble the Thrift Savings Plan accounts available to employees of the federal government (such as, member of Congress), which, even when losing money temporarily through recessions, over a ten-year period deliver, at worst, 5.45% rates of annual compounded interest (the "C" and "S" funds in the TSP offer nearly 12% returns).

Plus, unlike the movies cited by Rock the Vote, there would be no chance that an individual could throw his money after some zany stock idea and lose it all. None. The plans would be highly diversified, not tied to individual stocks (or even individual sectors). Temporary stock market downturns, temporary recessions, these things would have no bearing on the personal retirement accounts, which are in it for the long haul. Over the long run (let's call it 30 years), the market is always up, even through the period of the Great Depression.

The latest nonsense from Rock the Vote is the peddling of disingenuous polling data to try to create a false bandwagon effect, where otherwise disengaged people flock to the winning position. Rock the Vote, through the use of push-polling (an unethical and widely condemned practice of manipulation, or "rigging"), is trying to suggest that young people actually do not favor reform of Social Security afterall. Rock the Vote also uses anyone under 40 as its "youth" cohort, also deceptive.

Is it merely a coincidence that AARP, a group recently exposed (here and here) for peddling disingenuous polling data, has just recently joined forces with Rock the Vote? Is that merely suspicious, or are they operating from the same playbook?

Adam Doverspike, of Social Security Choice, explains:

"Rock The Vote, ostensibly a youth organization, has teamed up with AARP to oppose meaningful Social Security reform. The recently conducted a push poll that was meant to show youth opposed to PRAs. This contradicts most independent polling on the subject that shows big rifts between the old and the young on PRAs. Mr. Hederman of the Heritage Foundation disects the push poll technique used in this specific poll."

The Heritage Foundation goes into greater detail:

"Push-polling is the intellectually dishonest practice of conducting a survey in a way designed to produce a pre-determined result. Such polls follow up a neutrally worded question with more 'questions' that provide new information. The added information presents only one side of an argument and is designed to 'coach' or 'push' the respondent into giving the desired answer....

Luckily, AARP and RTV had been prescient enough to foresee that the vast majority of younger workers would support personal accounts. (It’s what legitimate surveys have been finding for years.)

Consequently, the survey itself proceeded to supply the necessary 'nuance' by posing nine follow-up questions for the 198 lost young souls who dared embrace the concept of personal retirement accounts. 'Would you still favor' reform if it meant:

— creating a new government agency?

— massive new federal debt?

— requiring 'additional help from government'?

The barrage of unattractive hypotheticals ran on and on. This isn’t polling. This is a lecture from an overeager high school guidance counselor. Why not just ask us if we would prefer privatization if we had to eat cat food in our retirement? If we’d be forced to listen to Milli Vanilli? If advocates of personal accounts would come to our houses, kick our dogs and erase our iPods?"

The Heritage article points out the notable absence of any information about what would happen to Social Security without any action. Interestingly enough, support for Social Security reform in the Rock the Vote poll was pretty durable, withstanding the barrage:

"...despite these loaded questions, a plurality of the Rock the Vote cohort still believed that investing in private equities is good for Social Security. Forty-seven percent of the 18-39 cohort responded that Social Security would be strengthened with the ability to invest part of our payroll taxes in the stock market. And half of the RTV cohort believes that investing in a private account would make up for benefits cuts. And this is after being told that private accounts are the financial equivalent of the 10 plagues....

Because of its maniacally manipulative methodology, the AARP/RTV survey can tell us nothing reliable about what Americans think about Social Security. But it speaks volumes about the sponsors. Neither AARP nor RTV wants to hear what their constituents think. Both groups are far more interested in telling their constituents what they should think — whether they like it or not."

UPDATE:
National Review (via Social Security Choice) has more:

"Hans Reimer says he wants Rock the Vote to become the 'AARP of our Generation.' Young Americans... deserve better."

Posted by Will Franklin · 24 February 2005 06:31 PM · Comments (0)

Reform Thursday: Social Security- Chart Four.

Thursdays are good days for reform, because they fall between Wednesdays and Fridays.

That's why WILLisms.com will display a chart or graph, every Thursday, pertinent to Social Security reform.

Previous Reform Thursday graphics can be seen here:

-Week One.

-Week Two.

-Week Three.

-Week Three, bonus.

Today's graphic, like last week's, comes to us from the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) of Congress:

Click on chart for full-size chart (it's a .pdf):

Tune into WILLisms.com each Thursday for more important supporting data supporting Social Security reform.

Posted by Will Franklin · 24 February 2005 09:11 AM · Comments (0)

LaRouchers Against Social Security Reform.

The LaRouchers are coming!

And this time, they're, typically, against Social Security reform.

Just who are the LaRouchers, and why do they matter?

Well, they shouldn't matter, as they are remarkably few in number and nearly bankrupt of mainstream ideas, yet they do matter precisely because they are perhaps the most persistent bunch of activists in the country, appearing regularly on college campuses, passing out absurd propaganda such as this, conning some into paying $15 or more for it:

Subtle, they are not.

For these dedicated warriors of the world of ideas, Lyndon LaRouche is their spiritual leader, his endurance an inspiration for his disciples. LaRouche has been predicting an economic meltdown ("The Great Crash Of 2004-2005 Is Here!") in the United States for decades, not based on any kind of expert analysis, but, rather, based exclusively on his idea that America needs a "physical economy." That is to say, the U.S. (government) needs to build and manufacture things, and the world needs to work on projects such as a land bridge from the Americas to Asia, from Europe to Africa.

LaRouche, prior to dropping out of the 2004 presidential race and endorsing John Kerry, developed an 8-figure campaign chest (that's more than 10 million dollars), including nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer-funded federal campaign subsidies (LaRouche has raked in, from taxpayers, at least a few times that amount over the years). For comparison, note that LaRouche's campaign war chest was larger than the combined campaign funds of minor party candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, Michael Peroutka, and David Cobb. Throw in Democrats Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun, and LaRouche still had more campaign cash in 2004.

But why wasn't LaRouche allowed to debate the other Democrats, if he raised so much money and had so many staunch supporters?

Well, he is embarrassing. So are his supporters. And his poll numbers, despite robust financial and grassroots support, never reached into the single-digits. Elites on the left have effectively marginalized LaRouche, bizarrely enough, painting him as an ultra-conservative demagogue, preventing him from gaining support in primaries and caucuses. The New Republic magazine, in 1997, called LaRouche a "right-wing conspiratorialist." LaRouche, for the most part, however, is decidedly left-wing; he even came out recently in favor of a worldwide boycott of Wal-Mart. Perhaps he is so left-wing that his ideology mingles with right-wing, or vice-versa, but he is a stoic left-winger nonetheless. In the weird world of grotesque conspiracy theories, where left and right become meaningless, LaRouche thrives. If LaRouche, the FDR-loving socialist, seemed to sudden become an extreme right-winger, it is in the same pattern that America's arch-conspiracy theorist, Austin-based Alex Jones, decidedly right-wing during the Clinton administration, seemed to (but didn't, really) move sharply to the left after Republicans assumed power. Sometimes it's hard to tell which side someone is on when his ideology is so extreme.

The rantings of Jones and LaRouche are very similar: there is always some kind of Zionist banking conspiracy pulling the strings behind America's elected leaders; Arnold Schwarzenegger is an aspiring fascist dictator; and the government is always out to get both of them.

LaRouche is so ridiculous, he became a punchline on The Simpsons:

LaRouche and his apostles shrug off such parodies as vile insults, below them. Any critics of LaRouche, they argue reflexively, have their "heads in the gutter." The response is almost Pavlovian.

More on LaRouche's followers, from The Daily Cougar, last September:

"Supporters of former presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche distributed literature on campus Tuesday calling Vice President Dick Cheney a 'beast-man' and other Bush administration officials 'children of Satan.'

The LaRouche backers are paid $50 a week and given places to stay as they visit college campuses around the country telling students they should vote Democratic this November.

They were set up in the Philip Guthrie Hoffman Hall Breezeway with a poster that read, 'A vote for Bush is a vote for Hitler.'

Paid campaigner Dennis Daulton defended the sign. 'If the sign bothers people, they're in fantasy world. They don't want to face reality,' he said.

LaRouche, who claimed in a 1978 pamphlet that the musical group The Beatles 'had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division specifications,' has run for president in several elections, each time warning that the next Great Depression is imminent.

He was convicted of federal financial fraud in the late 1980s and served five years in prison before his early parole in 1994.

Daulton, however, claimed the 82-year-old LaRouche was 'politically targeted for exposing daddy Bush's drug running,' alleging that the U.S. government 'tried to kill LaRouche for his ideas.'

'LaRouche invented what Reagan later called the Strategic Defense Initiative,' Daulton said, 'and some very powerful people didn't like that.'

During a speech in the United Arab Emirates in 2002, LaRouche said 'Jewish gangsters' and 'Christian Zionists' control U.S. foreign policy and were responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

The Washington Post reported last October that the worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement, cult-like in its operations, has a profound effect on young recruits. The mysterious 2003 death in Germany of one 22-year-old LaRoucher, Jeremiah Duggan, as the Post article points out, very well may have been because he wanted to escape the brainwashing.

Think applying the label of "cult-like" on the LaRouche movement is excessive, or hyperbolic? Read the entire Post article first and then pass judgment.

LaRouche's troubling organization-building tactics aside, LaRouche's bizarre ideas have been adopted by some otherwise respectable liberals in recent years.

The Wall Street Journal noted all the way back in June of 2003, that LaRouche's rhetoric, although thoroughly repugnant, is not alone, exiled to the political wilderness. The New York Times and The New Yorker, making "common cause with Lyndon LaRouche," went "off the deep end" long ago. Indeed, since summer of 2003, the ideas of LaRouche, such as the notion that Israel is controlling U.S. policy through some kind of shadowy cabal of "neo-cons," have been somewhat mainstreamed.

The LaRouchers' latest diatribes focus on Social Security. But it wouldn't be a piece of LaRouche literature without a good old-fashioned Jewish scapegoat:

The pamphlet charges:

"George Shultz, the political Godfather of President George W. Bush and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, is, like his role model Hjalmar Schacht, the kind of fascist who, one would imagine, arrogantly believes he will get off scot-free at the next Nuremberg war crimes tribunals....

Shultz's hand-picked future Führer, with real-live Nazi blood flowing through his veins, is California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger."

It speaks for itself.

The LaRouchers are at once intensely hyper-intellectual and anti-intellectual, as one blogger explains:

"When I saw a fake human monkey with a cut-out of Dubya's face on a monkey being led around, I started to grow weary. When the fake monkey was invited to the stage to show off, I had to turn it off. How can anybody take what is being presented at the podium seriously when a fake monkey with a cut-out of Bush's face is being held hostage on a leash just off stage."

The latest charge from the LaRouchers is that Social Security reform was conceived by a Wall Street conspiracy:

"These wealthy financial institutions, and the oligarchical families that own them, have, in their own name and through cut-outs like the Mont Pelerin Society's Cato Institute, single-mindedly driven privatization: They have opened up their deep wallets to finance the multi-hundred-million-dollar-a-year campaign for privatization. They have directly crafted and specified the key financial features of the reports and the proposed legislation on privatization."

Dumb that down a bit, and you have exactly what the AFL-CIO is saying about Social Security reform. In fact, Team LaRouche and its arguments against reform are amazingly similar to the arguments of all the "mainstream" groups opposing reform. As noted before, WILLisms.com subscribes to various liberal interest group email lists, and here is just one example of a LaRouchian-type of comment over the past few weeks:

From February 15, 2005:
AFL-CIO email titled "You Beat Wall Street."

"Charles Schwab also is a member of the AWRS and of the Financial Services Roundtable. These and other front groups are raising millions for ad campaigns to sell Social Security privatization to the American public....

Social Security is America's best-run, most successful family insurance program. Millions of retirees, survivors and people with disabilities rely on Social Security. President Bush's plan to move Social Security funds into private accounts may be good for Schwab's business—but it would hurt working families terribly, forcing devastating cuts in benefits and replacing retirement security with retirement risk."

If, as the LaRouchers argue, "Wall Street" had been spending multi-hundreds of billions each year on Social Security reform, it would have happened long ago.

Unfortunately, "Wall Street" has actually been fairly neutral on Social Security reform, refusing to really take the plunge and come out strongly for personal accounts. While personal accounts would indeed lead to an infusion of cash into the stock market, it would be hundreds of millions of relatively small accounts, not exactly the kinds of customers "Wall Street" prefers. Fees for the personal accounts would likely be arbitrarily low (as mandated by the Congress), somewhere around 30 basis points, almost more hassle than they are worth, while the average fees "Wall Street" gets (1.1%) on larger accounts produce far more favorable and lucrative outcomes. The fees from Social Security personal accounts would likely comprise no more than 1-2% of "Wall Street's" total revenues. Furthermore, the Social Security personal accounts would receive greater scrutiny and regulation than other accounts, subject to the whims of future (perhaps more liberal) Congresses.

The Wall Street Journal (subsription required, so try this) notes:

"Wall Street knows a river of cash when it sees it, and personal accounts right now look more like a stream."

Nonetheless, the LaRouchers persist, simultaneously irritating and entertaining college students all across the country with banners such as, "Bush Lied, Granny Died!"

Intellectually, LaRouche and his groupies oppose Social Security reform because: 1) it would lead to a greater actualization of the inherently free enterprise system, away from socialism; 2) America's economy is not physical enough right now, thus will soon crash; and 3) it would harm FDR's legacy.

For the LaRouchers, Social Security reform would be a repeat of the mistake Chile made with privatization more than two decades ago:

"The outcome of the same plan in Chile was devastating for the working population, but provided profit rates of 20-50% for the funds which managed the pensions..."

However, as WILLisms.com noted in a previous post, Chile's successful reforms of its pension system, while they could be tweaked and improved, are a model for the U.S. Also, the plan was only "devastating for the working population" if you redefine "devastating" as a "huge boon." Chile's personal accounts just plain work.

So, is it predictable that the LaRouchers would oppose Social Security reform? Definitely. It is also noteworthy, however, that LaRouche has been the intellectual godfather of the anti-reform movement. The LaRouchers, for all their absurdity, make that case best. When a recent LaRouche publication boasted that liberals in media and politics (and on liberal blogs) have largely adopted his vision and his rhetoric on the issue, it was not really all that off-the-mark:

"...when the New York Times of Jan. 27 ran a front-page expose´ of what a disaster Chile’s Social Security privatization has been, ABC News immediately noted that the Times was 'borrowing a page from Lyndon LaRouche.'"

While that is surely a badge of honor for the LaRouche movement, to be compared to America's former paper of record, the New York Times, somehow we don't think that was what ABC was getting at.

More from the LaRouchers, on how proud they are of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid:

"A key turning point came when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, after announcing on Feb. 1 that 'no Democrat' would support Bush’s attempt to steal Social Security, answered the President’s Feb. 2 State of the Union with a Rooseveltian proposal for a 'Marshall Plan for America, to rebuild America’s economic infrastructure.' Reid is preparing 'Marshall Plan' legislation."

Reid's discussion of a Marshall Plan for America is exactly the kind of tribute to the "physical economy" Lyndon LaRouche wanted to hear.

More boasting from the LaRouchians:

"LaRouche Strategy Working
Lyndon LaRouche’s powerful call on Columbus, Ohio radio on Dec. 16—for national action to pull together 'the Democratic Party of President Franklin Roosevelt' to stop George W. Bush from stealing the Social Security of the American people—has been extraordinarily effective....

Refuse to 'negotiate' Social Security with that mad bull; adopt a united mission to defeat Bush on it; and sane Republicans will have to deal with the consequences, LaRouche advised."

Even LaRouche's hubris on this issue, thinking Bush has already been defeated, resembles "mainstream" liberals, who, as WILLisms.com previously pointed out, declared victory on the issue in late January.

On Social Security reform, LaRouche deserves much credit for leading the opposition, intellectually, and tactically. So, the next time you hear an argument against Social Security reform that seems a little more "off" than normal, just remember the power of the LaRouche movement within his party. When you witness Democrats going off the deep end with their conspiracy theories, know that LaRouche was probably already out in front on the issue.

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 February 2005 12:47 PM · Comments (0)

Lebanon: Strange, Wonderful Goings-On

In the week following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, some strange and wonderful things are happening in Lebanon. Freedom, perhaps, is on the march in Lebanon.

David Ignatius, writing in The Washington Post, examines "Beirut's Berlin Wall":

"The leader of this Lebanese intifada is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. But something snapped for Jumblatt last year, when the Syrians overruled the Lebanese constitution and forced the reelection of their front man in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud. The old slogans about Arab nationalism turned to ashes in Jumblatt's mouth, and he and Hariri openly began to defy Damascus....

'It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq,' explains Jumblatt. 'I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.' Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. 'The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.'"

Daniel Pipes notes:

"For the first time in three decades, Lebanon now seems within reach of regaining its independence. 'I don't see how Syria can stay now,' observes Lebanon's former president, Amin Gemayel.

The reassertion of Lebanon's independence will fittingly reward an unsung steadfastness. The Lebanese may have once squandered their sovereignty, starting with the Syrian invasion of 1976 and culminating in the nearly complete occupation of 1990, but they showed dignity and bravery under occupation. Against the odds, they asserted a civil society, kept alive the hope of freedom, and retained a sense of patriotism.

Lebanon's independence will also serve as a large nail in the coffin of the brutal, failed, and unloved Assad dynasty. If things go right, Syria's liberation should follow on Lebanon's.

Thus can a mere traffic accident influence history."

In the New York Post, Amir Taheri explains that "People Power Hits Lebanon":

"'This is the start of Lebanon's second war of independence,' says parliamentarian Marwan Hamade. 'We are determined that Hariri's tragic death be transformed into the rebirth of our nation.'

Those who have wondered where next the flame of freedom may rise in the Middle East have their answer. After free and fair elections in Iraq, it is now the turn of Lebanon to break the shackles of tyranny and take the path of democracy....

Free elections in Lebanon, after free elections in the Palestinian Authority and Iraq, will speed up the dismantling of other despotic regimes in the Middle East, thus bringing this vital region into the mainstream of post-Cold War global politics. Whether anyone likes it or not, regime-change must remain the name of the game in the region until people-based governments are established wherever this is not already the case.

Regime-change, however, need not be pursued solely through military means (although this must not be discarded). In countries where internal mechanisms for peaceful change exist, the task facing the major democracies is to help trigger them into action.

Today, Lebanon is one such case. Any failure to seize the moment would amount to a betrayal of the democratic aspirations of the Lebanese people."

We are now seeing the beginnings of freedom in Lebanon; the Middle East is changing before our very eyes. These strange and wonderful happenings must be savored, for, while the flame of liberty is spreading, it has determined enemies. The march to a free and democratic Middle East has only just begun.

UPDATE:
The Captain's Quarters blog has more:

"...the only way to achieve victory over terrorists is to deprive them of state sponsorship from the kleptocracts and mullahcrats in Southwest Asia and North Africa. The only way to get that is to topple the tyrants and push for self-determination and freely elected governments, and it only takes one or two examples in the region before everyone there starts wondering when their turn will come.

Lebanon may soon stop wondering, and that will be a day of rejoicing."

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 February 2005 11:35 AM · Comments (2)

Euro-Bush Brings Up China, European Integration.

In a previous WILLisms.com post (here), we gave the President high marks on his Europe trip thus far, but an incomplete on the subject of China, as nothing public had been uttered about that emerging superpower.

Now, the silence on the issue has been broken.

First, a smidgeon of background info:

The European Union has apparently decided, unfortunately, to remove its embargo on arms sales to China. The embargo dates back to the aftermath of June 1989's Tiananmen Square Massacre.

The President pressed the issue mostly in private, but responded candidly yesterday at NATO headquarters in Brussels. NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer expressed support for the "common values that bind us, in the past, in the present, and in the future."

Click on picture for full transcript.

Here is the entire exhange on China:

"Q Mr. President, European countries are talking about lifting their 15-year arms embargo on China. What would be the consequences of that? And could it be done in a way that would satisfy your concerns?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I talked about this issue with President Chirac last night, and Prime Minister Blair, and I intend to talk about it here in a couple of hours at the European Union meeting. We didn't discuss the issue at NATO, by the way. And here's what I explained. I said, there is deep concern in our country that a transfer of weapons would be a transfer of technology to China, which would change the balance of relations between China and Taiwan, and that's of concern. And they, to a person, said, well, they think they can develop a protocol that isn't -- that shouldn't concern the United States. And I said I'm looking forward to seeing it and that they need to make sure that if they do so, that they sell it to the United States Congress, but the Congress will be making the decisions as to whether or not -- as to how to react to what will be perceived by some, perhaps, as a technology transfer to China.

But it was an important dialogue. It was a very open dialogue. There's no -- it was very constructive. And so they will, as I understand it -- and I don't want to put words in people's mouth, but I am told that there is a -- that they've heard the concerns of the United States, they're listening to the concerns of the administration, as first articulated by Secretary of State Rice, and they know the Congress's concern. And so they will try to develop a plan that will ease concerns. Now, whether they can or not, we'll see.

Q So do you think it will fly?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Pardon me? I don't know. It's all speculation at this point. The purpose of this trip has been to articulate concerns that are being expressed throughout the government, both in the executive branch and legislative branch, about the decision -- or the potential decision. And I've been listening. And you might call this a listening tour, that people have got things on their mind and they want me to hear it, and part of what they've got on their mind is the dialogue that's taking place with China and the European Union."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, meanwhile, said, of lifting the ban:

"It will happen."

Unclassy.

What's next, a Chinapean Union?

Lame.

National Review, meanwhile, gives the President low marks on the issue of European integration:

"The project of a federal EU has long been driven, at least in part, by a profound, and remarkably virulent anti-Americanism, with deep roots in Vichy-era disdain for the sinister 'Anglo-Saxons' and their supposedly greedy and degenerate culture. Throw in the poisonous legacy of soixante-huitard radicalism, then add Europe's traditional suspicion of the free market, and it's easy to see how relations between Brussels and Washington were always going to be troubled. What's more, the creation of a large and powerful fortress Europe offered its politicians something else, the chance to return to the fun and games of great power politics....

Any attempt by the Bush White House to derail the ratification process would backfire, but that does not mean that the administration should be actively signaling its support for this dreadful and damaging document. Secretary Rice argues that the integration represented by the passing of the constitution would be a 'good development.' The opposite is true. If the EU (which has a collective agenda primarily set by France and Germany) does increasingly speak with one voice, Washington is unlikely to enjoy what it hears."

UPDATE:

Blogger Chrenkoff notes, however, that inclusion of Eastern Europe into Europe may prevent some of the ill effects of a Franco-German dominated E.U. (he also notes in the same post that Russia has as many spies in the U.S.A. now than it did under the Soviet Union, so it's worth reading):

"Keeping the European Union in check: The Eurocrats must be starting to regret the admission of the new members to the EU. The uncouth newcomers are rather less well disposed towards statism and trendy leftyism than their Western betters and are already shaking the comfortable Brussels status quo. This from the Czechs:

'In their first foreign-policy victory since joining the EU, Czech officials in Brussels have blocked a proposed ban on inviting Cuban dissidents to receptions at European embassies in Havana.

'The ban would have suspended a 2003 resolution that called on EU countries to support anti-Castro dissidents by inviting them to parties celebrating national holidays.

'Spain proposed the ban as part of a package of measures -- including the resumption of EU missions to Cuba -- designed to ease tensions with Havana. It became a sticking point when the Czechs threatened to use their veto in the 25-member Council of Foreign Ministers, where unanimity is required on policy decisions.'

Another recent example comes from Poland, whose representatives were instrumental in alerting the public and then stopping the proposed EU directive on patents, which had it been passed would have devastated the development of open source and shareware software. In the best EU fashion, the directive was going to be pushed through the Agricultural and Fisheries Commission(!).

Why it matters: Because the Easterners are acting as a moderating, sensible influence on the rampant anti-American nouveau socialism of the EU elites. It is also a useful reminder for the EU critics in the US that Europe is not monolithic and not beyond salvaging."

One can only hope. It is also possible, however, that Eastern European nations may be swept away by "the mania," the anti-American mania that dominates much of France's political culture. As Europe integrates further, it is not out of the question that those nations formerly behind the Iron Curtain, nations currently filled with grateful Americaphiles, appreciative of the efforts and ideology of the United States during and after the Cold War, will move toward a feeling of rivalry (and even possibly antagonism) against the U.S.

Hopefully, Chrenkoff is correct, and the Eastern European nations, with their freer markets and more pro-American attitudes, will rub off on the rest of Europe. Unfortunately, the U.K. seems to be missing a prime opportunity to lead a sort of pro-U.S. alliance within the E.U., which could keep France and Germany in line.

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 February 2005 06:32 AM · Comments (0)

Congressional Ideology Ratings.

The "In The Right Place" blog (via PoliPundit) has compiled ideology ratings for nearly all members of Congress, in a post titled, "Evaluating the Congress."

He took the most recent ratings from the ACU (American Conservative Union), the National Journal, and the ADA (Americans for Democratic Action), forming an index of just how conservative or liberal members of Congress are.

Some parameters:

Below -70 = lunatic fringe left
-40 to -70 = pretty far left-wing
0 to -40 = fairly reasonable liberal

0 to 50 = somewhat moderate
50 to 110 = moderate

110 to 140 = adequate conservative
140 to 170 = true conservative
Above 170 = solid conservative

Some of his findings:

Most Conservative (tie)-
186 (98/93/5) Sam Johnson (R) TX-03
186 (97/94/5) Todd Tiahrt (R) KS-04

Others 180 and above:
185 (98/87/0) Jeff Sessions (R) AL
184 (96/93/5) Chris Cannon (R) UT-03
185 (96/94/5) Tom DeLay (R) TX-22
183 (97/91/5) Pete Sessions (R) TX-32
183 (94/94/5) John Linder (R) GA-07
181 (94/92/5) Ric Keller (R) FL-08
180 (95/90/5) Eric Cantor (R) VA-07
180 (97/88/5) Christopher Cox (R) CA-48
180 (95/90/5) Gary Miller (R) CA-42

Most Liberal-
-93 (3/4/100) John Olver (D) MA-01

Others -90 and below:
-92 (4/4/100) Jerrold Nadler (D) NY-08
-92 (4/4/100) Jan Schakowsky (D) IL-09
-92 (4/4/100) Bob Filner (D) CA-51
-92 (4/4/100) Maxine Waters (D) CA-35
-91 (5/4/100) George Miller (D) CA-07
-91 (5/4/100) Hilda Solis (D) CA-32
-90 (5/5/100) Paul Sarbanes (D) MD
-90 (5/5/100) Barney Frank (D) MA-04

Top 5 Conservative State Delegations-
1. Wyoming
2. Oklahoma
3. Kentucky
4. Idaho
5. Utah

Top 5 Liberal State Delegations-
1. Massachusetts
2. Vermont
3. Hawaii
4. Rhode Island
5. South Dakota

Others of note:

Texas has the 20th most conservative delegation.

True conservative-

176 (90/91/5) Mark Kennedy (R) MN-06
173 (91/87/5) George Allen (R) VA

167 (84/88/5) John Kline (R) MN-02
165 (88/87/10) Bill Frist (R) TN
164 (87/87/10) Rick Santorum (R) PA
162 (85/87/10) John Cornyn (R) TX
162 (95/72/5) Sam Brownback (R) KS

146 (91/65/10) Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R) TX
146 (85/76/15) Norm Coleman (R) MN
142 (85/72/15) Chuck Hagel (R) NE (see WILLisms.com's profile of Chuck Hagel as a potential 2008 presidential candidate)

Adequate Conservative-

137 (80/72/15) Elizabeth Dole (R) NC

111 (84/62/35) John McCain (R) AZ

Crazy liberal fringe-

-84 (2/14/100) Nancy Pelosi (D) CA-08

-76 (5/4/85) John Kerry (D) MA
-73 (11/11/95) Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) NY

Very cool stuff. Check it out sometime.

Posted by Will Franklin · 22 February 2005 10:30 PM · Comments (0)

Site News: Listed On Blogshares.

Just FYI.

Also, WILLisms.com will soon have a ultra-classy redesigned look. Stay tuned, because it will be way awesome.

Posted by Will Franklin · 22 February 2005 04:31 PM · Comments (1)

Mas Classiness From Other Blogs.

Click to explore more WILLisms.com.

Professor Bainbridge-

[who, incidentally, never even acknowledged my responses to his questions about Social Security, which borders on totally unclassy and way lame on his part]

Examines the case before the Supreme Court Kelo v. New London, regarding eminent domain in a post titled "Will Leviathan Prevail?"

"The Supreme Court has held that private property can be seized via eminent domain as part of an urban renewal project when the property is blighted, a loophole that local authorities have greatly abused to seize private property. Yet, in this case, the government doesn't even bother trying to hide behind that fig leaf. They assert baldly the power to seize private homes because they think some other user can put them to a higher tax generating use. Except, in this case, they don't even know what the land will be used to do!

This is no minor technical dispute. Kirk's dicta is confirmed by the brilliant work Richard Epstein did in his classic book Takings, which makes a compelling case that the power to take private property is the critical and central power of government that must be constrained if liberty is to have any substance."

The SCOTUS blog-

(via Pejmanesque)

Reports that the arguments on behalf of property rights did not go swimmingly, in a post titled "Marty Lederman Reports from Today's Oral Arguments."

"...based on the impression left by the oral arguments, the government-side is going to win today's property rights cases overwhelmingly."

Speaking of Pejmaneque-

He notes that post-election fundraising has gone much better for Republicans than Democrats, in a post titled, "IF MONEY IS THE MOTHER'S MILK OF POLITICS . . . (Then Republicans are calcium-fortified)"

"...when your party has the Presidency, the President can serve as the Fundraiser-in-Chief and augment his/her party's ability to fill its coffers. But I didn't expect the Republican advantage to be this big. After all, I thought that all of the rage and anger on the Democratic side was supposed to help the port side raise more cash than it had in the past.

I mean, isn't that what everyone keeps saying? And wasn't that Terry McAuliffe fellow supposed to be good at getting cash for the Democrats? Oh, how I miss him."

Red State Rant-

Pokes fun at Canada for sending between two and three dozen soldiers to Iraq, in a post titled "Our Friends Up North."

"Wow. 30 soldiers.

30.

Three-oh.

Gotta be careful. Don't wanna spread the Canadian military too thin.

UPDATE: Failed to notice earlier: the story says 'UP TO' 30 soldiers. Might not be 30. Maximum 30. Could be 20. Could be 10. Maybe it depends on the availability of group rates."

Classy.

Posted by Will Franklin · 22 February 2005 03:05 PM · Comments (0)

Whither The Female Bloggers?

In the course of reading blogs, it becomes readily apparent that blogging is perhaps the most male-dominated "industry" in America right now.

Is there a gender gap in blogging?

The Pew Research Center recently studied the demographics of blogging, finding that 57% of blog creators are male (the study findings, found here, are in .pdf format).

In the early days of the internet, far more men than women were online, but women rapidly narrowed the gap in the late 1990s. Some studies around the turn of the century even declared that more women than men are on the internet. However, the latest research shows that 61% of men and 58% of women use the internet.

Are women just less interested in politics?

According to the survey research, on the internet, at least, apparently so.

Examining the Pew data yields these findings:

In summer of 2000:
20% of men sought information about the political party conventions, while 12% of women sought that information.

In summer of 2004:
17% of men said they had looked on the internet for news about the campaign the day before, while only 8% of women did. This is consistent with 2002 and 2000, where more men said they had looked