« December 2005 | WILLisms.com | February 2006 »

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 254 -- Better, Cheaper Cable, Phone, & Internet.

Telecom Deregulation-

While gas prices get inordinate levels of media attention these days, I am bothered a lot more by rising costs in other areas. Cable bills, for example.

With oil, you have a global market. You have burgeoning demand in China, India, and other emerging economies. You also have regimes around the world with varying degrees of psychoses manipulating, as best they can, the supply of oil in the global marketplace. Oil companies themselves are also at the mercy of these enormous geopolitical forces. They don't-- they can't-- sit around in some smoke-filled room, fixing the price of a barrel of oil or gallon of gas.

Television services (cable, etc.), meanwhile, while certainly not essential, are entirely necessary for those of us who follow politics and sports.

And cable bills are completely outrageous these days. Most people pay for dozens or hundreds of channels they don't want. Then there's the local, state, and federal taxes. Worst of all, there's no market competition. If you aren't satisfied with your cable company, your options are limited (.pdf):

The FCC reports that only three percent of the cable communities nationwide were competitive in January 2004.17 This means that cable firms have in effect a monopoly position in roughly 97 percent of local markets nationwide.

It's even worse in Texas.

ZERO zip codes had more than one service provider (.pdf):

Sure, there's satellite. But clearly, fairly or unfairly to DirecTV and Dish Network and so on, most consumers do not consider satellite television to be a reasonable substitute for cable.

These monopolies on cable service are not even organic. They're, in part at least, due to outdated governmental regulation.

Fortunately, for Texans at least, there is help on the way. The Tax Foundation notes that the recently passed 2005 Competition Act will help to break up the monopoly power of cable companies in Texas:

With the recent passage of an Act Relating to Furthering Competition in the Communications Industry, the Texas legislature has made great strides in telecommunications deregulation.

For many years, regulations have limited competition and innovation in Texas telecommunications markets. The 2005 Competition Act will promote competition by eliminating entry barriers in two markets and deregulating pricing in a third market. Taken together, the three major reform measures of the 2005 Competition Act will hasten the movement toward an innovative, efficient telecommunications marketplace in which multiple service providers compete to offer consumers a package of voice, broadband Internet access, and video programming services.

While the results will not necessarily be immediate, they might very well be, and over the next few years we should fully expect and demand competition to give consumers more and better choices, for relatively less money. As High Definition television and other new technologies take off, it is exciting that Texas' legislators have empowered consumers in the coming years with market-based choices.

Source:
The Tax Foundation.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Perceptions On The Economy.

Posted by Will Franklin · 31 January 2006 09:57 PM · Comments (17)

Principles Trump Politics

Samuel Alito was confirmed by the Senate today, on a vote of 58-42. All but four democratic Senators voted against Alito, including Her Majesty Hillary Clinton (so much for the new, improved 'moderate' Hillary).

Compare this to the 96-3 vote in favor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There, Republicans overwhelmingly voted for Ginsburg, even though she was clearly an agenda-driven radical leftist, recently counsel to the ACLU.

Unlike Democrats, for whom politics is the be-all and end-all of existence, Republicans believe in principles. One of these cherished principles, sanctified by history and tradition, is that the President is entitled to fill Supreme Court vacancies with whomever he sees fit, barring ineptitude or corruption on the part of the nominee. So in 1993 the Republicans bit their tongues and voted for the person President Clinton wanted on the Supreme Court bench. Yeah, the Republicans who supposedly 'hated' Clinton and everything he stood for nonetheless voted for Ginsburg.

The Republicans did not seek to block this very divisive nomination by threatening obstruction or filibuster, they did not gin up the base and spend tens of millions of dollars whining and moaning about Ginsburg, and they most certainly did not act like Grand McCarthyite Inquisitors at the hearings.

The Alito hearings illustrate clearly the gulf in quality between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans believe in the Constitution and adhering to its meaning - Democrats believe the Constitution is some amorphous 'living document' with an ever-elastic meaning that can be stretched as the political winds dictate.

Republicans believe in giving the President's nominee his or her due -the Democrats see it as a chance to fling mud and gain partisan advantage.

It would be tempting, politically, to give the Dems a little payback when (if?) the Democrats elect a president who desires to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The Republicans would be well within their rights to utilize the new precedents set by the Democrats, and oppose tooth claw and nail a nominee for no reason other than the fact that it is politically expedient to do so. After all, the new Democratic precedents are that: being qualified doesn't matter, being sqeaky clean in your personal life doesn't matter, being experienced doesn't matter, and having a great judicial temperament doesn't matter (Alito obviously has the patience of a saint).

The only thing that matters to Democrats is politics, and the Alito hearings showcased this for all of America to see.

Update: This is brilliant, from Deborah Orin:

Republicans loved 2004 loser Kerry's flop of a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito because it had Democrats tearing each other's eyes out — over a fight they couldn't win. ... Worse yet, plenty of Democrats who did vote for the filibuster — like New York's Sen. Chuck Schumer — left little doubt that they were livid at Kerry's stunt, since it turned into a dream come true for Bush political guru Rove. ... But then Kerry, hobnobbing with hotshots in posh Davos, Switzerland, got his marching orders from The New York Times and the left-wing blog Daily Kos (which can be hard to tell apart these days). Presto: Insta-filibuster, like it or not.

Live by the sword, die by the sword John Kerry. Continue to take you orders from Kos, and there will be much, much more suffering for you ahead.

Update II: And now we have John Kerry consoling the vast horde of losers he and Kos control in one of his regular spammings, making the astonishing statement that "we made sure America heard how a right wing ideological coup sandbagged Harriet Miers' nomination and replaced her with Judge Alito."

It was ideological to oppose Miers because many on the right doubted her qualifications? How can it be ideological when Miers views were a mystery, considering she had never written judicial opinions? Is John Kerry some kind of mind reader? Or does he simply reject anything that comes from the White House without even investigating its merit perhaps? Why, that would be playing politics, something I am sure John Kerry rises above at all times. That settles it then - John Kerry is a mind reader.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 31 January 2006 09:16 PM · Comments (13)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 253 -- Seeing The Economy Through A Partisan Prism.

Reality vs. Perception-

There's something sour going on right now. Some of our fellow Americans are not being reasonable.

Look at the past decade and a half of economic ratings. Notice the partisan differences:

As has been the case through much of Bush's presidency ­ and in stark contrast to the Clinton years ­ public views of the economy are deeply split along political lines. Republicans generally see an economy that is thriving; 56% judge it as excellent or good. Democrats and independents see it much more negatively; just 28% of independents and 23% of Democrats say the economy is doing well.

Public perceptions of the economy were far less polarized during the Clinton administration. During Clinton's first term, positive views of the economy rose gradually, and at about the same rate, among both Democrats and Republicans. During the boom of the late 1990s, optimism soared among members of both parties, while lagging a bit among independents.

And this troubling partisan prism is far more of a factor than "class." The party differences cut across income levels, as well:

This is disturbing.

It's one thing to expect partisan differences on whether Cindy Sheehan is a deranged nutjob or a grieving mother speaking truth to power, whether Fahrenheit 9/11, Syriana, and Brokeback Mountain are important film masterpieces or preachy garbage, whether America's troops are jackbooted scumbags or worthy heroes, and whether late-term abortion is the taking of human life or merely the removal of a clump of cells.

But divergent views on the economy? On this economy? Even controlling for income?

Not good.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Blame Bush For Everything.

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 January 2006 10:10 PM · Comments (28)

Quotational Therapy: Part 69 -- President Bush's 2003 State Of The Union Address.

Bush & Freedom, Not After The Fact-

We often hear critics of President Bush comment that "this whole freedom thing" is but an after-the-fact justification of the Iraq war, after warehouses full of weapons of mass destruction were not uncovered there. President Bush has been committed to the advance of freedom, however sloppy, however uncertain, however challenging, all along.

As the President prepares to address Congress regarding The State of the Union on Tuesday night, let's look back on the still-relevant 2003 SOTUA (emphasis mine):

On Iran-

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.

On Iraq-

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom.

On Liberty-

Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.

It was a truly remarkable speech, yet the only time it is ever mentioned in the news today is to dispute this line:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

That's a line the British are still standing by as the truth. It's also the line that led CIA Agent Valerie Plame to send her husband, the ever-pompous partisan Democrat Joe Wilson, to Niger on a mission of "let's undermine and discredit the administration." Wilson, not alone, went to Africa, drank some tea, came home, wrote a misleading op-ed that contradicted the findings of those on his trip that did the actual legwork, and the rest is history.

-----------------------------

Previous Quotational Therapy Session:

Ronald Wilson Reagan's First Inaugural Address.

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

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 January 2006 05:59 PM · Comments (1)

Let The Silliness Begin!

Many on the right predicted this sort of argument in the wake of the latest bin Laden tape.

Sorry, you do not get a Blogging Bronze Star for predicting this, it was utterly inevitable.

I agree with one point though, we need to find out what terms Osama is offering. Why? All the better to find him and kill him, that's why.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 29 January 2006 07:33 PM · Comments (10)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 252 -- Mining Accidents & Blaming Bush.

So Predictably Absurd-

Back during my blogging hiatus, right around the turn of 2006, I was decidedly tuned out, news-wise. I first learned of the "Sago Mine Tragedy" from ABC Sports, watching West Virginia's football coach Rich Rodriguez make a brief statement about how his team's thoughts and prayers were with the coal miners and their families.

My first thought (and I am paraphrasing, here): "That's sad."

My second thought: "I bet they are already blaming Bush for this somehow."

My third thought: "I bet the unions are going to exploit this tragedy to whip their members into a frenzy."

My fourth thought: "That's sad."

My fifth thought (still paraphrasing): "Maybe I am just being cynical. They won't blame and exploit."

Well, sure enough, my first, cynical thoughts were right. How lame is that? I hate having to be cynical. I prefer to think of myself as an optimist, for the most part. But, when our irresponsible media giants that still dictate what is or is not news are so predictably absurd, it's hard not to be a little bit cynical.

On January 5, I received an email from "peoplepower@AFLCIO.org" sent out to union members and media, blaming President Bush and Congressional Republicans for "cuts" to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Cuts. Left-wing code for "slowing the growth of."

And it included all sorts of links, including to this heavily-quoted (in the email) NYT op-ed:

Just as Hurricane Katrina forced Americans to look at the face of lingering poverty and racism, the mining tragedy should focus us all on another forgotten corner of society....

...the Bush administration’s cramming of important posts in the Department of the Interior with biased operatives from the coal, oil and gas industry is not reassuring about general safety in the mines.

Sure.

And don't forget this classy (not) and often contradictory press release from Democratic Representative George Miller of California:

...the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration has been downsized by 170 positions since 2001. Congress has cut MSHA’s funding by $4.9 million, in inflation-adjusted terms, for the 2006 fiscal year, compared with 2005. Moreover, Miller said, the Bush Administration has appointed numerous officials to the agency who have close ties to the mining industry. These officials, in the last five years, have rolled back a number of regulations aimed at improving mine worker safety, Miller said.

As if to say, "Blood on your hands, Bush!"

It's the Katrina blueprint. And you can expect it following any disaster or tragedy whatsoever for the next couple of years. A concerted effort, spearheaded by establishment media outlets, left-wing members of Congress, and the pertinent left-wing organization (environmental, race-based, labor union, and so on) to pin whatever it was that happened on President Bush.

Also in the AFL-CIO email was a link to the "workingforchange" blog, with this bit of hatred:

The tragic news about the death of 12 mine workers this week has brought up all sorts of questions about the Bush administration's record protecting mine workers. Back in 2002, I was working for the House Appropriations Committee. At the time, you may recall there was a big mining accident in Western Pennsylvania. President Bush held a big photo-op to pretend like he cared - but he never responded to the fact sheet that House Democrats put out questioning why he had made so many cuts to mine safety programs. You can view this fact sheet in Microsoft Word right here (I still have it from my time at the Appropriations Committee) It was released to the media and the administration on August 5, 2002 - the same day Bush did his big photo-op.

Talk about cynical. This-- the Marxist union movement-- is the heart and soul of today's Democratic Party. They not only disagree with Republican policies and ideas, they impugn our motives, as well. As if we are evil, heartless villains.

Grumble grumble, Bush and his pretend photo-ops, grumble grumble. Bunch of fatcat capitalist cronies. Grumble.

Go form your own Soviet Union somewhere, already.

But it wasn't just these fringe groups that increasingly for the core of the Democratic Party.

Enter the media.

The Media Research Center documented, in detail, how the establishment media was quick to blame business leaders and the Bush administration:

When tragedy strikes, the media make errors. Following the hasty and, unfortunately, inaccurate reporting on the Sago mine rescue efforts, the media didn’t slow down to wait for the facts. Instead, they quickly looked for someone to take responsibility for the accident that killed 12 miners. The investigation into the Sago mine explosion has barely begun and the cause is far from known, but journalists have already jumped ahead to blaming mine owners and inspectors.

It is unfortunate that the Sago Mine Tragedy became a partisan issue. But fortunate for the good guys, the facts are on our side, no matter how effective the emotional and knee-jerkedly anti-Bush rhetoric from the unions and media was/is. Here are some of the facts (.pdf):

Production up. Fatalities down.

Next:

Injuries down.

Also down: injury rate, fatal injuries, and the fatal injury rate.

All down. As in, improving. Often by quite a bit.

BizzyBlog has a lot more on this subject here.

The sad part about all this is that Katrina taught us that we cannot sit idly by while grotesque accusations and insinuations are made, even if the facts are on our side. There is no such thing as remaining above the fray, or "not dignifying that rubbish with a response." We have to respond. Otherwise, it could derail the entire pro-growth, pro-market, pro-America conservative agenda indefinitely.

So, sure, this isn't hot off the presses type stuff, but it still needs to be said, especially when the facts are so overwhelming.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Japan's Economy.

Posted by Will Franklin · 29 January 2006 07:01 PM · Comments (10)

Pundit Roundtable Open Mic

Welcome back to Pundit Roundtable! I am your host, Ken McCracken, and this week we are opening up the Roundtable to any and all comers.

You must answer these topic questions in any way you see fit, staying on topic is encouraged but not necessary.

Topic 1: Do you have any secret, odd or uncanny talents?

Topic 2: What do you think of today's crop of elder statesman? Consider folks such as the living ex-presidents, Senators Kennedy, Byrd, Ted Stevens and such. Who do you like? Or not?

Please just add a comment below if you want to join in!

If you have any interesting links, ideas, suggestions for our readers, post those too or send them to me and I can put them in the post here itself.

Also, if you want to be on our list of pundits for the Roundtable in the future, let me know.

That is all!

---

ShrinkWrapped steps up with this assessment, especially in regards to a certain ex-president, and note in particular the possible future Roundtable question:

the current crop of elder statesmen are an embarrassment. Jimmah Carter leads the pack; he still has not met a totalitarian despot who he recognizes as a fascist. As long as they frame their arguments in "progressive, PC non-thought" and mouth the proper platitudes, which includes visceral anti-Americanism and minimally disguised (and, often, undisguised) anti-Semitism, they are just fine with Jimmy. He represents the worst of the liberal impulse, which at one time was a noble designation.

And that leads into my suggestion for a topic. I have been trying
for quite some time to figure out just what it means to be a liberal
today. I have had a terrible time figuring out just what they think
they believe in and have had trouble engaging any liberals in a
reasoned discussion of what it means to be a liberal. If anyone has
any ideas about how to pin down a workable definition of liberalism,
I would be very interested. And as a point of interest, I am not interested in knowing what conservatives think of liberals; there is plenty of that around; I want to know what they believe in at their best because that would afford the best chance of addressing their arguments without descending into DU land.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 29 January 2006 03:10 PM · Comments (6)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 251 -- Japan's Economy.

Miracle, Malaise, Miracle-

Japan's economy has been in the news a bit this month. The Nikkei took a substantial tumble, then made an even more substantial rally. Overall, the Nikkei is up meaningfully over the past year:

And there's finally reason for optimism about Japan's economy, after a slump that just wouldn't go away for more than a decade.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is serious about privatization of Japan's economy, now heavily tilted toward the public sector. Think America's government is a leviathan? Try Japan:

Koizumi came to power in 2001, and his reformist policies - including the privatisation of Japan's 3.5 trillion dollar postal service - have been credited with bringing life back into the stagnant economy.

Takenaka said Japan has been facing major problems due to an aging population and a drop in births and said that in order to reduce the tax burden, a smaller administration must be created.

Takenaka, who is also responsible for the privatisation of the Japanese postal service, said the government would dispose off some of its assets.

"The total asset size of the Japanese government is five times that of the US. "We will sell some of this in the market," he said.

And it's a good thing Japan is embarking on this project now, rather than waiting. Japan is a demographic bomb just waiting to detonate:

By 2025, 28% of Japan's population is expected to be over 65 compared to 12% in the United States.

While "privatization" of Social Security in the U.S. was railroaded largely by a dedicated socialist media campaign, Koizumi (who really should be one of your favorite world leaders) took his plan straight to the people, and won, bigtime:

Privatization of Japan's massive postal savings system, which holds savings and insurance assets valued at $3 trillion for 85% of Japan's population, is set to take place over the next 12 years. The proposal, overwhelmingly endorsed by voters in a September special election, will shift a mountain of assets from government control to private markets.

But those of us who follow Japan's economic recovery have other reasons for optimism. Compare some key indicators from 1995 to 2003:

Notice that Japan actually got worse in the "Flexibility in Hiring and Firing" department. This is a cultural thing in many ways. Japanese people, especially men, take unemployment very hard:

From 1953 to 2003, each 1 percentage point increase in the cyclical component of the male unemployment rate led to a 5.39 percentage point increase in the cyclical component of the male suicide rate. This effect is 38 times larger for Japan than for the United States. The link holds for women in Japan, although it is much weaker, at 1.38 percentage point. There is no significant relationship between female suicide and unemployment rates in the United States.

The strong link between unemployment and suicide probably reflects two aspects of Japanese society. First, the Japanese are more likely to interpret losing a job as a personal failure, rather than the normal working of the economic system. Second, they may be more pessimistic about finding new employment in an economy that doesn’t feature robust job creation.

Thus, cumbersome restrictions on firing remain in place. Great, right?

Wrong. When it is hard to fire someone, it's much harder to hire anyone. Why take the risk of hiring someone, paying their health insurance and salary, matching their retirement plan and Social Security contributions, training them, and so on, if there's little chance of being able to fire them if it doesn't work out?

Japan still has a long way to go to fully rejuvenate its economy. A thriving Japanese economy, once the bane of America's economic existence (from the late 1970s to the early 1990s), now is imperative for the United States. A strong Japan means a strong ally in a rapidly changing Asia. Let's root for reform's success in Japan. Maybe our worthless media and our do-nothing Democrats will even learn something from the Japanese economic resurgence before it's too late.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Generosity Index.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 January 2006 10:47 PM · Comments (1)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 250 -- Generosity Index.

Having & Giving-

You might have seen some blog posts here and there a month or so back on the Catalogue For Philanthropy's Generosity Index of 2005 (based on 2003 tax return data).

If there were headlines to be had in that index, it was that, overall, "red state" people are more generous with their charitable contributions than "blue state" people.

Not only that, but the fact that "blue state" incomes are generally higher than "red state" incomes, makes the red state generosity even more extraordinary.

Of course, this highlights the disparity between blue and red states with regard to income levels. But a $200,000 Mississippi home transplanted into Connecticut might very well become a $2,000,000 home. Or more. Easily. Meanwhile, a New Jersey home transplanted into Montana might or might not be worth something.

Interestingly, I first came across this information from a liberal emailer. Something along the lines of, "hey, look how poor you reTHUGligans are..."

I never responded, but that email was a clarifying moment. It demonstrated the kind of elitism that is killing the Democratic Party today. Which brings up an interesting parallel.

As a Texas Longhorn fan, I occasionally venture over to TexAgs.com. That's the main message board for Texas A&M Aggies (and I know I have some great Aggie readers, so bear with me). Well, recently, there was a thread (now vanished, for whatever reason) about how average Joes in Texas are now wearing burnt orange Longhorn gear, whereas 10 years ago, they all wore Aggie gear.

Which came first, success, or support?

Likewise, are average Joes merely bandwagon Republicans? Do they support the GOP because of the GOP's success? Or did their support lead to the success? The parallels are not perfect, but that thread on TexAgs.com, which grew into an increasingly condescending "we don't need those idiots, anyway" consensus, was astoundingly similar to the email I received from that lefty troll regarding the Generosity Index.

Here's the bottom line: You aren't better than anyone if you aren't winning, in sports, as well as politics. So the elitism from Aggies and Democrats, all in a similar span of time, cracked me up.

Some additional Generosity Index data you may have missed (underlining emphasis mine):

1) Itemized Charitable Deductions are thought by independent research to capture about 80% of all charitable giving dollars (not volunteering, not large numbers of small gifts).

2) Income tax returns capture a much larger percent of personal income.

3) Most charitable giving is done by affluent taxpayers; itemization is heaviest among that group, with penalties for perjury if they exaggerate, and loss of tax deductions if they under-report.

4) Cost of living and tax burdens kick-in as inhibitors of charitable giving only below the top income levels.

5) Independent corroboration of the Generosity Index is that states' rankings generally follow what is known about religious giving patterns: 7 of the bottom 8 states are Catholic, while 11 of the top 22 states are Southern Baptist (the number would be higher if the category were broadened to include all Evangelical Protestants, such as Mormons. We would expect religious cultures to influence giving significantly, because religious giving accounts for over one-third (35.5% in 2004) of all charitable giving, the largest single field of interest to donors (Education: 13.6%, Health 8.8%).

This last finding was surprising to some degree. And I don't quite know what to make of it. But I would take a few things from it:

1. It proves that President Bush's Armies of Compassion are not some catch phrase. They exist. They give of their time, money, and other resources.
2. It demonstrates, at some level, that lower tax burdens spur greater charitable giving, while higher tax burdens stifle charitable giving. After all, why give to a church or school if the government is already making me do so?
3. It might very well demonstrate grassroots disillusionment with the Catholic Church among Catholics, due to the persistent sex scandals in the headlines.
4. It demonstrates, in yet another way, that there are two very distinct American cultures emerging, one more secular (and European), one more spiritual/religious.

Source:
CFP.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Agricultural Subsidies.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 January 2006 09:47 PM · Comments (1)

Quotational Therapy: Part 68 -- Reagan's Revolutionary Inaugural Address.

The Reagan Revolution-

The Reagan Revolution seized power 25 years ago this month, as Ronald Wilson Reagan replaced an ineffectual weakling of a leader, thereby restoring America's confidence in its own greatness.

A snippet from President Reagan's First Inaugural Address:

We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.

Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay the price.

Read the entire speech here, and for some reflections on the speech, a quarter of a century later, click here.

-----------------------------

Previous Quotational Therapy Session:

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" Speech.

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

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 January 2006 05:27 PM · Comments (1)

Facts Are Stubborn Things

Hugh Hewitt has been a one-man wrecking crew the last few weeks -

He interviewed the troika: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld.

He dismembered: Joel Stein and Jonathan Alter.

Don't argue with a guy that has forgotten more constitutional law than you'll ever know.

All that and Lileks too! Heh, it's great radio.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 27 January 2006 06:28 AM · Comments (0)

Ballot Boxes And Bullets

Reuters is reporting this morning that gunfire has broken out between Hamas and Fatah in the wake of Hamas' electoral landslide in the Palestinian Authority elections.

Abu Mazen may regret not cracking down on the competition when he had the chance.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 27 January 2006 06:06 AM · Comments (3)

Taxes In 1969.

It's already nearing the end of January once again, which, of course, means that tax day is just around the corner. Income taxes and property taxes are bad enough as it is, but in recent weeks I have been paying closer attention to the little, constant taxes found in just about any sort of monthly bill. Cable television, for example.

The taxes on my bundled cable, internet, and digital phone total thirty-seven dollars and ninety-seven cents. $37.97. For the various local , state, and federal (mostly federal) taxes on that stuff. Every single month. PLUS another $1.19 for a "Municipal Telecommunications Surcharge." On the digital phone. That's the one that goes through the internet.

These are the sorts of fees that have been around forever, but too many people have begun to mentally incorporate them into some sort of monolithic cost concept of the good or service. We should be mad, each and every time we see "oh, and by the way, we need 37 dollars and 97 cents extra in taxes, thanks a bunch" on a cable bill. That shouldn't be normal.

Regardless of what Americans tell pollsters their most significant/pressing issue is (sometimes it is terrorism, or Iraq, or health care, or whatever else is dominating the headlines that week), taxes will always be there. People feel, intuitively, that they are overtaxed, no matter the tax bracket.

This is why it always baffles and delights me when liberals try to force the issue on taxes. It's sort of like that hilariously ill-advised Reggie Bush lateral/fumble in the 2006 Rose Bowl. It just makes you scratch your head and go, "what on earth could that guy be thinking?"

But press the issue they do. Often.

Unlike Reggie Bush, however, Democrats are not very good at winning elections. There's a reason for that. No matter how socially liberal some guy may be, no matter how outraged he is by all the trumped-up non-scandals in Washington, DC, how could anyone bring himself to vote for a candidate demanding substantially higher taxes? That's the one campaign promise a politician will keep 100% of the time.

But Democrats do just that-- call for higher taxes-- nearly every single election. Some cloak it in the language of rolling back "irresponsible" tax cuts, as if there is some Constitutionally-mandated tax level from the days or yore, higher than where we are now. Liberals today genuinely act as if we're woefully undertaxed today.

The sales pitch for higher taxes also usually involves something about "tax cuts for the rich." Americans almost unanimously believe they are middle class (a perception that isn't really all that off), so the occasional voter might fall for that lefty class warfare garbage.

But most of us have the basic cognitive capacity to reason thusly:

A: I am not rich.
B: I got a tax cut.
C: So, that means either, I really am rich (I'm not), I didn't really get a tax cut (I did), or that rich Democrat (Kennedy, etc.) doesn't know what he is talking about. Or worse, he is lying to me. What a joke of a political party.

Most Americans are more than capable of connecting the dots. Credibility is heck to earn and a breeze to burn.

The real question is: how much more credibility do these guys have left to burn?

That's a rhetorical question, but one answer is that they will have as much credibility as the left-dominated media grant them. We must demolish the left-wing media establishment. We must dismantle the Democrat-run death grip on information. We must expose the socialist tendencies of America's journalists. That's why we blog.

On taxes, for example.

One unfortunate side effect of America's prevailing pecuniary practice of paycheck withholding is that many of us receive a check or direct deposit FROM the IRS for hundreds or thousands of dollars about this time of year. When receiving gobs of money, it is easy to forget that they took way too much from us in the first place.

Today, we have Tax Freedom Day to remind us of just how much we have to work to pay off our taxes each year. Last year it was April 17. Federal taxes alone took 70 days to pay off last year:

Everybody isn't working for the weekend. We're working for Uncle Sam. And Uncle Connecticut. And Uncle New York. And Uncle New Jersey. And Uncle Massachusetts. And all the other Uncles we didn't even know we had until we got rich enough to receive one of Bush's tax cuts.

Once upon a time, there was no Tax Freedom Day, but there was this nifty bit of nostalgia (.pdf):

Some things never change.

As long as taxes are an issue in an election, tax-slashing Republicans will benefit over tax-loving Democrats. From here to 2069, and beyond.

Here's a wake-up call: The 2006 elections will be here in a flash. Let's quit the dilly-dallying. Let's quite worrying over this or that or the other. In committee, let's quit pretending Democrats have anything worthwhile (or even remotely truthful) to say on taxes.

[I am appealing to you, Congressional Republicans.]

In the public square, however, use their narrowly-crafted, base-rallying comments and votes against them. Hoist them by their own collective petard, not just on their national security weakness, not just on their seething hypocrisy on the "corruption" issue, but on their tax-loving socialism, as well. The truth is a powerful force. Let's use it.

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 January 2006 08:45 PM · Comments (22)

Boo Hoo

Can you BE any more thin-skinned?

Posted by Ken McCracken · 26 January 2006 07:00 PM · Comments (5)

American Prophets of Total War

If you are an uninformed Leftist (redundant?) who thinks President Bush is America's most bloodthirsty warmonger, man, you have a lot of catching up to do.

Bush is a kindergarten teacher compared to some of the patriots who have defended this nation in the past.

Take Curtis LeMay, for example.

As an Air Force general during World War II, he directed B-29's to bomb Tokyo, a city built of wood and paper, with incendiary devices - basically, napalm. The ensuing firestorm killed 100,000 civilians, roughly equivalent to the casualties suffered during the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. Many other Japanese cities were bombed in a similar way under LeMay's command, resulting in as many as 500,000 civilian deaths.

What did LeMay have to say about this? "There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders." He also understood the horror he had wrought, stating that if America lost the war he fully expected to be tried as a war criminal.

He is also reputed to have recommended bombing the Vietnamese "back into the stone age".

If LeMay seems like am evil warmonger, please remember that he acted under the direction of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S Truman, who between them interred Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, firebombed Dresden and Hamburg resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. LeMay did not operate in a vacuum.

During the Civil War, Phil Sheridan recommened a scorched earth policy against the Shenandoah Valley, blackening the earth of the south's breadbasket such that "If a crow wants to fly down the Shenandoah, he must carry his provisions with him."

William Tecumseh Sherman was the original prophet of total war - the concept that the enemy's population, infrastructure, and industry are all fair game as military targets. He put the total war concept into practice in his famous March to the Sea, cutting a swath of destruction one hundred miles wide through Georgia, ending in the levelling of Savannah, and the burning of Columbia, South Carolina (it is questionable whether this city was intentionally burned or not, but if it was accidental I doubt Sherman lost much sleep over it).

It is an ancient principle of war, that wars should be as short and decisive as possible. Sun Zi advocated this, for example, saying "there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." Long wars are ruinous and murderous, often as damaging to the victor as it is to the vanquished. Thus, while on the surface the total war concept sounds barbarous and manifestly evil, in fact it is neither: barbarians seek to destroy civilization, the civilized total warrior actually seeks to preserve it. Nor is total war evil: it is in fact humane, as it spares humanity from the far greater inhumane conditions of protracted, indecisive conflict.

P.S. Commenter Thomas mentioned The Fog of War, a documentary about Robert Strange McNamara, who goes into great depth about the total war calculus. It is must see t.v., go get a DVD and watch it if you can, it is fascinating.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 25 January 2006 08:31 PM · Comments (17)

Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 40.

This week's WILLisms.com Caption Contest photograph:

The actual caption:

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney is seen speaking at a luncheon in New York January 19, 2006. REUTERS/Chip East

Surely there's a better caption for this photograph. What, precisely, was the Vice President talking about?

Entries will remain open until 11:59 PM, Central Standard Time, Tuesday, January 31. Submit your captions in the comments section, or email at WILLisms@gmail.com.

Last week's photo:

Winners from last week:

1.

Rodney Dill:

"Ree Majors, eat your heart out."

2.

Hoodlumman:

After reading the innoculation directions to inject the dosage into the buttocks, Junichiro proved once again that he had the worst aim ever.

3.

Jim Rose:

After defeating his political opponents with one arm tied behind his back, Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi takes the opportunity to get reacquainted with the appendage.

Honorable Mention #1

Hoodlumman:

Junichiro still maintained his innocence during the Senate hearings on steroids in baseball even after damning pictures surfaced.

Honorable Mention #2

Bob:

See, no hair on my arm. Wax on, wax off.

Honorable Mention #3

Joshua Boehme (via email):

"The hourly injections of Polyjuice Potion were a hassle, but soon his plans would all come together..."

Honorable Mention #4

the paperboy:

His frequent words of encouragement for his limb became known as Koizumi's controversial "arms talks."

Honorable Mention #5

Cindy T.:

The Japanese body shot!*** Proof that size desn't matter*****

Honorable Mention #6

Zsa Zsa:

Prime Minister Koizumi balances world's smallest sake cup on his forearm for no particular reason

Honorable Mention #7

Rob B.:

While his Psoriasis was mostly under control, Lo Pan could never get his hair to stop parting where that damn Jack Burton had thrown that knife.

You must be THIS TALL to caption.

Enter today!

Posted by Will Franklin · 25 January 2006 11:55 AM · Comments (20)

" . . . But We Support The Troops!"

Joel Stein's column today "Warriors And Wusses" has created something of a controversy, in that he is a Leftist who has basically admitted that he does not support our troops.

Hugh Hewitt had an interview with Stein today on his show, and the transcript is available from RadioBlogger.com.

The upshot of the interview is that Stein was never in the military, does not really know anyone who served, and is stunningly ignorant of military matters in general.

I gotta say, it is refreshing to hear someone from the Left actually fess up to this, and I give Stein points for his honesty and a desire to shed himself of hypocrisy.

Because it is, indeed, hypocritical to claim that you 'support the troops, but not the mission.' As Dennis Praeger points out:

Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."

Maybe this will start some kind of trend among the Left, allowing them to finally show themselves for who they are.

P.S. I should give credit to Rob Port, guestblogging at Wizbang, for tipping me off to this little firestorm. By the way, I am the reader who spotted Rob's two quotes in the dead tree edition of the Chicago Tribune yesterday. Rob is a Pundit Roundtable regular, and we have added Say Anything to the WILLisms.com blogroll of awesome pundits!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 24 January 2006 09:03 PM · Comments (7)

My Allergy Skin Test.

So, I know some of you are wondering where I have been lately. What the heck is going on. And so on.

Well, it's been a combination of things. I just moved, my new internet setup was not functioning for a while, I am career transitioning, AND cedar has been destroying me. Yes, cedar. The tree. It's been absolutely vicious. And I am not alone. It's been thoroughly kicking the butts of a lot of people in Texas in recent weeks. We're talking many hours straight of runny nose, then bloody nose, then congestion, plus headache, plus constant, painful sneezing, and so on. Then it leads to viral infections. Not to mention fatigue.

So today, I finally went to an allergy specialist and received the skin test. They tested for 70+ allergens by poking me with tiny amounts of those allergens and seeing whether a hive formed in the vicinity of the poke.

First, they asked me more questions than I have ever been asked at the doctor's office. Ever. I had to go through my entire life history, including where I have lived, what my family members were like, what my roommates were like, what pets I had, what allergic symptoms I have had through the years, what jobs I have had, what activities I have done at different times in life, and so on.

Then they made me blow as hard as I could into a tube to measure my breathing capabilities, then breathe inward the same way. I was at 89%. I should have been at about 104%, from an "eyeball" of my fitness level (100% would have matched my height and weight precisely). So I was underachieving on the blow test. Allergies. Grr. I could have been the next Lance Armstrong if not for the whole breathing thing. Who knows.

Then came the skin test. The test was in two phases. Part one was on my back. The nurse brought out a gown thing for me to wear if I preferred, or I could just take off my shirt. I opted to just take off my shirt. Ha.

Anyway, she swabbed most of my back with alcohol, let it dry, then wrote the numbers 1 through 71 in regular blue ink pen. Then she brought in a tray of little blue hors d'oeuvres style toothpick things dipped in allergens and commenced to break the skin 71 times. Fun times.

Actually, it went pretty quickly, and it didn't really hurt much, but I had to fight the urge to scratch them. I read a book about birds for 15 minutes while the allergens stewed within. The nurse returned to find 3 positive results.

I am highly allergic to two trees: mountain cedar and red cedar. Also, to one weed: marsh elder.

For the other 68 that showed negative or inconclusive results, we had to repeat the process of the back, but instead on the arms. And with actual syringes. As in, 68 shots in the arm. With needles. And blood.

So, with the less superficial test, more allergies showed up.

Here is the full list (positive results bolded):

TREES
1. White Ash - Negatory. Awesome. I like ash trees.
2. Birch - Negative. Splendid. Birch is underrated as a tree.
3. Box Elder - Nope. Never heard of it, either. Maybe that's why I am not allergic to it. It doesn't exist.
4. Mountain Cedar - YES. The jerks. Juniper is also apparently VERY similar to cedar.
5. Red Cedar - YES. More jerks.
6. Cottonwood - YES. How could anyone NOT be allergic to those things with their floating cotton ball nonsense?
7. American Elm - Yep. Nightmare on American Elm Street.
8. Cedar Elm - No. How am I allergic to both cedar and elm, but not cedar elm?
9. Hackberry - YES. The jerks.
10. Live Oak - No. Thank goodness. I love those things.
11. Maple - No. MMM, pancakes.
12. Mesquite - No. Good. Lots of that around here. And in barbecue pits.
13. Mulberry - Yes. Oddly enough. And they stain your clothes and the sidewalk.
14. Pecan - Nope. I knew I wasn't allergic to pecan.
15. Pine - Nope. Lots of pine in SE Texas.
16. Privet - Nope. Not that familiar with this one, but I am glad I am not allergic to it.
17. Sycamore - Nope. Another nice tree.
18. Willow - Yes. Makes me weep.

GRASS

19. Bahia - Nope.
20. Bermuda - Nope.
21. Brome - Nope.
22. Johnson - Nope.
23. Perennial Rye - Nope.
24. Timothy - Nope.
25. Wheat Grass - Nope.

That's right, no grass allergies. Nice.

WEEDS

26. False Ragweed - Nope.
27. Giant Ragweed - Nope.
28. Short Ragweed - Nope.
29. Careless Ragweeed - Nope.
30. Pigweed - Nope.
31. Waterhemp - Nope.
32. Sage - YES. But not parsley, rosemary, or thyme.
33. Baccharis - No.
34. Jerusalem Oak - No.
35. Lambs Quarters - No.
36. Mexican Tea - No.
37. Cocklebur - No.
38. Kochia - No.
39. Marsh Elder - YES. The jerks.
40. Nettle - YES. Jerks.
41. Russian Thistle - Nope.
42. Saltbrush - Nope.
43. Sheep/Redsorrel

ENVIRONMENTALS

44. Cat - No.
45. Cockroach AM - No.
46. Cockroach, GER - No.
47. Mite Farinae - YES. Dust mites. In the pillows and carpet and such.
48. Mite Pteronyssinus - YES. More dust mites. Jerks.
49. Dog - No.

MOLD
50. Alternaria - No.
51. Aspergillius - No.
52. Boytrytis - No.
53. Candida - No.
54. Cephalosporium - No.
55. Cladosporium - No.
56. Curvularia - No.
57. Epicoccom - No.
58. Fusarium - No.
59. Geotruchum - No.
60. Helmenthosporium - No.
61. Monilla - No.
62. Mucor - No.
63. Nigrospora - No.
64. Penicillium - No.
65. Pullularia - No.
66. Phoma - No.
67. Rhizopus - No.
68. Stemphylium - No.
69. Trichopyton - No.

Surprisingly, not allergic to ANY of the available molds.

70. Negative Control - No. Which is good. That would be weird to be allergic to nothing.
71. Histamine - VERY allergic. Which makes sense. You are supposed to be allergic to that.

So, yeah, lots of pen marks on my body (which I don't like very much as it is), and lots of pokes. 140+ of them. But now I know. And knowing is half the battle.

Incidentally, mountain cedar has been off the charts here in Central Texas. Literally, off the charts.

For tree pollen, here are the ratings:

0 - 14 Low
15 - 89 Moderate
90 – 1,499 High
>1,500 Very High

In the past few weeks, we've seen cedar pollen up past 4,000 on a pretty regular basis. So, roughly 3 times as bad as the lower limit of "very high."

The good news is that cedar is finally waning:

So, with things settling down vis-a-vis moving (and everything associated with that), with this knowledge, and with a new allergy treatment regimen beginning today, hopefully I will be able to get back in the blogging groove soon. Muchas gracias to Ken for his great posts in recent weeks.

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 January 2006 08:43 PM · Comments (11)

Challenge To Our Readers: Jack Abramoff

I have avoided following the whole Jack Abramoff imbroglio thus far, because the entire topic just bores me. Okay, Washington can be a very corrupt place - this is news?

If you think I have avoided this issue because I am a shill for George Bush and the Republicans (I am) and that I can't face a Republican scandal, well, in the words of the great philosopher Curtis Sliwa, you could not be more hopelessly wrong! I found the Plame Affair endlessly fascinating, for example, because that story had real intrigue.

The Abramoff thing just makes my eyes glaze over.

It doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction in the press or among the public at large either, and my theory as to why is exactly that: political corruption is par for the course. Moreover, only hardcore political junkies (and Democrats slobbering to take back a house of Congress) would take the time to inform themselves on the intricacies of this issue. Thus, the vast bulk of the voting american public simply yawns and asks for the remote.

Here is my challenge: explain to me, in one succinct sentence, or short paragraph at most, what Abramoff and his cohorts did that was wrong.

You have my thanks in advance.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 23 January 2006 05:40 AM · Comments (39)

Pundit Roundtable

Hi! Welcome back to Pundit Roundtable, I am your host, Ken McCracken.

My mind is a bit fried on politics lately, so I went a bit more speculative with the topics this week, which are these:

Topic 1: You have the power to mind meld with any person from the present or past, and you can interface with their thoughts, memories and emotions. Who do you choose and why?

Topic 2: Does God want New Orleans to be a chocolate city?

I welcome back Rob Port of Say Anything - Rob, what do you think?

I would mind-meld with Teddy Roosevelt. The man was a brilliant politician and statesman, an energetic sportsman and explorer and led one of the most interesting lives I have ever had the pleasure of learning about.

On the political side of things I think he was the perfect conservative. His approach was to allow the freedom of individuals and businesses to flourish while still recognizing that a certain amount of government regulation and involvement is necessary for a healthy society. On the personal side of things, being an avid hunter and outdoorsman myself, I would enjoy having Teddy's memories of hunts and adventures as well as his vitality and energy.

Topic 2: Does God want New Orleans to be a chocolate city? Personally, I'm not convinced that there is a god, but if there is one I'm pretty sure he'd recognize that a chocolate city (especially in the Louisiana climate) would be a melted, sticky mess.

---

And now I welcome Will Franklin, proprietor of this very blog. Will?

Abraham Lincoln. He made some extraordinarily controversial and difficult decisions throughout his life, and lived through an extraordinary period in history.

Topic 2: When Pat Robertson says something like that, it's the big news of the day. When New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin says it, it's sort of something a handful of news outlets and blogs pick up. If we're talking about making a conscious effort to repopulate New Orleans with a high percentage of African-Americans, let's be clear about why anyone would even really worry about this in the first place: Louisiana Democrats running in statewide campaigns cannot win, cannot even come close, without a concentrated base of political support in New Orleans.

---

The Host's Last Word: if I could mind meld with anyone, it would have to be Thomas Jefferson I think. It would be thrilling to access that genius, peer into the full life he had, and experience the founding the United States from inside the mind of one of its most important prime movers. Plus I suppose I would get all the inside dirt on all the other less-than-elevating things that went on in his life . . . but hey, no one's perfect!

Great minds think alike, and I too considered both Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln as victims in this thought experiment as well. Teddy Roosevelt was my hero growing up, I wanted to be someone with his energy and sense of adventure. I actually think Abraham Lincoln is an even greater man than Jefferson . . . but, Lincoln went through travails that made Job look like a pampered prince. I am not sure I would want access to the dark pits of doom he had to contend with as President.

As for New Orleans . . . it has been rather fascinating to watch the plummeting political fortunes of Ray Nagin. When Hurricane Katrina hit, Nagin was briefly given minor hero status for his candor at press conferences, and the press lauded him for being the right man at the right time. And then the wheels came off - it became apparent that Nagin was part of the problem, not the solution, and now he is reduced to this: an odd parody of Pat Robertson.

Should New Orleans be a 'chocolate city'? Well, why not? If New Orleans has historically been a majority black city, there is no reason why it should not continue to be so. Bending government policy to try to engineer such an outcome is of course loathsome, but there is no need for it. New Orleans will continue to be black, and so God's wishes will be fulfilled.

According to the Prophet Nagin, anyway.

That's it! Thanks for coming by to our brief installment of Pundit Roundtable, we will be back next Sunday as usual!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 22 January 2006 03:45 PM · Comments (7)

Random Musings On The bin Laden Video

Here is a clue, Democrats: when Osama bin Laden's recent video sounds like it was issued from Nancy Pelosi's office, you are on the wrong side of history. While reading the transcript of bin Laden's video, I had to remind myself that I was not reading a Kos diary. The similarities between bin Laden's views and those of the Left have virtually become one and the same.

In fact, the Democrats sound even more strident and incensed than bin Laden. Compare and contrast:

"Read the humanitarian reports on the atrocities and crimes in the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." - Osama bin Laden

"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management - US management." - Teddy Kennedy

"The wise ones know that Bush has no plan to achieve his alleged victory in Iraq." - Osama bin Laden

"The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals." - John Kerry

"In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources." - Osama bin Laden

"Our mismanaged occupation has inadvertently created a new front in the war on terror." - John Kerry

Here is a great quote:

" . . . the argument that he avoided, which is the substance of the results of opinion polls on withdrawing the troops, is that it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land and for them not to fight us on our land." - Osama bin Laden

Osama is a poll watcher!

Bin Laden can't put together focus groups and conduct national polling from the Hindu Kush, but he doesn't need to - he has the Democratic National Committee doing that for him.

But this is all just slander against the Left, according to Peter Daou. (h/t to JustOneMinute).

To all you Leftist anti-war types out there, this is your moment of truth, your moment of satori sudden enlightenment - your message is fuelling evil, the very evils you claim to hate: homophobia, fourth-class citizen status for women, complete stifling of free expression, medieval theocracy.

Look who you are now allied with.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 20 January 2006 02:09 PM · Comments (6)

Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 39.

This week's WILLisms.com Caption Contest photograph:

The actual caption:

Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi tries out a painless injection needle during his inspection tour of small enterprises in Tokyo on Wednesday January 18, 2006. The Japanese leader took time out from his busy schedule to visit two small enterprises, including one that manufactures an injection needle with a diameter of 0.2 mm, believed to the world's finest. (AP Photo/Kyodo News)

Surely there's a better caption for this photograph.

Entries will remain open until 11:59 PM, Central Standard Time, Tuesday, January 24. Submit your captions in the comments section, or email at WILLisms@gmail.com.

Last week's photo:

Winners from last week:

1.

Giacomo:

Simon sez, make an 'O' with your arms. Too slow Barnes, go stand with the insurgents.

2.

Rodney Dill:

Marines demonstrate practical application of Semper Pi, useful for determining the circumference and opening area of a fox hole.

3.

charles austin:

And as a last resort, there's always the "French Manuever."

Honorable Mention #1

Cox:

In keeping with the "Kinder, Gentler" military of the 21st Century, US troops begin teaching the basics of ballet. The goal is to put on an all-Iraqi production of Swan Lake by June.

Honorable Mention #2

Mr. Right:

U.S. troops must rehearse the new "surrender drill" on a weekly basis, just in case the Democrats ever take over the reins of power again!

Honorable Mention #3

Rodney Dill:

♫ "I'm a little teapot, short and stout..." ♫

Super terrific caption time.

Enter today!

Posted by Will Franklin · 18 January 2006 02:14 PM · Comments (35)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 249 -- Agricultural Subsidies & Tariffs.

Free Trade = Good For Poor Farming Countries-

Hey, hippies, listen up. We need you over here. You've got something very wrong. Your anti-WTO, anti-trade, anti-markets type stuff just isn't cutting it anymore.

Want to help the poor, downtrodden, pre-industrial people of the world? Get rid of agricultural subsidies. Get rid of them in the United States. More importantly, get rid of them in the European Union (where the subsidies are MUCH more outrageous than in the United States).

Meanwhile, free up other barriers to agricultural trade, and you will see third world countries fending for themselves.

The likely total annual economic benefit to the world in 2015 from efficiency gains and investment growth that would result from full agricultural liberalization from 2005 through 2010 is in the range of roughly $50 billion to $185 billion (measured in 2001 dollars), or 0.1 percent to 0.4 percent of the value of world output of all goods and services. Expanding the analysis to include the effects of liberalization on the rate of productivity growth can raise the estimates by amounts ranging from 50 percent to more than 100 percent, depending on the study.

The best international economic aid program is the end of farm subsidies in Europe and America. And free trade.

Source:
CBO (.pdf).

More on the elimination of barriers, such a no-brainer:

The World Bank estimates that free agricultural trade would provide benefits of an additional $248bn: $106 billion would accrue to the rich world, $142 bn to the poorer world. Of that $142bn, $31bn would come from wealthy countries’ barrier removal (internal subsidy support and quota limit system removal) and a staggering $111bn from poor countries removing barriers between their own countries--and that is partly because barriers are far higher between poor countries than with the West. Poor countries also trade a great deal with each other. In other words the largest trade gains are with barrier removal and between the poorer countries of the world.

TRADE, NOT AID.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Meanest Cities To Homeless People.

Posted by Will Franklin · 17 January 2006 11:04 AM · Comments (2)

Quotational Therapy: Part 67-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

MLK-

Hope your MLK day was harmonious. Here's an excerpt of an MLK speech that could fit right into one of President Bush's speeches on the spread of liberty in the world.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.

Read the entire "I Have A Dream" speech here.

Incidentally, check out what these white people did on their MLK day:

The anti-war group in San Antonio, numbering perhaps two dozen, chanted "Shame" while two Air Force T-1A Jayhawk training jets flew overhead, a first in the event's 20-year history. Later protesters released a pair of white doves.

Members of the group, who were mostly white, also sang protest songs that drowned out speeches from the podium lauding King and his legacy.

Bexar County constables threatened the protesters with eviction from the park for creating a disturbance, while some blacks in the audience shouted them down for intruding on their event.

"Take it to the White House - go tell Bush," yelled Carolyn Webster. "This is Martin Luther King Day. This is about peace and unity."

Phil Schulman, one of the protesters, conceded that the group may have gone too far by interrupting the official program, but he said its message was consistent with King's message.

...The flyover was by members of Randolph Air Force Base's 99th Flying Training Squadron, successor to the first black fighter squadron from the World War II-era Tuskegee Airmen.

Yeah, that's a healthy political coalition (white weirdo liberals and African-Americans) with staying power. Not.

-----------------------------

Previous Quotational Therapy Session:

Bush, On Iraq.

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

Posted by Will Franklin · 16 January 2006 11:59 PM · Comments (0)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 248-- Meanest Cities To Homeless.

Worst. List. Ever.-

You may have seen this list of the meanest cities to homeless people:

1. Sarasota, Florida

2. Lawrence, Kansas

3. Little Rock, Arkansas

4. Atlanta, Georgia

5. Las Vegas, Nevada

6. Dallas, Texas

7. Houston, Texas

8. San Juan, Puerto Rico

9. Santa Monica, California

10. Flagstaff, Arizona

11. San Francisco, California

12. Chicago, Illinois

13. San Antonio, Texas

14. New York City, New York

15. Austin, Texas

16. Anchorage, Alaska

17. Phoenix, Arizona

18. Los Angeles, California

19. St. Louis, Missouri

20. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

You may have even read some or all of the 161-page report by the National Coalition for the Homeless (.pdf), detailing how and why the above cities are so darned mean.

But did you know that this list is perhaps the weakest piece of garbage in the history of lists?

Take Austin, Texas, for example, the 15th meanest city to homeless people. Where, I wonder, would Austin have been had it not built this multi-multi-million dollar homeless resort and spa (and architectural marvel) on a prime piece of real estate in touristy downtown:

Believe me, Austin is far from the 15th meanest city to the homeless. It, on the contrary, could easily compete in a "coddles the homeless too much" contest. This is a city with homeless people industrious and organized enough to produce a regular newspaper, the Austin Advocate. This is a city that made this monstrosity...

... a celebrated Austin icon and a "respectable member of the community." Leslie Cochran even ran for Austin Mayor more than once, garnering enough of the vote to appear on the local news election night ticker.

This is a city with local judges who declare reasonable anti-panhandling ordinances unconstitutional.

This is a city with a main "drag" (Guadalupe Street) next to The University of Texas campus that is polluted and overrun by foul-smelling, junkie "drag rats" (or "worms"). These aggressive panhandlers, many of which are young, hackey-sack-playing hipsters from middle class families who gravitate to Austin from all over the country because of its reputation for being cool and laid back, are just part of Austin's unique charm, according to many locals.

In short, this list is absolutely bogus. Austin, Texas is about as far from mean to homeless people as a city can be. And what's with San Francisco being on this list? Isn't this the city that is known for heaping lavish government benefits upon its homeless population?

Let's get real, here. There are people who are legitimately homeless due to circumstances beyond their control. They aren't junkies. They might be disabled or elderly or the victims of catastrophic life events. They deserve our help. But when a society coddles the homeless, creating an environment where homelessness is celebrated as "charming," where artistic suburban kids dressed up as hobos feel part of some sort of privileged class (and can rake in hundreds of dollars a day), we're doing a disservice to everyone, particularly people with real problems.

Whereas some homeless people with severe mental illnesses would have once been confined to some sort of mental health treatment facility, thanks to Ken Kesey (and other crusaders like him), we now view those places as dangerous, dehumanizing looney bins. Thus, instead of mentally-ill folks being taken care of in institutional settings, they are roaming the urban centers of America on their own, more helpless and vulnerable than ever.

And let's also stop pretending that being "mean" to homeless people is causing or perpetuating homelessness. Far from it. And, media, do a little legwork and expose these sorts of lists as bogus, will ya? Please? For once?

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Offshoring & Outsourcing.

Posted by Will Franklin · 16 January 2006 12:47 PM · Comments (9)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 247 -- Offshoring & Outsourcing.

Outsourcing-

Outsourcing. It was a buzz word during the 2004 campaign. It's still the focus of inordinate levels of media coverage. It is the root of (and symptom of) all economic problems in this country, according to some.

Outsourcing (or, to be more precise, "offshoring") is an easy issue to demagogue. After all, what politician is against Americans working? Who could possibly be for Indian or Chinese or Korean or Russian or Taiwanese people taking American jobs?

Well, economies are not zero sum. There are not a fixed number of jobs available in the world. Sometimes you need to shed some old jobs and industries to pave the way for newer, more productive ones. It's easy to see why protectionists can manipulate the public on this issue. It's difficult to explain in a 7-second soundbyte that creative destruction is a good thing-- and not just in the long run.

Outsourcing (again, it should really be called "offshoring") can be painful in the short term for those living in manufacturing/textile communities, but ultimately those jobs can and will be replaced with better, more modern ones.

And in the meantime, the net effect of outsourcing is positive for America-- and most Americans:

...overall net U.S. income rises by about 12-14 cents for every dollar of outsourcing (that is, gross income rises by $1.12-1.14).

But outsourcing isn't even as pervasive as many in the media insinuate:

Out-of-country relocations, whether within a company or to a different company account for only 1.6 percent of job separations in mass layoffs over the six quarters for which data are available (First Quarter 2004 to 2nd Quarter 2005).

Not a huge trend, really.

But it still dominated the news, especially near election day 2004. How convenient.

But wait, there's more (underlining mine):

Media reports in 2003 and 2004 paid a good deal of attention to private sector estimates that a large number of jobs had already been transferred overseas and that many more would be leaving in the years ahead. Probably the most widely-cited such figure was from Forrester Research, which estimated that a cumulative total of 830,000 U.S. jobs would be moved offshore by the end of 2005, and that a total of 3.4 million additional U.S. jobs would move overseas in the decade through the end of 2015 (these numbers are from Forrester’s May 2004 update of a November 2002 report). Other forecasts of the number of jobs lost to date to other countries were of roughly the same magnitude as Forrester’s estimate of nearly 30,000 jobs per month to be offshored in the future. Goldman Sachs, for example, calculated that about 10,000 jobs per month had been moved overseas in the three years before 2004, and that between 15,000 and 30,000 jobs would be offshored going forward....

These estimates of jobs lost to outsourcing were blown far out of proportion to their economic magnitude, which is actually quite small compared to the size of the U.S. labor market and its normal ebb and flow. As Baily and Farrell (2004) note, losses of even 30,000 jobs per month are tiny compared to the two million or more job changes that occur routinely in a single month in the United States: even at the height of the economic cycle of the late 1990’s, nearly 100,000 workers per month lost their jobs in mass layoffs. The forecast of 3.4 million jobs to be sent overseas by 2015 likewise seems modest compared to the more than 160 million jobs projected by the BLS to exist by 2015, and small even compared to the 35 million net new jobs gained over the past decade. And these 35 million new jobs were themselves the net result of much larger gross numbers of jobs gained and jobs lost.

Source:
AEI Online.

-------------------------------------

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Title IX & Collegiate Athletics.

Posted by Will Franklin · 15 January 2006 03:57 PM · Comments (2)

Pundit Roundtable

Welcome back to PUNDIT ROUNDTABLE! I am your host, Ken McCracken.

We had a really big response this week, which will probably make for one of the longest posts ever here at WILLisms.com, so sit back and take it all in.

And . . . Bear Down, Chicago Bears! Rick Moran, you're a pundit among pundits, but you are WRONG this time! (God I hope).

Our topics this week are these:

Topic 1: What do you think will be the next big development, for good or ill, in the Middle East?

Topic 2: If you could bring back any single TV series for one more season, which would it be and why?

Our first guest is Jay Tea from Wizbang! Welcome back Jay Tea, whaddya say?

I'm no scholar of the region, but I see three major developments on the horizon, and all will have a huge affect on the region and the world. The first is a confrontation with Iran about its nuclear ambitions. I'm sad to say I don't see this ending in anything short of violence. The only question is how violent and how final it will be.

The second is a possible coup in Syria. Bashar Assad -- dubbed "The Dorktator" by far wittier and knowledgeable people than I -- never had a very strong grip on power, and the events in Lebanon and Iraq have shaken his already tenuous grasp.

But the one that will happen soonest, I think, is the utter collapse of the Palestinian Authority and Gaza's descent into chaos and anarchy.

The PA has elections scheduled for January 23, and the clashes between Fatah and Hamas are growing more and more strident. Fatah is seen as the more moderate of the two, but it's not really much of a difference. Fatah endorses killing the Jews until they go away; Hamas wants to kill them all.

Hamas looks like, by hook or by crook (most likely crook), they will win the majority of seats in the election. A good chunk of the rest of the world has already said that they will not deal with a Hamas government, including the United States and Israel. But regardless of the results, I expect both sides will claim fraud and return to their preferred method of expression, violence. With Israel having sealed off their borders, and Egypt likely to do the same, the region will descend into a charnel house as the terrorists, deprived of other targets, will turn on themselves and the Gazans who have supported them.

Inevitably, there will be a call for "peacekeepers" to go in and end the fighting. This will be a misnomer; as there will be no peace to keep, they would be peace MAKERS, in the spirit of the old nickname for the Colt revolver. And if it happens, I hope that there will be no Americans in the force. Many of the Palestinians see the United States as their enemy, and our presence will give them cause to set aside their grievances and unite in attacking us. At that point, they just might learn what it means to have the US as a foe.

If the world is lucky, the chaos in Gaza will claim the lives of many of the most fanatical, and the survivors will see the logical result of the decades of intransigence, terrorism, and hatred they have revelled in. At that point, there might be a slim hope for peace in the Holy Land.

But, sadly, I doubt it.

Now for topic 2:

A while ago, I once heard Fox described as "the network where great science fiction goes to die." The body count of excellent shows killed by Fox is legendary. But the single greatest atrocity they every committed was their rape and murder of Joss Whedon's "Firefly."

Whedon is, in short, an entertainment genius. He created "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," which ran for seven seasons across two networks. The spinoff, "Angel," lasted five seasons, and but for studio politics could have gone on for at least one more year. He also wrote "Toy Story," the big Disney/Pixar animated film.

Fox came to Joss, and asked for a series. He crafted a brilliant sci-fi western, with a cast of nine(!) remarkable characters, one battered spaceship, and a wonderfully fleshed-out universe. He produced a two-part pilot that introduced it all and gave the audience a taste of what was in store.

Fox loved it. They signed a deal for a half-season, with the promise of more if the ratings were good.

And then they set out to kill it.

First, they demanded a new pilot. Too much exposition, not enough action, they said. Give us a script for a new pilot, with all sorts of flashiness and excitement. And no rush, Joss -- take the whole weekend.

Joss did it, so they started tossing more barriers in his way. They bounced it around the schedule. They aired episodes out of order, shredding the continuity Joss is famous for building. They bumped it entirely some weeks, leaving the rapidly-growing fan base wondering when the hell it would be on next. Finally, when they couldn't think of anything more to do to the show, they just canceled it outright. As a final insult, they made the last aired episode "Serenity," the two-part pilot they had never gotten around to airing.

But Joss Whedon's fans are not like most people. In fact, the phrase "rabid wolverines" might be a bit of an understatement. They pushed for the few episodes made (including three that Fox never bothered to air) to be released on DVD. Then they bought and bought it, making it one of the best-selling DVDs of the last couple years. And they demanded more, until Universal gave Joss the green light to bring Firefly to the big screen.

"Serenity" wasn't a smash hit, I'm sad to say. Despite the valiant efforts of the Browncoats (it was three of the six movies I went to last year), it looks like it'll about break even. The DVD was released in near-record time, though (less than three months after opening day in the theatres), and it also shot to the top of the charts.

There are still plenty of adventures of the crew of the Serenity to be told. And, in a perfect world, the Sci Fi Network would pony up the money to get at least half a season of new episodes to be made, and the ratings would justify more.

But that would depend on one factor: the good will of Fox, which still holds the TV rights to Firefly. And for them to allow someone else to make the show would be to admit that they could have done it right in the first place, and they screwed up. And that, I'm sad to say, just ain't gonna happen.

---

Our next guest is a newcomer to the Roundtable, Barbara Moeller of Quid Nimis. What are your thoughts, Barbara?

The current situation in the Middle East is dominated by the imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. The press and the American public have been very late to wake up to the danger posed by Iran, but bloggers like Regime Change Iran have been carefully and thoroughly documenting the inexorable progress that this regime has been making toward its stated goal of obliterating Israel.

When Ahmadinejad was "elected," the American press willfully downplayed his rather sordid resume and the ludicrous, obvious rigging of the elections. He is clearly a puppet of the mullahs, he is clearly a fanatic.

With respect to Iran, the world will react slowly and impotently. Expect utter silence from Saudi Arabia, who really wants Israel obliterated, but are probably thinking that a nuclear Iran is not a good trade off for that laudable goal. Europeans can't even muster enough manliness to have a birth rate in whole integers: they are never going to stand up to the Iranians. Jack Straw (British Foreign Secretary) has taken the military option "off the table." Things will be referred to the Security Council and ho hum... in the end Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities with the backing of the US and all hell will break loose. I would keep my eye on ship movements in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean, if I knew how to do such things.

In the immediate future, Ariel Sharon will pass away. Iraq will continue to have high casualty counts, which will slow our troop reduction somewhat, but there will be a tipping point and the Sunnis will abandon the insurgency by in large. al Qaeda in Iraq will continue to wreak havoc but the situation will be very strange: their sophistication and deadliness will increase even as they lose their constituency in Iraq itself. In a couple of years, they will be seen and treated by Iraqis generally as outlaws, not liberators.

Topic 2: "My World and Welcome to It" with William Windom. It only lasted two seasons but was an outs