« March 2005 | WILLisms.com | May 2005 »

He Wishes He Had John Bolton's Reputation.

This weekend, while watching The Interpreter, with Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn, ruminating upon the UN's Human Rights Commission re-electing serial abuser Zimbabwe to a three year term, it hit:

Although the smear campaign against John Bolton has become increasingly absurd, wouldn't it be nice if it were all true? Wouldn't it be great if John Bolton were the caricature the left is making him out to be, of a rabid rageaholic who nearly bites heads off of unsuspecting bureaucrats? Isn't that precisely what the United Nations needs, someone to knock some heads together, someone to call out certain fellow democracies for their moral ambivalence, someone to rip fear societies a new one?

The United Nations should be a force for good in the world. It has been reduced to, at best, an enabler of tyrants, and, at worst, run by them.

Joseph Epstein wishes he had John Bolton's reputation:

If I could begin my life again I should like to arrange things so that the word got out that I am a fairly decent fellow, not entirely charmless, but with a mean streak that, wrongly provoked, has been known to run to violence. "I know a guy," I shouldn't at all mind having it reported of me, "who once saw Joseph Epstein so angry he strangled a bulldog."

Without in the least wishing it, John R. Bolton, the undersecretary of state who is President Bush's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, has acquired, without going to the trouble of strangling that bulldog, the reputation I so desire. Whether he deserves it or not--a point still in the flux of controversy--Mr. Bolton is now, thanks to the Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, being publicized as a veritable James Cagney (in "The Public Enemy," where he smashed the half-grapefruit in Mae Clark's face), Jack Palance (in "Shane") and Joe Pesci (in "Goodfellas" and "Casino"), or as the hottest of all hotheads in the field of diplomacy.

While Bolton is probably more even-tempered than most Senators, his reputation has now been sealed as someone you don't want to cross, especially if your name is Jacque--or Hans.

In the beginning of all this nomination tribulation, it seemed that Bolton might be weakened, even humbled, by the disproportionate scrutiny. That's really all the Democrats, certainly not foreseeing the Voinovich betrayal, wanted to do all along. Folks like Biden and Kerry wanted to communicate to the world that Bolton has less-than-unanimous support back home, that November's election didn't really signify a fundamental shift in the way Americans view their place in the world. "It was all a blip, world, and we'll still play by your rules. Here is our gift to you, a neutered ambassador."

Now, this scrutiny, this delay, may end up being Bolton's greatest gift, his most effective asset. He will go to the United Nations, and people will quiver and quake before his anticipated wrath. He will speak, and people will expect thunder. And when he does speak, and his words are reasonable, lucid, succinct, and rational, the world will wonder "who is this man? He isn't the man we've been reading about these past several weeks. He's not so bad."

But one day, when something absurd happens at the United Nations (and it will), Bolton, backed by the reputation he has earned over the past few weeks, will only have to furrow an eyebrow and raise his voice a bit, and people will know that America means business.

It's easy to wish that Bolton were as ill-tempered as Senate Democrats describe him. It's easy to imagine him walking into the UN and quite literally ripping the appendages off of the representatives of brutal dictators, utilizing them as weapons to pummel the enablers and equivocators.

John Bolton just is not that guy.

Isn't it nice, however, that the world, thanks to the Democrats, now thinks he is?

UPDATE:

The American people, according to the latest Fox News poll (click for full .pdf), don't believe a confrontational management style should disqualify a presidential nominee:

Click for larger version, or check out the original .pdf.

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 April 2005 11:15 PM · Comments (2)

Only 20 Political Websites.

Right Wing News:

If I were only allowed to read 20 political websites (and the links from them) for the next year they would be (in order):

20) Hundred Percenter
19) Tim Blair
18) Jewish World Review
17) FoxNews
16) Power Line
15) Cybercast News Service
14) Ravenwood's Universe
13) Little Green Footballs
12) TownHall
11) Blacksheep News
10) Betsy's Page
9) Instapundit
8) Polipundit
7) Newsmax
6) Michelle Malkin
5) WorldNetDaily
4) Real Clear Politics
3) National Review
2) The Drudge Report
1) Lucianne

A good list, overall.

Here's the WILLisms.com-approved list:

20) (tie)
Political Calculations blog.

Michelle Malkin.

19)
PoliPundit.com.

18)
InstaPundit.com.

17)
The New York Times.

16)
Wizbangblog.com

15)
The Economist.

14)
The Weekly Standard.

13)
Freedom House.

12)
Scrappleface.

11)
Publius Pundit.

10)
Social Security Choice.

9)
Fox News.

8)
Patrick Ruffini's blog.

7)
The Atlantic Monthly

6)
Arts & Letters Daily.

5)
Captain's Quarters blog.

4)
Google News.

3)
Real Clear Politics.

2)
OpinionJournal.com (The Wall Street Journal).

1)
National Review Online.

Others, that have recently fallen out of the top 20, for one reason or another:

The West Mall.

Foreign Affairs.

Foreign Policy.

Powerline blog.

The Washington Monthly.

The Washington Post.

The Washington Times.

Probably forgetting some obvious ones, but oh well.

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 April 2005 06:53 PM · Comments (4)

Castro and Chavez: The "Axis Of Subversion."

The axis of subversion is at it again:

The leaders of Cuba and Venezuela relished their roles as Washington's bad boys in Latin American on Friday and vowed to build a socialist alternative to U.S. policies in the hemisphere.

The two leaders met this week in Cuba. One Marxist publication put it this way:

Cuban president Fidel Castro and his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez presided over the signing of protocols that strengthen bilateral ties, within the context the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americans, known by its Spanish acronym, ALBA.

Peter Brookes, earlier this month, called Hugo Chavez Castro's Mini-Me (but this Castro replica has almost unlimited oil wealth at his personal disposal):

For no apparent reason, the leftist strongman is arming Venezuela to the teeth. He's also supporting local narcoterrorists and other Latin revolutionaries.

Chavez idolizes Cuba's Fidel Castro, is chummy with Libya's Moammar Khadafy and was a Saddam Hussein pal. He's made nasty remarks about President Bush and "suggestive" public comments about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

According to Gerver Torres, a former Venezuelan government minister, Chavez's "main motivation now is to do everything he possibly can to negatively affect the United States, Bush in particular . . . trying to bring together all the enemies of the United States."

....

Fortunately, the Bush administration recognizes this and is beginning to craft a new policy to deal with Chavez. The best approach will include working with other regional leaders to contain and isolate him, while not inflaming the dictator's popular support at home.

Chavez recently announced his intent to export his "Bolivarian revolution" (read: Cuban revolution). Considering his disastrous socialist economic and repressive political record at home, we'd better stop him before he gets started.

Robert Mayer, of Publius Pundit, wonders:

How is it that the MSM can give hours of its reporting each day to the skunk on Donald Trump’s head while elsewhere in our own backyard the forces of communism are working to send the entire western hemisphere into chaos?

While Chavez was putting on a show with Castro in Cuba, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was criss-crossing Latin America, something former Secretary Powell largely neglected to do, laying on a charm offensive to isolate Chavez. She visited Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and El Salvador, promoting hemisphere-wide free trade and freedom, urging young democracies "do not turn back."

While freedom is advancing around much of the world, including the Middle East, the United States must be mindful of the growth potential of the Chavezista movement in Latin America. With such meaningful petroleum resources, Chavez has the ability to manipulate, agitate, and otherwise cause mayhem in the region.

For example, Venezuela's state-run company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) just recently opened an office in Havana, Cuba, increasing Venezuela's commitment to offer preferential terms (cheap oil) to the import-dependent Castro regime, underscoring the geopolitical power Chavez wields through his oil resources.

Indeed, over the past few years, PDVSA-owned CITGO executives have resigned, left and right, in protest of the crookedness and cronyism of Chavez:

Current and former Citgo executives have revealed in recent weeks that Chávez has shaken to the core the company's once-staid culture, leaving Citgo in a state bordering on disarray. Almost every high-ranking executive has resigned over the past two years, including the refining chief, chief financial officer, head auditor and marketing director. Geoff Reid, a former assistant treasurer, said in an interview that he had left in part because it had become hard to track the company's cash flow and he had become concerned about his "personal liability" in approving Citgo's financial statements....

Of the recent moves, perhaps the most debilitating have been Chávez's efforts to put his loyalists, including some former military colleagues, in charge of the company.

Like a third-rate Middle Eastern dictator, Chavez has great wealth at his disposal, and he takes advantage of this petro-power at every given chance. The delay of the Free Trade Area of the Americas is just one example of how Chavez has created problems for American policy. Chavez and Castro dream of a single, united, Marxist Latin America (and Caribbean). For now, the leaders of Venezuela and Cuba will settle for a melding of their two economies, a move that will all but ensure Castro remains in power until his death.

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 April 2005 03:54 PM · Comments (3)

Advancing The Ball On Social Security.

In his prime time press conference, President Bush advanced the ball on Social Security reform. Among the new ideas talked about by the President:

Progressive indexing, so lower income workers who pay into Social Security will never retire into poverty.

A risk-free personal account option of United States Treasury bonds, for those who are concerned about risk in the stock market.

The entrenched left-wing media, typically (but still infuriatingly) reported it a different way, as we noted before.

Patrick Ruffini:

I was so incensed by Big Media's Big Lie about the Bush Social Security benefit "cuts" increases that I wanted to do something a little special with the calculator. Lo and behold, the Heritage Calculator has already incorporated the progressive elements of the President's plan into its calculator. So, I whipped up this interface that will generate results on Heritage's page.

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 April 2005 02:27 PM · Comments (0)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 32 -- Frivolous Blogging Topics.

WHAT BLOGS ARE DISCUSSING-

Comparing Social Security, American Idol, and Star Wars:

Social Security, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton:

Social Security, filibuster, and Bill Frist:

Social Security, pro-life OR pro-choice, and gay marriage:

Social Security, immigration, and religious right:

Social Security, Lebanon, and Middle East:

Source:

Intelliseek's BlogPulse.

Previous trivia tidbits:

Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9; Part 10; Part 11; Part 12; Part 13; Part 14; Part 15; Part 16; Part 17; Part 18; Part 19; Part 20; Part 21, Part 22; Part 23, Part 24, Part 25; Part 26; Part 27, Part 28; Part 29; Part 30, Part 31.

Daily Trivia Tidbits cover a wide range of topics; you never know what you might find. Stay tuned to WILLisms.com for more.

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 April 2005 11:35 AM · Comments (0)

Liberal Bias On Social Security.

A new study from the Media Research Center’s Free Market Project found Social Security coverage on the five major networks biased toward the left by a margin of 2 to 1 (click for full .pdf)(via Social Security Choice):

- CBS and CNN Most Biased: On “CBS Evening News,” 56 percent of stories were liberal with just 20 percent conservative. CBS reports were loaded with extreme examples that played up liberal points. CNN’s “Inside Politics” was worse statistically with 61 percent liberal and 22 percent conservative.

- Fox News Most Balanced: Fox News’ “Special Report with Brit Hume” delivered an equal 30 percent liberal and 30 percent conservative stories, with the remaining 40 percent neutral.

- Networks Embrace ‘Transition Costs’ Scare Tactic: Journalists repeatedly indicated that the cost of changing over to personal accounts was too high. This point was made 10 times more often than it was challenged, and the financial principles that refuted it were largely ignored.

GRAPHS (click on them to go to the original .pdf study):

Overall, networks skew the debate in the liberal direction, 2-to-1:

Fox News truly has been fair and balanced on the Social Security debate, while CNN and CBS have been the worst:

Liberals have put their heads in the sand on this issue, arguing from the absurd point of view that "there is no crisis," that the market is "too risky," and that the costs of reform are too high:

Conservatives have stressed that there is a crisis, that the market gets a better average return than Social Security, and that the program faces insolvency problems:

CNN is the by far the most biased cable television news organization on the issue of Social Security:

How did the study determine media bias objectively?

The study analyzed use of liberal and conservative talking points, focusing on 125 stories mostly or completely devoted to Social Security. Talking points on both sides of the issue were coded, designated “liberal” or “conservative,” and tallied. If the ratio of talking points for the two sides was greater than 1.5, then that story was considered to reflect the position of the side with the most talking points. Stories that had a 1.5-to-1 or less ratio were categorized as “neutral.”

Michelle Malkin has a good rundown of the blatant left-wing media distortion following the President's press conference last night:

Bush's indexing plan is moderate and reasonable. Unfortunately, the combination of Democrats' demagoguery and the MSM's relentlessly negative coverage may bring the plan down before it even gets off the ground.

David Hogberg believes Clinton would have received glowing news coverage for the plan President Bush unveiled last night:

Can there be any doubt that if the plan advanced last night had been proposed by the previous administration, the headlines would have read, “Clinton Social Security Plan Boost For The Poor”? I’d put at least a $100 on that.

The media bias we've seen following President Bush's reelection is at least as slanted as it has been at any point over the past decade. It's really unbelievable how concerted the elite media's effort has been to make the President a lame duck.

A theory on this:

The media establishment types have become emboldened, not humbled, by the rise of Fox News, the blogosphere, talk radio, etc. They feel like it is their duty to balance the "right wing" media, so they have moved even further to the left. Because so many conservatives have already turned away from the so-called "mainstream media," the old guard of left-wing media (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) feel like they have very little to lose, and indeed much to gain, by catering to liberal viewers.

UPDATE:
PoliPundit notes a liberal backtrack:

Here’s a gem of a headline from today’s Associated Press wire:

“Bush’s Social Security Plan Cuts Benefits.”

Um, well, yeah, I guess that would be one way in which you might headline an article about the Prez’s speech from yesterday evening. If, of course, you’re a group of angry, trust-funded, partisan-Democratic liberals, who despise George Bush and everything for which he stands.

Posted by Will Franklin · 29 April 2005 03:06 PM · Comments (3)

Zimbabwe Re-Elected To U.N. Human Rights Commission.

The United States needs a forceful individual like John Bolton at the United Nations, now more than ever.

This week, Zimbabwe was re-elected to the United Nations Human Rights Commission:

The U.N. Economic and Social Council Wednesday elected 15 countries to the Human Rights Commission. Among the four chosen by the African group was Zimbabwe, whose leader Robert Mugabe is under U.S. and European sanctions.

The selection drew immediate objections from several countries, including the United States, Canada and Australia.

We recently profiled the egregious record of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe; Zimbabwe's re-election to the UN Human Rights Commission only adds to the already-ample body of evidence that the United Nations needs major reform, and it needs it A.S.A.P.

Zimbabwe is not the only country with a less-than-stellar human rights record retained on the Human Rights Commission. China and Venezuela both preserved their seats.

Freedom House asserted:

"Once again, the already tattered credibility of the Commission on Human Rights has been severely compromised," said Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor. "The government of Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe ranks among the most egregious violators of human rights in the world. It has no place at the Commission's table, which should be reserved for governments that honor and respect their citizens," she said.

The United Nations is a broken institution, with rapidly diminishing credibility. A strong and moral UN, one that can effectively promote liberty around the globe, is in the best interests of the United States. Today's United Nations is a den of tyrants, increasingly marginal, increasingly irrelevant, and increasingly on the wrong side of history. That Zimbabwe could remain on the Human Rights Commission is a testament to just how upside-down the United Nations has become.

It's time for the Senate to stop the pusillanimous dilly-dallying on John Bolton's confirmation as US ambassador to the UN. President Bush put it bluntly in his press conference:

“See, the U.N. needs reform. If you're interested in reforming the U.N., like I'm interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who's skilled and who is not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations.”

Let's get 'er done.

UPDATE:

Great comments from Victor Davis Hanson:

...the disdain that European utopians, Arab dictatorships, the United Nations, and Mexico exhibit toward the United States is not — as the Kerry campaign alleged in the last election — cause for tears, but often reason to be proud, since much of the invective arises from the growing American insistence on principles abroad.

America should not gratuitously welcome such dislike; but we should not apologize for it either. Sometimes the caliber of a nation is found not in why it is liked, but rather in why it is not.

Indeed, how fortunate are we to have dodged the "global test" bullet last November?

More:

Publius Pundit notes that Secretary Rice is seeking the end of political tyranny worldwide at the Community of Democracies meeting in Chile:

"...tyranny is a crime of man, not a fact of nature. Our goal must always be the elimination of tyranny in our world."

Well-put.

UPDATE:

Mark Noonan has more:

It's like electing Al Capone police commissioner.

Yeah, pretty much.

Posted by Will Franklin · 29 April 2005 01:36 PM · Comments (4)

Lebanese Elections To Be Held On Time.

The Spirit of America blog has a great recap of the last several weeks:

Chalk up another, final, victory for the Cedar Revolution.

The Lebanese government formally announced the election will be held on time - on May 29th 2005.

The million-person demonstration, the two-month sleep-in at the tent-city, the countdown campaign, the village campaign, the media pressure, the international pressure - it all came together. It's a new era in Lebanon now. The time of post-war occupation and oppression is over. The Cedar Revolution is now over, too.

It wasn't easy living in a tent-city in downtown Beirut.

700 people were there for more than 60 days, eating outside, sleeping outside, and using outhouses set up next to a pricy Virgin Megastore. They all agreed on the basics: Lebanon should be free of Syrian occupation, free elections should be held on time, and a national Lebanese identity must be forged to counter the tribal hatefest of the past.

But, there's still much work to be done. Syria may have pulled its troops out of Lebanon, but it leaves behind intelligence officers and a lasting legacy of tyranny that must be broken.

A few powerful comments from one of the tent city denizens, "Joumy" (the one on the right).

In "After the Withdrawal," an acknowledgement that the toughest work is still ahead, and that democracy is a process, not an event:

Now that a new page is turned, we must be careful: careful to keep our unity. What we must understand is that within any democracy, not everyone has the same objectives. There will always be Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists… A healthy democracy is one that has space for all these parties, for parties are a way of expressing a group’s common outlook. Lebanon is jam-packed with such parties. What we must work on is making sure that we don’t make now the same mistakes of the past of resorting to violence to resolve our differences.

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO SLIP BACK. The only way forward is if we learn to live within a democracy and most of us seem to have forgotten what that means. Many of us have only ever seen a country which condones corruption, political coercion, “wasta”, lack of security authority, an independent judiciary, even the basic components of infrastructure. It’s time to rebuild now, and rebuilding starts from educating the people of their new rights in this new stage.
We cannot be afraid of the unknown. We cannot start to be suspicious about each other all the time, expecting the worst. It’s time to open a new page that involves dialogue- actually sitting down at a table and deciding for ourselves with no foreign intervention, what we Lebanese, think is best for our country. Let us resolve our own issues and define our own policies. It is time to live in a merit-based society, one where the individual is defined through his/ her achievements, and not through his/ her family, background, or religion…

We all want what is best for Lebanon. If we understand that national cooperation is the only way forward, history will not repeat itself. Let’s not give foreign troops a reason to come into our country…

The rapid march toward a free and independent Lebanon has been nothing short of startling and miraculous. Human nature demands freedom. It longs for freedom. And the Lebanese people, soon, will finally have their freedom.

UPDATE:

Wizbang is retiring one of its favorite pictures.

Posted by Will Franklin · 29 April 2005 11:30 AM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 31 -- Movie Ticket Sales.

Not Buying What Hollywood Is Selling-

The number of movie tickets sold is down over the past few years (and it's probably not because more people are sneaking in):

Last year, The Passion of the Christ singlehandedly prevented an even greater slump.

Source:
Entertainment Weekly magazine.

Hollywood really should not worry, however. Just look at the movies coming out this summer:

May 19-
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christensen

May 26-
The Longest Yard
Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Burt Reynolds

June 3-
Cinderella Man
Russell Crowe, Renee Zellweger

June 17-
Batman Begins
Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Katie Holmes

June 24-
Bewitched
Will Ferrell, Nicole Kidman

Not to mention Herbie: Fully Loaded
Lindsay Lohan

June 29-
War of the Worlds
Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Tim Robbins

July 8-
Fantastic Four
Ioan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, Michael Chiklis

July 15-
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Johnny Depp, Freddie Highmore

The Wedding Crashers
Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Christopher Walken

And that's only the half of it.

Likely outcome: several movies that would otherwise be successful will tank because of all the competition.

Previous trivia tidbits:

Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9; Part 10; Part 11; Part 12; Part 13; Part 14; Part 15; Part 16; Part 17; Part 18; Part 19; Part 20; Part 21, Part 22; Part 23, Part 24, Part 25; Part 26; Part 27, Part 28; Part 29; Part 30.

Daily Trivia Tidbits cover a wide range of topics; you never know what you might find. Stay tuned to WILLisms.com for more.

Posted by Will Franklin · 29 April 2005 10:51 AM · Comments (3)

Quotational Therapy: Part 6 -- Thomas Jefferson, On An Independent Judiciary.

Thomas Jefferson on the judiciary-

"A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820.

"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804.

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820.

"The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary working like gravity day and by night, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821.

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, little by little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, October 31, 1823.

"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825.

Previous Quotational Therapy Sessions:

Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5.

The right quotation can be therapeutic, so tune in to WILLisms.com for quotational therapy every Monday and Friday.

Posted by Will Franklin · 29 April 2005 05:35 AM · Comments (0)

Bush Press Conference Transcript.

You can read the entire transcript of the President's press conference here. We'll have more Friday, but three things stood out:

1. Lots of repetitive questions on North Korea.

2. President Bush's pitch on No Child Left Behind needs work (and should be a lot easier):

He could say something like,

We need NCLB because-
I. Competition with China, India, and others, which are producing more engineers than we are. It's about the global marketplace.
II. It works. Scores are up. Less kids are slipping through the cracks.
III. Ultimately, the goal is school choice, rewarding successful teachers with merit pay, and other education reforms; we're only on phase one.

...and then just end it.

3. Lots of predictable questions. Just before the press conference began, the Mrs. and I came up with three certain-to-be-asked questions/statements by the press corps.

First, "your poll numbers are awful and nobody likes you..."

Second, "the religious right is taking over your administration and the country..."

Third, "terrorism is way up under your administration..."

Fourth, "why aren't you doing anything about 'record' gas prices?"

...Sure enough. All of them.

[sigh]

More to come Friday.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 April 2005 11:49 PM · Comments (1)

IKEA Riots.

Unbelievable (via Dean's World).

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 April 2005 11:38 PM · Comments (1)

Edvard Munch's "The Scream" And "Madonna" Burned?

The story:

Norwegian police fear that robbers who stole Edvard Munch's masterpieces "The Scream" and "Madonna" last year may have burned the paintings to destroy evidence, Dagbladet reported, citing a classified police report.

A mere fear is not reality, but it would be a shame.

The Scream:

Madonna:

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 April 2005 06:34 PM · Comments (2)

Tonight's Press Conference.

Tonight at 7 PM Central Time, President Bush will hold a press conference. We'll have plenty of commentary on it afterward.

Jennifer Loven, Associated Press "journalist," reports, then editorializes:

President Bush is ready to begin talking with Congress and the public about specific steps he supports to ensure the future of Social Security and will announce his ideas during a prime-time news conference Thursday....

Bush and top administration officials have been traveling around the country to pitch his proposal for overhauling Social Security, in part by allowing the creation of private investment accounts for younger workers. A 60-day nationwide blitz aimed at building support for that idea is ending on Sunday with some signs that public support has dropped.

She must not have seen the latest Fox News poll on the subject.

Matt Margolis believes it is time for President Bush to go on the offensive on Social Security.

Captain's Quarters blog notes that Bush is also going to talk about a common sense, pragmatic energy policy. One creative idea includes converting closed military bases into refineries.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 April 2005 04:24 PM · Comments (1)

Imagine If Social Security Didn't Exist.

Americans United to Protect Social Security, a left-wing umbrella interest group spearheaded by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org, ProtectYourCheck.org (headed by Clintonites Harold Ickes and Jim Jordan), the Campaign for America's Future and USAction, and another 200-odd interest groups, has an online ad on Social Security:

It includes, predictably, flawed statistics and a completely frivolous reference to Ken Lay and Enron:

Just above the ad, it says:

If The Bush Privatization Plan Was Being Sold on the Open Market, It Would Be Illegal

Oh, yeah?

We argued precisely the opposite back in January:

If Social Security were a private program, there is little doubt that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission would be investigating its accounting practices. If the Social Security Administration were a corporation, zealous Attorneys General such as Eliot Spitzer would have filed charges long ago in courtrooms around the country.

Think about it.

The goals of Social Security are just. Reducing the rampant poverty of America's elderly is something everyone can get behind. The only problem: Social Security, in its current form, is a pyramid scheme. Social Security, in its current form, is also unsustainable and insolvent. The guaranteed course of action without reform is that millions of Americans who depend on Social Security will slip below the poverty line; Social Security, without reform, faces mandatory and drastic benefit cuts. Thus, the very aim of Social Security is undermined by the way it is designed. Its slave-to-demographics pyramid scheme structure simply means that it cannot continue achieving the noble goals of Social Security.

Imagine if there were no Social Security program in 2005. Is there really any way it, in its current form, would pass the smell test?

Can you imagine someone proposing a system in which the government takes roughly 1/8 of your money, then writes an IOU to itself, spending your retirement money on whatever it feels is important at the time?

Can you imagine trying to convince people that it doesn't matter that there will be fewer and fewer workers paying for more and more retirees? Imagine trying to sell a program so financially unsound that it would see its taxes more than sextuple over half a century just to keep it from going under. Imagine trying to explain to people that your tax does not really go into an account with your name on it and that the Supreme Court would rule (in Flemming V. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610–11 (1960)) that, even if you've paid into the system your entire life, you actually have no right to collect benefits. Imagine trying to sell a program that gives people no meaningful choices. Think about how absurd this program would sound.

Can you really imagine Social Security, in its current form, gaining any kind of political support, let alone the thumbs up from economists?

Thus, for AUPSS to claim that Bush's reform plan would be illegal if sold on the open market is the epitome of absurdity, but it does offer a glimpse into the true nature of the opposition to reform. Reform, to these groups, should be illegal, because it favors the free enterprise system over the welfare state.

The AUPSS site also allows you to calculate, using the exact same calculator FactCheck.org debunked, just how much they want you to believe you would lose under the President's plan.

There's a link at the bottom of the rigged calculator that says:

Click here for details on how this calculator works.

It takes you to this page:

Clearly, Americans United to Protect Social Security doesn't want you to know that its calculator has been so thoroughly ripped apart by objective analysis.

Eschewing all pretense of non-partisanship, AUPSS urges its visitors:

Sign up for updates from House Democrats and stay informed on Social Security.

Shameful.

Entirely shameful.

But oh-so typical.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 April 2005 03:56 PM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 30 -- Environment and Economy.

Environmentalism-

In general we need to confront our myth of the economy undercutting the environment. We have grown to believe that we are faced with an inescapable choice between higher economic welfare and a greener environment. But surprisingly... environmental development often stems from economic development – only when we get sufficiently rich can we afford the relative luxury of caring about the environment. On its most general level, this conclusion is evident in Figure 9, where higher income in general is correlated with higher environmental sustainability.

Figure 9:

Click for original .pdf (graph on page 31).

Source: The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, written by former Greenpeace activist Bjorn Lomborg.

The Economist magazine believes the environmental movement could find its way once again if it becomes less reflexively hostile toward business. Indeed, it should embrace market forces in environmental initiatives:

“THE environmental movement's foundational concepts, its method for framing legislative proposals, and its very institutions are outmoded. Today environmentalism is just another special interest.” Those damning words come not from any industry lobby or right-wing think-tank. They are drawn from “The Death of Environmentalism”, an influential essay published recently by two greens with impeccable credentials. They claim that environmental groups are politically adrift and dreadfully out of touch.

Environmentalism is an important part of being good citizens. The Boy Scout slogan about leaving a place better than you found it is an important one. But the modern environmental movement needs to drop the anti-business hyperbole and start getting real about reasonable solutions that don't harm economic growth (growth which actually helps the environment).

Previous trivia tidbits:

Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9; Part 10; Part 11; Part 12; Part 13; Part 14; Part 15; Part 16; Part 17; Part 18; Part 19; Part 20; Part 21, Part 22; Part 23, Part 24, Part 25; Part 26; Part 27, Part 28; Part 29.

Daily Trivia Tidbits cover a wide range of topics; you never know what you might find. Stay tuned to WILLisms.com for more.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 April 2005 01:00 PM · Comments (2)

Reform Thursday: Week Thirteen.

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. The graphics are mostly self-explanatory, but we include commentary on some of them where and when necessary.

Yesterday, we noted how Americans, especially younger Americans, are pro-choice on Social Security.

But, how do we know that people, especially younger people, will make the right investment choices? Won't they just take the money and run to Vegas?

Well, no. While personal accounts would offer people options, choices, and individual control, every responsible reform plan would prevent people from footling their retirement money away at an early age.

Ryan Ellis, of Americans for Tax Reform, notes that younger Americans are the most likely age group to hold lifecycle funds (click image for original .pdf):

Lifecycle funds essentially are investment accounts in which, as a worker gets closer to retirement, the account becomes more conservative (more bonds, less stocks). This ensures that a down time in the market just prior to retirement will not hurt an individual's portfolio.

Clearly, younger investors are more pro-choice on Social Security reform, because they understand that personal accounts are not some kind of risky scheme. Rather, the status quo is what is so risky. It is not difficult to choose a safe and secure fund, and thus the "risky scheme" critique of reform is not working.

The original data for this week's graphic comes from workforce.com, which analyzed over 1 million portfolios for their study (click here for the full results in .pdf format).

Previous Reform Thursday graphics can be seen here:

-Week One.
-Week Two.
-Week Three.
-Week Three, bonus.
-Week Four.
-Week Five.
-Week Six.
-Week Six, bonus.
-Week Seven.
-Week Seven, bonus.
-Week Eight.
-Week Nine.
-Week Ten.
-Week Eleven.
-Week Twelve.

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

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 April 2005 11:27 AM · Comments (1)

Kermit The Frog Wants Egypt's Mubarak Out.

An Egyptian demonstrator from Kefaya shouts anti-Mubarak slogans in Cairo. Egypt's pro-reform movement Kefaya (Enough) gained considerable ground when it staged simultaneous rallies across the country in protest at President Hosni Mubarak's unchallenged 24-year-old rule.(AFP)

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin, who recently lamented the demise of the Soviet Union, asserted that it is not possible:

"...to export democracy from one country to another."

"Institutions and principles of democracy cannot be effectively enforced in a territory without taking due account of the national traditions and setup," Putin said at a press conference in Cairo on Wednesday.

He said, "Democracy cannot be a matter of export from one country to another since the moment it becomes an export item, it becomes an instrument of using the advantages of one country with regards to another.

These are the kinds of comments we need to remember, decades from now, when revisionists try to paint this whole "spread of democracy thing" as inevitable and even something everyone believed would happen. Putin, on the issue of democracy in the Middle East, is simply on the wrong side of history.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 April 2005 10:42 AM · Comments (0)

Ken Salazar Has Seen The Anti-Christ.

During the 2004 Colorado Senate campaign, Pete Coors really underwhelmed in his battle against Ken Salazar. Salazar, meanwhile, was able to effectively convince Colorado's voters he was a moderate. Indeed, Salazar was more conservative than Coors on some issues, such as the death penalty and drinking age laws. On just about every issue, Salazar would either agree with Coors or outflank him on the right. Salazar distanced himself from the Democrat-establishment, taking on Colorado with the populist flair of a true maverick.

He even wore a cowboy hat on the campaign trail much of the time to reinforce his "red state" image:

And it worked.

Salazar was elected with a 51% majority, more than 100,000 more votes than Pete Coors, and only 20,000 fewer than President Bush received.

One promise Salazar made during the campaign (and it was a significant issue in the race) was that he would not support efforts to deny an up-or-down vote on President Bush's judicial nominees.

Salazar broke his explicit campaign promise within mere months of going to Washington. That kind of duplicity is a prime example of why many Americans do not feel they can trust the promises of politicians.

So, because of Salazar's shameful flip-flop, groups began to call him out. One such group, Focus on the Family, ran this advertisement in Colorado newspapers (click for full .pdf):

This drew fierce reaction from Salazar. Bolstered by the "Republicans are a bunch of crazed theocons" hysteria in Washington right now, Salazar said, of Focus on the Family (via Decision '08) (via PoliPundit):

"From my point of view, they are the Antichrist of the world."

Clarifying his comments later, Salazar said:

"I meant to say this approach was un-Christian, meaning self-serving and selfish."

Salazar, revealing his true self through these comments, has clearly become an all-out Howard Dean Democrat, not the independent-minded, moderate Coloradoans believed they were electing. Salazar's status as a media darling must now be reassessed. Ambivalent Republican voters in marginally "red" states also might want to reconsider voting for "moderates" like Salazar in the future.

UPDATE:

Captain's Quarters blog has a great take on this kerfuffle.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 April 2005 10:20 AM · Comments (1)

The Ruffini Straw Poll Results Are In. Go Check 'Em Out.

Earlier this week, we linked to Patrick Ruffini's informal 2008 presidential poll (to see what blog readers think). The results are now in. Go check out the analysis.

The results are also right here. There are some pretty interesting differences between InstaPundit readers and PoliPundit readers, as well.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 April 2005 09:33 AM · Comments (1)

The American Dream.

Earlier this week, we deconstructed The Myth Of The "Social Europe."

Now, part two:

American comparisons with Europe-

The following numbers are based on the World Values Survey and the International Social Survey Program, and are found at the American Enterprise Institute's website.

1. In (name of country) people have equal opportunities to get ahead:

United States 66%
United Kingdom 42
West Germany 55
East Germany 25
Japan 41

2. In the long run, hard work usually brings a better life:

United States 59%
United Kingdom 38
France 37
West Germany 43
Japan 33

3. The way things are in (name of country), people like me and my family have a good chance of improving our standard of living:

United States 55%
United Kingdom 29
West Germany 34
East Germany 39

4. Individuals should take more responsibility for providing for themselves (Percent supporting the statement, points 1-3 on a 10-point scale):

United States 59%
United Kingdom 30
France 45
West Germany 48
Japan 11

5. Government should provide everyone with a guaranteed basic income:

United States 35%
United Kingdom 68
West Germany 58
East Germany 88

Even more astonishing is the difference between Americans and Europeans on the question of engineering wealth inequality out of the system.

6. It is the responsibility of government to reduce the differences in income between people with high incomes and those with low incomes:

United States 38
United Kingdom 66
West Germany 66
East Germany 89

Ask any Europhile what's so much better about Europe than the United States. You'll get the same answer, almost every single time. Europe, you will hear, does not face the kind of cruel inequality that you commonly find in America. Life is more civilized for Europe's poor.

Europe is just plain obsessed with inequality. That's why their average tax burden is so much higher than in the United States. To create a more equal society, European countries tax the heck out of successful individuals, redistributing that wealth into massive welfare states.

Click for larger version.
[Or go to the original .pdf]

Moreover, look at all the things America's poor have:

Click for larger version.

Nearly one third of America's poor have two cars. Close to half own their own homes. Europe's poor simply do not have these kinds of things.

One idea people like to talk about quite often is the "growing inequality in the United States," when really, the rich are getting richer, but so are the poor.

America's poverty rate has declined dramatically over the past few decades (click for .pdf):

Finally, Europhiles (and, again, it's difficult not to be a Europhile some of the time) like to say that American excess has led to a nation of lards, while Europeans are so fit and trim.

They send pictures like this one around the internet, and everyone chuckles and nods in agreement:

Unfortunately for the Europhiles, it's entirely without basis:

In France, figures show that 18 percent of French children are overweight and one out of ten is obese before the age of 10. Out of a total population of 60 million, if 13 million French people are overweight, 5.4 million are actually obese, a number that is supposed to double 20 years from now. According to the most recent data, one French person out of two is obese by the age of 45.

Indeed, it turns out the obesity "epidemic" in America might have been vastly overstated by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC):

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated today that packing on too many pounds accounts for 25,814 deaths a year in the United States. As recently as January, the CDC came up with an estimate 14 times higher: 365,000 deaths. [From 365K to 25K in just 3 months -ed]...

Based on the new calculation, excess weight would drop from the second leading cause of preventable death, after smoking, to seventh. It would fall behind car crashes and guns on the list of killers.

Europe is a wonderful place, with some very wonderful people, but sometimes the myth of Europe takes over the reality. The "Social Europe" many socialists/bureaucrats in the old world envision just does not exist. Meanwhile, the American dream is very much alive and well.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 April 2005 10:28 PM · Comments (6)

Fox News Poll Analysis: Pro-Choice On Social Security.

Some eye-opening numbers from the latest Fox News poll:

First, President Bush's job approval:

47% approve
43% disapprove
10% don't know

This actually marks a net improvement of one point over Fox's last survey.

Meanwhile, Bush's favorability rating:

52% favorable
43% unfavorable
5% can't say

This is a net improvement of 4 points over Fox's last survey.

Now, on Social Security (click on tables for original .pdf):

I.

Do you believe the Social Security system is something the president and Congress need to fix now or is it something to let others worry about later?

More and more, people understand there is a problem. People are demanding action rather than obstruction, sooner rather than later.

II.

Who do you trust more to handle your retirement investment decisions -- you and your family or the federal government? (ROTATE)

The cornerstone of Social Security reform is personal choice. People trust themselves more than they trust the government. Reformers need to re-focus on this point. It's a big winner, clearly.

III.

Thinking about Social Security contributions, do you think people under age 55 should have the right to choose between keeping all of their contributions in the current system and investing a portion of their contributions?

When framed as a choice (which President Bush's reform plan would be), support for reform skyrockets and opposition plummets. Reformers must redouble their efforts in convincing the American people that under a reformed Social Security system, they would not be forced to do anything.

IV.

In terms of the voluntary nature of the reform, the previous Fox News poll (.pdf), 39% understood that everyone would have a choice, 12% believed everyone would be required to participate, 42% said they had not heard enough, and 6% said they didn't know.

Those numbers improved dramatically over the past month:

Based on what you know about the Social Security proposal for personal investment accounts, is it your understanding that individuals could continue under the current system if they wanted or is it your understanding that everyone would be required to put a portion of their retirement money in stocks and mutual funds?

As more people understand that Social Security reform would allow individuals the choice to open a personal account or remain in the system, the inertia of reform will overtake the now-hesitant Congress.

V.

Based on what you know about the Social Security personal investment proposal, would you want the choice to invest a portion of your Social Security contributions in stocks or mutual funds?

Apparently, President Bush IS GAINING MOMENTUM on Social Security reform. People, personally, are becoming much more comfortable with the idea of personal accounts:

Those under 30 saw the largest jump, proving again just how irrelevant Rock the Vote is:

Clearly, people are beginning to really catch on to Social Security reform, as an abstract idea, and as something in which they would participate personally.

According to all of these numbers, President Bush's 60-Day tour has been a clear and stunning success. No longer is the debate over whether there is a crisis or not (Americans pretty much agree there is at least a severe problem looming). As increasing numbers of Americans begin to understand the nuances of President Bush's proposal, they are catching on to it. The groundwork is being laid for a more reasonable discussion on the topic; Democrats had better start negotiating in good faith, or they will get severely burned.

Just for reference, the party ID breakdown for this poll went as such:

39% Republican
39% Democrat
17% Independent
2% Other
4% Refused/Don't Know

More analysis of this poll to come, so stay tuned to WILLisms.com.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 April 2005 05:42 PM · Comments (5)

President Bush's Approval Ratings.

President Bush's approval ratings: they have taken a meaningful hit over the past few months.

Well, sort of.

Looking at the Gallup Poll, the slump is really not all that spectacular:

Similarly, take a look at the ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST poll from the past year:

Just a month after the 2004 election, President Bush's approval rating was lower than his disapproval rating. That, right there, should signal a bit of fishiness regarding the effectiveness of this particular polling organization at gauging the American electorate.

The President's recent downturn is not all that momentous in the grand scheme of things and may even be wholly attributable to shoddy work on the part of pollsters.

Nonetheless, the pundits are all speculating about it.

Some believe the answer is not event-driven, but rather the survey samples are not truly representative of the American electorate:

...while the 2004 exit polls showed that the parties were at parity among voters, the sample in this poll is not; it includes 35% Democrats and 28% Republicans– a 7 point advantage for Democrats.

In the 2004 election, the party breakdown was 37% Republican, 37% Democrat, and 26% Independent. Partisanship, as political scientists understand, is just far too stable to move so dramatically in such a short time. Typically, partisanship moves slowly, based on factors such as generational replacement, only shifting significantly during major times of crisis or scandal.

Thus, it's very likely that the polls themselves, to the small extent they even indicate a drop in President Bush's approval, are bunk.

But let's assume they aren't bunk. What could be the cause(s) of the decline?

I.

Fred Barnes believes Bush's poll drop is related to Social Security, and he believes the President should cut and run on the issue.

II.

Micky Kaus calls it a "semi-mysterious slump."

III.

Still others believe that President Bush's immigration policies are causing an erosion of his base.

IV.

But the most prominent "flavor of the month" justification for President Bush's slip in the polls:

"It's the theocons, stupid."

Immediately following the 2004 election, something resembling mass hysteria broke out amongst pundits over exit poll results that indicated Bush won the election because of moral values. After a month or so, the rabid lather of hyperbole and confusion evolved into a more reasoned consensus, as people realized that national security issues were the real driving factor behind the election.

Glenn Reynolds (instapundit) has bought into the notion that Americans are uncomfortable with the rise of the religious right [You might be asking yourself: "What rise of the religious right? Where's the proof?"]:

The Republicans' weakness is that people worry that they're the party of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They tried, successfully, to convince people otherwise in the last election, but they're now acting in ways that are giving those fears new life.

What does "now acting in ways that are giving those fears new life" mean, anyway? For Reynolds and many others (like Matthew Dowd), it all boils down to the Terri Schiavo fiasco.

So, because many Republicans and Democrats took measures to save Terri Schiavo, Republicans get nailed, politically?

Not buying it.

More than anything, the circus around Terri Schiavo allowed the media, socially liberal Republicans (or, perhaps, libertarian-leaning GOPers), and Democrats all to revive the dormant narrative that the Republican Party would impose a theocracy upon America if it could. This narrative is absurd, of course. The "Terri Schiavo-related" political hysteria is more fad than anything.

America's foremost political expert, Michael Barone, agrees that this fear and loathing about an impending imposition of theocracy is a "silly" diversion:

America is too diverse and freedom-loving for that. But it does mean that we're probably not headed to the predominantly secular society that liberals predicted half a century ago and that Europe has now embraced.

So, what is the cause of the slump?

It's not as exciting as you might think.

Last October, professors Suzanna De Boef of Penn State and Paul M. Kellstedt of Texas A&M published "The Political (and Economic) Origins of Consumer Confidence" in the American Journal of Political Science. They noted the high correlation between the economic approval and the overall approval rating of the President:

Notice how closely the relation holds over time, only diverging during "rally-round-the-flag" times of international crisis.

But it doesn't end there. Suzanna De Boef and Paul M. Kellstedt, in looking at all the data from 1981-2000, find that there is a strong correlation between the Consumer Sentiment Index and the economic approval rating of the President:

...for every five percentage point gain in economic approval ratings, consumer sentiment goes up an average of one point.

Consumer sentiment recently slipped to its lowest point in 18 months, despite solid GDP growth and nearly two straight years of monthly job gains.

Why?

GAS PRICES, GAS PRICES, GAS PRICES.

Consumer sentiment is generally rational, but 25% is determined by irrational factors. Indeed, in the short-run, consumer sentiment can behave erratically, but it typically settles down at a rational point:

Shocks to the economy-like the Enron scandal-may temporarily depress consumer sentiment, creating disequilibrium with economic conditions, economic approval, and the federal funds rate. But consumer sentiment will adjust, moving back toward equilibrium (growing) at a rate of about one-third per month, virtually disappearing after about four months (all else held constant).

De Boef and Kellstedt also note that the media plays a rather large role in all of this:

When news coverage is positive, citizens give favorable evaluations, leading to more positive sentiment.

Bush's recent drop (as mild as it truly has been) is based on gas price worries. Maybe not even the gas prices themselves, but the reporting of them.

Ever watch the local and network news? Despite the rise of talk radio, cable news, and the internet, most Americans still get their news from local and network news. What story has dominated the news over the past couple of months?

Stories about high gas prices.

The Washington Post has a similar "consumer comfort index," and if you follow its ups and downs, you'll notice it predicts Presidential approval, spot-on:

Recent negative movement in how Americans view the economy (much of which is a result of incessant reporting about high gas prices) has caused President Bush's approval rating slump.

Although Mr. Reynolds is too quick to believe, and perpetuate, the "the GOP is going to split because of the theocons" thesis, this point is absolutely dead-on:

...if [Bush] had a 60% approval rating, or even a 53% approval rating, he'd be making more progress on Social Security reform and on his various nominations.

Absolutely. But the last time Bush's approval was above 60% was early August, 2003, just prior to the beginning of the Democrats' primary season.

Bottom line:

Don't buy the hype about Bush's approval ratings being the result of a backlash against the events surrounding Terri Schiavo. It's the economy, or, more specifically, gasoline prices, that have people hot and bothered.

Having studied the numbers extensively from every angle, it is clear that the Consumer Sentiment Index is the single-greatest contributing factor to rises and falls in the President's approval rating. Only during times of international crisis is the economy relegated to second-fiddle. Currently, Americans have once again made the economy their number one priority, after a few years of War-On-Terror preeminence. Because the economic news seems so dire, based on a cursory survey of the media's reporting, people are responding negatively.

Still, because of demographics and other factors, Republicans remain in good shape to add seats in both chambers of Congress in 2006; afterall, it is a "mindless assumption that unhappiness with one major party translates into happiness with the other."

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 April 2005 02:55 PM · Comments (5)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 29 -- Free Trade.

Free Trade and Prosperity-

Freer trade means higher economic output:

Becoming freer in trade practices increases economic growth:

Source:

John C. Hulsman, Ph.D., Brett D. Schaefer, and Anthony B. Kim; "The Benefits of a Global Free Trade Alliance(.pdf)," Chapter 3 of the Index of Economic Freedom (2005).

Previous trivia tidbits:

Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9; Part 10; Part 11; Part 12; Part 13; Part 14; Part 15; Part 16; Part 17; Part 18; Part 19; Part 20; Part 21, Part 22; Part 23, Part 24, Part 25; Part 26; Part 27, Part 28.

Daily Trivia Tidbits cover a wide range of topics; you never know what you might find. Stay tuned to WILLisms.com for more.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 April 2005 09:26 AM · Comments (0)

Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 3.

This week's WILLisms.com Caption Contest photograph:

The actual caption:

John Akbar, left, father of Hasan Akbar, and Quran Bilal, mother of Akbar, leave the Staff Judge Advocate Building during a break in Akbar's court-martial at Fort Bragg, N.C. Monday, April 18, 2005. Akbar, a soldier with the 101st Airborne Division is charged in the grenade attack that killed two U.S. officers and wounded 14 other soldiers March 23, 2003, at Camp Pennsylvania, Kuwait. Akbar is charged with two counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted first-degree murder and faces a possible death sentence.(AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

There must be a better caption out there for this photograph.

Entries will remain open until 11:59 PM, Central Standard Time, Tuesday, May 3. Submit your captions in the comments section, or email at WILLisms@gmail.com.

Last week's photo:

Last week's winners:

1.

Joseph Ratinya:

Okay, we've given you rights, now take off your shirt or have your head chopped off.

No, really.

2.

John Stark:

Ahmed now believed his x-ray sunglasses were worth every penny.

3.

Zsa zsa:

What is Sheikh Sabah Al Sabha looking at there? ... Is this something like the "Oil for Food Program?"

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 April 2005 05:39 AM · Comments (11)

Man Keeps Dead Mother In Freezer In Order To Collect Her Social Security Checks.

Disgusting:

LA CROSSE, Wis. -- A man told police he kept his mother's corpse in a basement freezer for more than four years while he collected her Social Security checks, authorities said Monday.

Philip Schuth, 52, told police his elderly mother, Edith, died of natural causes in August 2000 but that he didn't tell anyone because he was afraid police would blame him, according to documents filed in court. An autopsy is set for this week on the body, which was found in ice in a sitting position.

In a bizarre and morbid way, this event underscores the unjust fact that Social Security benefits are not inheritable. Once you die, they are gone. Mr. Schuth, acting out his clearly anti-social, perhaps psychotic behavior, was actually making a very logical, rational, and reasonable choice from a purely economic perspective. He had a vested economic interest in perpetuating the lie that his mother was alive than in letting her rest in peace.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 April 2005 12:30 AM · Comments (7)

Two Must-Reads On Social Security.

Wall Street Journal:

President Bush is now endeavoring to redress the looming embarrassment of Social Security's obligation to pay more than it will take in. The semantic argument about whether this shortfall constitutes a crisis, a problem, or a banana daiquiri is pointless. The gap must be closed, either by reducing the program's o