« January 2006 | WILLisms.com | March 2006 »

Heidi Franklin Update.

Heidi, the Weimaraner, has doubled in size since we've had her, from four and a half pounds to nearly ten pounds.

She loves basking in the Texas sun.

She loves tennis.

Oh, and she tells me that she is in favor of Social Security reform-- and of personal accounts specifically.

Good dog.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 February 2006 04:27 PM · Comments (7)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 282 -- State Tax Revenue Way Up.

States Awash In Cash-

State government coffers are filling up once again. Tax revenues are once again up thus far in 2006. Indeed, despite some of the campaign rhetoric from Democrats about how Bush's tax cuts have burdened state and local governments, revenues have been up consistently since the major 2003 federal tax relief package (.pdf):

State tax revenue in the July-September 2005 quarter grew 9.2 percent compared to the same period in 2004. This was the fastest third-quarter growth since at least 1991.

But not all regions are created equal. Some states are growing more, some are not.

The Great Lakes states and New England, mostly blue states with relatively high state tax burdens, saw the slowest revenue growth, while parts of the country with a more low-tax libertarian streak experienced the fastest revenue growth (.pdf):

More cash, all around, especially in states that weren't tempted to raise taxes during the most recent recession. Don't let them raise taxes in your state. Despite what politicians tell you, they don't need more money.

Source:
"State Tax Revenue Off to a Flying Start for Fiscal Year 2006," The Nelson A Rockefeller Institute of Government (.pdf).

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

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Tax Cuts For The Rich.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 February 2006 04:05 PM · Comments (4)

Funding Palestinian Dysfunction

Is this farce, or tragedy?

From The Australian we learn that not only is the U.S. going to fund Hamas once it takes over the Palestinian Authority, but the European Union also may soon be funding Hamas as well:

THE European Union gave the Palestinian Authority a temporary lifeline of $US143million ($194million) yesterday [hey, I need a 'temporary lifeline' over here too! - ed.] after special Middle East envoy James Wolfensohn warned it was on the verge of collapse.

The one-off EU payment, which will tide over the Palestinians until a Hamas government takes over, came in response to a plea from Mr Wolfensohn, who told the EU the authority may need as much as $US360million in new funding to pay the bills for February and March. "Unless a solution is found, we may be facing the financial collapse of the PA within two weeks," he said.

God forbid that Hamas should end up broke!

Here is a message to the Palestinian people: you want funding?

Grow up and act like you deserve it.

If you act like barbaric children, murdering civilians in pizzerias, on buses, and rocketing homes, you will be treated like barbaric children. Poor barbaric children. Notice that I am addressing not the PLA or Hamas here, but the Palestinian people themselves. They are the ones that have empowered, funded, and voted for terrorism, and they should be held to account.

Mature, respectable societies do not threaten to drive their neighbors 'into the sea', nor do they take blood libels like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion seriously, nor do they hope to 'finish what Hitler started', nor do they promise to drink the blood of the jews, and this is what Hamas, the PLA, and yes the Palesinian people stand for.

The Palestinians are a people defeated in the mind and soul. They have become nihilists, caring about nothing, not even their own future. No one can help them now but themselves, and perhaps like alcoholics they need to reach the very bottom before they recover. We should not help their dysfunction along by funding them. Whatever complaints they have pale in comparison to the grievous bloodlettings they are responsible for.

Hamas has pledged violence in the event that they do not get funded. Naturally they have it backwards - they should not get a dime until they renounce terrorism and live up to their words thereby. Bribery-for-peace is a recipe for disaster, and guaranteed to fail. Hamas will eventually have to prove that they are serious about their threat, meaning that somewhere in Israel right now there are innocents who will be murdered when the bill for this blackmail comes due.

This does not even get into the issue of rampant corruption within the PLA, something that the ever-honorable Hamas has pledged to clean up. If Hamas is only one-tenth as corrupt as the kleptocrat Yassir Arafat was, it should give us pause for concern. I just hope the EU ends up paying as much of the inevitable graft to come as we do.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 28 February 2006 02:45 PM · Comments (26)

Iran Begins Enrichment

Iran has already begun to enrich uranium, according to a confidential report leaked from the International Atomic Energy Agency:

The report, which will be formally submitted to the IAEA's board of governors at its meeting next week, says that the Iranians are currently testing a 20-centrifuge cascade of machines and actually enriching uranium in a 10-centrifuge cascade. Thousands of centrifuges must be in operation to produce enough enriched uranium for nuclear weaponry.

The IAEA board of governors did not even wait for this report to come out before voting 27-3 to refer this matter to the UN Security Council. Three members of the Axis of Ignorance - Syria, Venezuela and Cuba - voted against the referral.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 27 February 2006 09:10 PM · Comments (10)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 281 -- Tax Cuts For The Rich?

The Real Story On Taxes-

Are the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor because of those "tax cuts for the rich" the Bush administration has persistently pushed for since 2001?

No.

The very lowest income quintiles pay remarkably little in taxes.

Between 1979 and 2003, the share of income taxes paid by the highest-earning quintile jumped from 65 percent to 85 percent. Their share of all taxes paid (includ­ing social insurance, cor­porate, and excise taxes) increased from 56 percent to 66 percent. Upper-income taxpayers are pay­ing more, not less, of the tax burden.

...from 2000 to 2003, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –2 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. By contrast, the share paid by the richest quintile increased from 81 percent to 85 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax bur­den and the poor shouldering less.

When Democrats talk about Bush's "tax cuts for the rich," they are playing the class warfare card, not dealing in reality.

Source:
Heritage & CBO (.pdf).

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

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Young Americans Are Not As Liberal As Advertised.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 February 2006 05:07 PM · Comments (6)

Quotational Therapy: Part 77 -- John McCain, On The UAE Port Imbroglio.

McCain-

It's now late February of 2006, which means that the 2008 presidential race begins 9 months from today, just after the 2006 midterm elections.

This is the Season of Political Independence™. With the Republican primaries and caucuses fast approaching, dozens of presidential hopefuls now desperately seek to position themselves correctly on any number of unimportant-but-symbolic issues perceived as potentially important for primary voters.

Thus, while many 2008 presidential hopefuls on the GOP side of the aisle have been quick to jump on the labor union-instigated bandwagon against the barely-newsworthy Dubai port deal, it is refreshing to see one probable candidate taking his job seriously.

"I think that near-hysteria about this is not warranted, particularly in light of the other major crises that we are facing throughout the world. the Iranian nuclear weapons issue is the greatest single threat we have faced since the end of the Cold War."

-Arizona Senator John McCain.

While McCain would not currently be my first choice, or even second or third choice, for president in 2008, he is consistently solid on national security issues. In the series of "debates" we can expect to see on Fox News and CNN in 2007 and 2008, McCain's seriousness on national security will be a profound benefit to his candidacy.

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

Previous Quotational Therapy Session:

A French Free Marketeer.

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

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 February 2006 12:14 PM · Comments (9)

Pundit Roundtable

Greetings! Welcome back to PUNDIT ROUNDTABLE. I am your host, Ken McCracken. Well, it seems we have gotten beyond trivial issues such as quail hunting accidents, and on to a real, meaty issue, as put to our pundits this week in the form of this question:

Where do you stand on the issue of letting a Dubai company run American ports? Has your view changed since you first heard about the story? What do you make of the fact that George W. Bush did not know about this deal until it broke in the news?

Our first guest is Roundtable newcomer Mick Wright of Fishkite. What are your views on this Mick?

There's a reason John Kerry mentioned port security in each of the three presidential debates in 2004, and it isn't because they are the central fronts of the war on terror. Guarding our ports is no more important than protecting our borders to the north and south, enforcing our immigration laws or keeping the rest of our infrastructure secure.

In fact, when Kerry argued, "[y]ou have to close the borders," he wasn't talking about America but rather Iraq. Kerry made a point to discuss Iraq's border security in each of the debates, but only once did he happen mention our own borders, and that came only in direct response to a question about immigration in the third and final debate.

Port security was and is a disproportionally important issue for John Kerry and the Democrats because it's one area where no level of protection can ever be proved sufficient. Considering America's powerful role in the global marketplace, no administration could possibly allocate enough resources to completely inspect every item, every box, every shipment passing through our airports, seaports, railways and roadways without crippling our economy and slowing international trade to a grinding halt. Adopting Kerry's "plan" would require ever-expanding big government measures and dramatically increased spending, but it would never be enough to guarantee our safety.

But even if we could spend enough on the ports, how much emphasis should we put on securing them when thousands of other weaknesses could just as easily be exploited, when "an advanced grad student" could unleash a biological weapon using little more than standard lab equipment, when the economics of terrorism is far more agile than the economics of security, and when a small group of terrorists with the right access could bring a lumbering regional bureaucracy to its knees?

Of course, prudent security measures can and must be implemented in each of these areas, but President Bush rightfully acknowledged the futility of trying to fight the war on terror from a defensive posture. Instead, he drafted a grand strategery -- we would fight the terrorists on their own turf as much as possible, shut down their financial networks, tap into their intelligence and, most important of all, fan the flames of democracy in the Middle East so that people in the region would join the rest of the world in freedom and in peace.

If he ever understood that proactive strategery, Kerry certainly never adopted it. And when port security returned to the headlines this week, you have to assume half the Democratic press releases had already been written. In other words, it wasn't a big surprise when the otherwise diversity-sensitive, U.N.-happy liberals objected to the UAE company's proposed acquisition, which would give it management of terminal operations at five U.S. ports.

What may have come as a bigger surprise was how quickly some of the administration's most reliable national security advocates took exception to the proposed deal. On the other hand, I would have been worried if such people didn't have an initially negative gut reaction the idea that an Arab-owned company would acquire such an important slice of the operational pie.

Should we be worried that turning our ports over to Dubai may compromise our national security? Yes, I think we should. But probably not moreso than we should worry about terrorists slipping into the ranks of a British company, or an American one, and no moreso than we should worry about any other number of potential terrorist plots.

As the President argued during the debates, in the half-charming, half-awkward way only he can, "we have to be right 100 percent of the time. And the enemy only has to be right once to hurt us."

An alarming Drudge headline reads, "Homeland Security Protested Ports Deal," but the article goes on to report that the DHS's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the proposal. Even though these objections were smoothed over, you might think that word of this pending deal would have been important enough to have required the President's attention. On the other hand, one of the oft-touted strengths of the Bush administration is its decentralization; the President trusts the people he has appointed, and that quality has generally served him well.

But the most profound exception to that rule has been the President's PR team, if in fact such a creature exists. A stronger, steadier, speedier public relations effort has always been one element most conspicuously lacking in the administration. In this information age, better PR could have taken the edge off the disappointing intelligence shortfall, the war in Iraq, the Katrina disaster and any number of "-gates" that besiege(d) the White House.

To that most bloggers will attest, but I have yet to see anyone point to one member of the administration who should take the fall for this PR deficit. I think there is one such person; I blame Vice President Cheney.

Who but Cheney could have been the President's advocate in the Senate while his judicial nominees whithered on the vine? Who else should have been rallying the nation to the President's side on the war on terror, rather than continue to hide out in his undisclosed location(s)? Who else could have been on the ground representing the White House and directing Katrina relief efforts, rather than sending FEMA's sacrificial lamb? And who could have been out in front on this port issue if not Dick Cheney, who happened to be... at the hospital bedside of his friend, after shooting him in the face?

Of course, I don't blame the Vice President for that last mishap, but I do think he deserves the brunt of the criticism for failing to respond quickly afterwards, just as he's failed to respond appropriately in each of these other situations. An immediate veto threat was certainly not the way to go; the Vice President should have been fully briefed on this deal and should have been its main advocate. If he had been doing his job, Cheney would have been in the Senate herding those cats, as even Majority Leader Frist strayed from the reservation.

Why is port security still an issue? That's a good question for the Vice President, if you can find him.

---

Our next guest is a returning pundit, Dr. Steven Taylor of PoliBlog. Steven?

I haven’t written all that much on the ports issues that has been a headline topic for the last week or so. Still, I have paid attention to it from the beginning and have given it some thought.

My initial reaction was that while I could understand why there would be questions about a state-owned firm from the UAE being engaged in US ports, that the overall reaction to the situation by some members of Congress, and then some members of the chattering class (especially some bloggers and talk radio types) was well overblown. I do think that there was some Arab-specific xenophobia underlying some of the reactions.

Now, the fact that two of the hijackers were from the UAE was an understandable emotional red flag, but it seems ludicrous to use that as a method of judging this situation. And yes, I am aware of the fact that UAE recognized the Taliban and that there has been considerable money laundering associated with terrorism in the region. All of these things seem to signal the need for reflection on the situation, not hysterical over-reaction.

Both the press and the various overreacting politicos also fed the hysteria because it was clear from the early coverage that no one really knew what this company was going to be doing—indeed, the initial discussion made it sound as if they would be buying and wholly controlling the actual ports, rather than managing an aspect of the port’s operation. As such, the lack of good information on how ports work was missing from the story from the beginning.

The commensurate response from the White House was quite ham-handed, and instead of quelling the rising cacophony of complaints simply escalated it. Regardless of any other factors, it should have been obvious that the granting of the contract to a state-owned company from an Arab state was going to raise concerns. As such, the administration should have been ready with answers. The fact that no one seemed to think of this ahead of time is remarkable, and speaks poorly of everyone who worked on the project.

That the President’s initial reaction was also one of public stubbornness was no helpful, and reinforces the notion that the administration’s first response is to share information, but to dig in heels.

In regards to when the President knew of the deal—I was not especially surprised that the President of the United States was not involved in such a matter, which strikes me as relatively routine aside from the Arab factor. However, I remain surprised as to the strong nature of his response to the press and the Congress (threatening his first veto right out of the gate) given that he had only just learned of the situation.

My view remains that this is largely much ado about nothing, and the more I learn, the more that view is reinforced. However, I do not see any problem with a delay, including making sure that the proper review of the proposal was completed.

Here are some of my previous posts on the subject:

• More on the Politics of Ports
• The Other Shoe on the Port Deal?
• More on the Port Issue

---

Next we have newcomer and regular WILLisms.com commentor KipEsquire. What do you say Kip?

Before I state my position, let me answer Ken's two latter questions first. I think the recent revelation that the Department of Homeland Security "voted against the deal before they voted for it" may be the death knell for this transaction. Regarding the question of whether security is really an issue, it's hard to deny now that there is a "there" there. As for the President's lack of direct knowledge, to me that seems more of a political guffaw than a policy error — I don't expect a president to be "in the loop" on everything.

I oppose the transaction for a very simple reason. We should not be doing port business with the UAE government because we shouldn't be doing any business with the UAE government.

As I demonstrated at my blog, the UAE has one of the worst human rights records in the Middle East — and that's saying a lot.

On Friday, President Bush said the following in response to the despicable destruction of a holy site in Iraq:

Democracy takes different forms in different cultures. Yet, all cultures, in order to be successful, have certain common truths, universal truths: rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, a free economy, freedom of women, and the freedom to worship. Societies that lay these foundations not only survive, but they thrive. Societies that don't lay these foundations risk backsliding into tyranny.

Democracy, free and fair elections, purples fingers — all very nice and inspirational indeed. Except in the UAE, which has no elections of any kind. None. Zero.

Freedom of women — except in the UAE, where women cannot leave the country without their husband's permission. Men can have multiple spouses in the UAE, but women can't. UAE citizenship is determined by the citizenship of the father alone and not the mother. A Muslim man in the UAE can marry a non-Muslim, but a Muslim woman cannot. A woman who becomes pregnant in the UAE out of wedlock can be flogged.

Freedom to worship — except in the UAE, where Sharia courts enforce Islamic law. In the UAE, it is a crime to attempt to convert a Muslim.

Freedom of speech — except in the UAE, where the government censors both the news and cultural media. Brokeback Mountain is banned in the UAE.

Freedom of assembly — except in the UAE, which refuses to recognize any local human rights organizations.

Rule of law — except in the UAE, where, for instance, gay sex is punishable by death.

The Bush Administration tries to counter the UAE's horrific regime with a succinct bullet point: "They are an ally in the War on Terror."

So what?

First of all, isn't the concept of "probation" appropriate in global relations? It's been less than five years since September 11th, and the UAE had blood on its hands that day. Is it really inappropriate to say, "Yes, we're thrilled that you've reformed and atoned for your sins, but for now we'd still like our port terminals to be run by companies and 'allies' that have a slightly better track record. Check back with us in a decade or two..."?

It is not "Islamaphobic" to mistrust people who have so recently and so proximately caused us to be mistrustful. Facts are never "racist." The UAE is a despicable country run by despicable people who would, were it not for oil, be treated on a par with Cuba, Cote d'Ivoire or Burma. We are not required to add insult to injury, even when doing so poses no threat to homeland security.

A generation ago, the United States propped up countless dictators — including Saddam Hussein — and their oppressive regimes because they were "allies in the Cold War." Do we really want to make that same mistake by embracing any and all regimes, no matter how badly they behave, simply because they are "allies in the War on Terror"?

That is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition.

If the UAE's autocrats are so intent of this deal going through, then the answer is simple: divest Dubai Ports World — which, remember, is a socialist enterprise and not "just another global competitor." The best way to salvage a tainted transaction is by removing the taint.

The Host's Last Word: This is difficult issue to parse in my view, because there are excellent arguments on both sides of this question. My initial reaction was skepticism that this is a good idea, but now I think the risks to national security are not really that great here as long as the United States retains full and complete control over security at the ports. The ports are our most important entry into the nation, more important than the border with Mexico or our airports, because the ports are where the really really dangerous stuff such as dirty bombs, chemical weapons and *god forbid* nukes would get into this country - these items are probably just too bulky to enter the U.S. through any vector other than containerized traffic. But, because of the critical nature of these ports, our security should be top-notch and a top priority regardless of who runs the ports. It shouldn't matter if it is an Arab firm, a Dutch firm or a Japanese firm running it - these facilities need to be tight as a drum.

I just don't think there is any greater security risk from having an Arab firm run these terminals, because I don't believe al-Qaeda will be able to get its hands on the mechanisms that would allow access. But I think it is profoundly unfair to label those that think there is a greater risk 'islamaphobes' or 'racists' - because as Kip points out facts are not 'racist', and the fears associated with the UAE running these terminals are quite reasonable ones. I just don't happen to share them.

We need to engage rather than isolate Middle Eastern nations that are in any way disposed towards us in a kindly way, and the UAE has been a brave and staunch ally. This is a way to draw them closer to being the democratic and open society we want them to be. Shunning them at this point threatens to push them into the other camp.

Finally, I do not expect the President to be on top of each and every issue such as this because, well, the man has a lot on his plate. But you bet he is on top of it now! Having the President say that he knew nothing of this deal until he read about it in the papers was an oddly refreshing sort of admission.

Thanks for coming by folks, and come again next Sunday for our next edition of PUNDIT ROUNDTABLE!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 26 February 2006 01:13 PM · Comments (7)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 280 -- Young People & Support For War.

Twenty-somethings more supportive of military action than you might guess-

If we are to believe that Rock the Vote actually represents the political attitudes of those under 30 today, young Americans are a bunch of liberal ninnies who love socialism and perpetually protest meat and the WTO and SUVs and the war on terror and Bush.

Wrong. Young people are more conservative than you might think. On the Iraq war issue, even, younger Americans have consistently been more supportive and less opposed as an age cohort than the general public, since the beginning.

Taking differences in levels of support and adding in differences in levels of opposition, young people have consistently been the most supportive age cohort of the Iraq war. When wild draft rumors were flying around in 2004, support clearly dipped (and has never fully recovered), but young people still supported (and support) military action in Iraq more than the general population.

Interestingly but not surprisingly, young people are also more supportive of more open international trade:

But it's not just national defense and free trade. Young people are far more likely to support Social Security reform, with personal accounts. On any number of individual issues, young people are eye-openingly less left-wing than people perceive. For the most part, young people, despite the bands of weirdoes you occasionally see on the news, are not hippies or anarchists or punks or even really all that angry with the world. It's no wonder Rock the Vote is struggling.

Source:
Pew Research Center: Youth and War.

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

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Houston's Law & Order Might Show New Orleans A Thing Or Two About Justice.

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 February 2006 10:53 AM · Comments (0)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 279 -- New Orleans Crime.

New Orleans Crime: Now Houston's Problem-

It's well-established by now that Houston's crime rate spiked up immediately after Hurricane Katrina, as the city absorbed all those hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the destruction. Indeed, the Houston Chronicle noted a direct anecdotal correlation between failures in the New Orleans criminal justice system and the spike in the Houston crime rate:

...when he was released in Shreveport on Nov. 3, Harris became Houston's problem and a key figure in Houston's new crime controversy.

Harris is among 11 Katrina evacuees suspected of transferring their New Orleans turf battles to Houston and carrying out homicides, robberies and kidnappings that began after his release from Shreveport. Houston police classify the suspects as extremely violent.

But it's more than anecdotal. Check out the disaster known as the New Orleans criminal justice system.

First, note how the New Orleans arrest record doesn't match the national arrest record (.pdf):

Weak. Drug offenses are not as serious as violent offenses, or even property offenses.

Notice the lack of convictions for violent crimes (.pdf):

Terrible.

But this is the most damning part (.pdf):

Think about what this means. Even New Orleans' "strength" in arrests and convictions bonks at the incarceration stage. And even with so few arrests and convictions on more serious charges, New Orleans still couldn't put those folks behind bars. One might guess that the low numbers of arrests just meant police spent their resources carefully on a limited number of cases. Nope.

While the nation's crime rate fell dramatically in recent years, it rose in New Orleans. This was no accident.

The New Orleans criminal justice system, in failing to convict and incarcerate criminals, failed to protect its citizens (.pdf):

• Only 5% of all convictions in CDC were for violent offenses.

• Sixty percent (60%) of all convictions in CDC were for misdemeanor offenses, 47% for misdemeanor drug possession or possession of drug paraphernalia, essentially making CDC a misdemeanor court.

• Two out of three (67%) convictions were for simple drug possession.

• Only 7% of those arrested by the NOPD in 2003-2004 were eventually sentenced to prison, a 41% decrease in the incarceration rate since 1999-2000.

Awful.

While some may be inclined to say "I told you so" about Mayor Bill White's welcome mat approach to the Katrina evacuees, I would just predict that Houston's crime rate will stabilize once the bad guys meet the Texas criminal justice system. It may just take another several months or more. Indeed, it's already calming down substantially:

Police say they are making inroads in dealing with a rash of violent crimes attributed mostly to New Orleans gang members who evacuated to Houston along with other hurricane victims.

They asked this week for help in finding five Katrina evacuees believed responsible for three murders and two thefts. Last month, they announced the arrests of eight others in connection with the deaths of 11 fellow evacuees.

While the city had "a huge explosion of murders" in November and December, police Sgt. Brian Harris said Friday that the homicide rate has stabilized and is up only slightly from this time last year.

He credited a growing confidence that hurricane evacuees have in Houston police and increased cooperation among law enforcement agencies in cities with large numbers of Katrina evacuees.

Failures of New Orleans' criminal justice system, not of Michael Brown or President Bush or FEMA, led to most of the pure madness and mayhem in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

Madness and mayhem aren't inevitable, though. Let's see if Houston's criminal justice system can prove that.

Source:
The Metropolitan Crime Commission (.pdf).

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

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Fewer & Less Competitive Districts.

Posted by Will Franklin · 25 February 2006 08:58 PM · Comments (17)

Germany Gave Secret Help During Iraq Invasion

The German government admitted that two of their spies helped the United States during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, including possibly selecting bombing targets:

The German agents provided U.S. officials with "descriptions in isolated cases of Iraqi military forces along with geographic coordinates". It said these were provided only after the agents were convinced the Americans already had the information.

Responding to media reports that the agents had given the United States coordinates that could be used for bombing, the report said the BND provided "no support for the strategic air offensive" in Iraq.

And now because someone in the German government had the temerity to harm the interests of their good friend Herr Saddam, the extreme left Greens are demanding an inquiry.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 24 February 2006 12:00 PM · Comments (22)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 278 -- Less Competitive Congressional Districts.

Safe Seats-

Do Democrats have a chance to take back the House of Representatives for the first time since 1994?

The succinct answer: No.

There just aren't many competitive districts.

There may once again be more competitive districts, but not this time around.

...the number of competitive races for House seats has dwindled in recent years from a high of 111 competitive races in 1992 to a low of 32 in 2004. While 32 sounds like an ominously small number, it is not that much smaller than the mere 37 races that were up for grabs in 1988. Two years later the number of competitive races swelled to 57, by Cook's calculations, and in 1992 it jumped again to its recent high of 111.

The percentage of safe seats has gone way up in recent years.

Chalk some of it up to post-2000 Census redistricting/gerrymandering. Chalk most modern gerrymandering up to the Voting Rights Act. In order to guarantee a certain number of "minority-majority" districts, oddly enough, cartographers must draw the lines such that the adjacent districts then become whiter, more conservative, and more safe for Republicans.

Ironically, although the Voting Rights Act essentially requires map makers to guarantee the election of enough African-Americans to Congress, this same process ends up boosting the number of "win the primary and you're in" GOP districts.

But chalk much of this phenomenon of more safe districts up to the fact that people are increasingly self-selecting their districts based on partisanship and ideology. Young liberals are moving to hip urban centers to blissfully commune with one another on various modes of public transportation. Married people with kids (who tend to be more conservative) are moving to the safe suburbs, with their good schools and larger homes. And so on.

In many ways, Americans increasingly seem to want their own Congressional districts to be safe seats. Many Americans are concentrating into safe Congressional districts because they want to be around like-minded people. It just makes life easier. And it makes the task of forecasting the 2006 midterms much easier.

Source:
Pew Research Center.

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

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Democrats Love Them Some Lobbyist Cash.

Posted by Will Franklin · 24 February 2006 10:12 AM · Comments (3)

Quotational Therapy: Part 76 -- Jean-Baptiste Say, On Taxation.

A French Free-Marketeer-

Believe it or not, France was once a bastion of free market thought. Ahead of his time, Frenchman Jean-Baptiste Say was one of the original free market economists, supporting free trade against the common demagogic urges of nationalist protectionism that often still prevail today. He also supported low taxes.

Here's what he had to say in 1803 on taxation:

It may be urged, that the pressure of taxation impels the productive classes to redouble their exertions, and thus tends to enlarge the national production. I answer, that, in the first place, mere exertion cannot alone produce, there must be capital for it to work upon, and capital is but an accumulation of the very products that taxation takes from the subject: that, in the second place, it is evident, that the values, which industry creates expressly to satisfy the demands of taxation, are no increase of wealth; for they are seized on and devoured by taxation. It is a glaring absurdity to pretend that taxation contributes to national wealth, by engrossing part of the national produce, and enriches the nation by consuming part of its wealth….

Hence, it is manifest that, although taxation may be, and often is, productive of good, when the sums it absorbs are properly applied, yet, the act of levying is always attended with mischief in the outset….

Admitting these premises, that taxation is the taking from individuals a part of their property for public purposes; that the value levied by taxation never reverts to the members of the community, after it has once been taken from them; and that taxation is not itself a means of reproduction; it is impossible to deny the conclusion, that the best taxes, or, rather those that are least bad, are

1. Such as are most moderate in their ratio.
2. Such as are least attended with those vexatious circumstances that harass the taxpayer without bringing anything into the public exchequer.
3. Such as press impartially on all classes.
4. Such as are least injurious to production.
5. Such as are rather favorable than otherwise to the national morality; that is to say, to the prevalence of habits, useful and beneficial to society.

-Jean-Baptise Say, A Treatise on Political Economy, 447– 49.

Source:
The Dallas Fed (.pdf).

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

Previous Quotational Therapy Session:

George Washington, Questioning The Patriotism Of Democrats.

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

Posted by Will Franklin · 24 February 2006 07:59 AM · Comments (0)

Happy Birthday, Marbury v. Madison

February 24, 1804 was the day Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall handed down the decision in Marbury v. Madison, the case that established the power of judicial review for the third branch of government, which has meant that ever since, the Supreme Court has had the power to strike down laws it deems to be unconstitutional.

It is a notoriously (and needlessly) complex case, and also a rather odd one, in that John Marshall asserts the power to strike down laws, but then declines to do so because the petitioner's claim is really a political question which Marshall deems off-limits to the court. The opinion is written backwards, in that the question of jurisdiction comes last, which has always been a source of confusion in sorting out Marshall's reasoning.

The opinion can be found here, and is not for the faint-hearted.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 24 February 2006 12:47 AM · Comments (18)

Hamas And Iran Buddy Up

Hamas is becoming a spoke on the Axis of Evil, according to Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert:

Officials at the closed-door meeting quoted Mr. Olmert as saying that Israel will not transfer any more money to the Palestinian Authority. That amounts to about $50 million a month in tax revenues collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

The United States and Europe are also threatening to cut nearly a billion dollars a year in aid to the Palestinian Authority, on grounds that Hamas is a terrorist organization seeking the destruction of Israel.

But Hamas has found a new donor. Iran pledged to support the Palestinian Authority, following meetings in Tehran with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.

Israelis spokesman Avi Pazner says Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and therefore he says, its alliance with Hamas is an "axis of evil" [emphasis in the original].

Via GlobalSecurity.org.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 23 February 2006 11:53 PM · Comments (2)

Coup Attempt Fails In Philippines

Via Al-Jazeera of all places, we find that Phillippines security forces have foiled an attempted coup d'etat against the regime of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo:

General Generoso Senga, the chief of staff of the armed forces, said that Brigadier General Danilo Lim, the commander of the Philippine Army's elite Scout Rangers had been taken into custody on Friday.

Lim and another senior officer are being detained as alleged leaders of "misguided elements who are planning to join a march," against Arroyo on Friday.

"We believe that we have quashed a coup," Lieutenant-General Hermogenes Esperon, the army chief, said in an interview on an early morning television news programme.

Is the word 'march' a filippino euphemism for 'coup'?

In any event, the shaky nature of civilian control of government in the Philippines has gone largely overlooked, what with the Danish cartoons, mosque bombings and port takeovers looming large in the news lately. Keep in mind that the Philippines is a very important battleground in the War on Terror.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 23 February 2006 08:33 PM · Comments (8)

Social Security Reform Thursday: Week Forty-Seven (Our Aging Population).

Thursdays are good days for reform, because they fall between Wednesdays and Fridays. And reform is a long-haul process, not a fleeting event. So we're going to keep plugging along with the case for reform, even as the issue goes off the political radar screen.

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

This week's topic:

America's Aging Population.

The first wave of Baby Boomers are now retiring. The demographic iceberg is-a-comin' for us, and it's not going to be pretty if we fail to act now.

First, however, some good news:

Since 1960, the U.S. population over 65 has doubled and the nation’s economy has nearly quadrupled.

Awesome. A strong economy does offer us a bit of a buffer against that iceberg. But that buffer works when dealing with small icebergs. When "the big one" hits, it could wreck our economic buffer, magnifying the problem beyond what is even projected.

Indeed, America's population over 65 is rising rapidly. Not only that, but America's population over 85 is projected to rise substantially in the coming years:

Personally, I tend to believe that with medical and scientific innovation, the numbers of Americans living beyond the age of 85 will dramatically rise-- and rise more than these projections predict. And that's a good thing.

I sincerly hope, mostly out of self-interest, that these projections underestimate the power of technology over the next few decades to prolong health.

It's great that Americans are living longer. It would be terrible if the average life expectancy were only 25 or 30 or even 40, as it once (even recently) was for humans.

But living longer is terrible news for the sustainability of Social Security.

With so many people collecting benefits, with relatively fewer people paying into the system, Social Security is simply not on a solid foundation.

Indeed, as entitlements creep upward as a percentage of federal spending, it hurts our ability to project power and prestige into the world. It hurts our economy. It hurts our ability to respond to crises, current and future, at home and abroad.

Social Security and Medicare have grown remarkably over the past 4 decades:

In a grad school seminar a while back, I brought up that out-of-control entitlement growth will eventually preclude the United States from acting, militarily, in the event of a world crisis that negatively impacts our national security.

The lefties in the seminar eagerly conceded the point: "Exactly."

So, that's the whole idea? Seriously? To load up the government with entitlement programs until they cripple America's ability to project force. I know academia is a little disconnected from reality, but geez.

Fortunately, because of our rapidly growing economy over the past half century, we've had a buffer against a national security collapse. We spend less, but we're still the big dog on the block. Nonetheless, if entitlements grow as they are projected to, the lack of resources available for national defense will indeed become a problem for American foreign policy in a changing world with less-than-friendly superpowers emerging.

But the lack of Social Security reform will hurt us more than just militarily. As we siphon off more and more of our economy into this awkward government-run confiscation/redistribution pyramid scheme, we fail to actualize those dollars in the free market economy, the same free market economy that made us so great to begin with.

The problem is clear. Can we all at least agree on that one?

The solution is either more of the same (raising the tax rate, raising the tax cap, cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, and so on), or something innovative, such as personal accounts.

For those of us under the age of 30, there's no reason to expect to retire at age 65. There's also no reason for us to expect to receive a meaningful Social Security check at retirement.

Thanks for that, AARP, Rock the Vote, the DNC, squishy GOPers, and all you other great socialists out there!

Not.

It's time for reform.

The clock is ticking:

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

Previous Reform Thursday graphics can be seen here:

-Week One (Costs Exceed Revenues).
-Week Two (Social Security Can't Pay Promised Benefits).
-Week Three (Americans Getting Older).
-Week Three, bonus (The Templeton Curve).
-Week Four (Fewer Workers, More Retirees).
-Week Five (History of Payroll Tax Base Increases).
-Week Six (Seniors Living Longer).
-Week Six, bonus (Less Workers, More Beneficiaries).
-Week Seven (History of Payroll Tax Increases).
-Week Seven, bonus (Personal Accounts Do Achieve Solvency).
-Week Eight (Forty Year Trend Of Increasing Mandatory Spending).
-Week Nine (Diminishing Benefits Sans Reform).
-Week Ten (Elderly Dependence On Social Security).
-Week Eleven (Entitlement Spending Eating The Budget).
-Week Twelve (Benefit Comparison, Bush's Plan versus No Plan).
-Week Thirteen (Younger Americans and Lifecycle Funds).
-Week Fourteen (The Thrift Savings Plan).
-Week Fifteen (Understanding Progressive Indexing).
-Week Sixteen (The Graying of America).
-Week Seventeen (Debunking Myths).
-Week Eighteen (Debunking Myths).
-Week Nineteen (Reform Needed Sooner Rather Than Later).
-Week Twenty (Global Success With Personal Accounts).
-Week Twenty-One (GROW Accounts: Stopping The Raid).
-Week Twenty-Two (Millions of Lockboxes).
-Week Twenty-Three (Support for Ryan-DeMint).
-Week Twenty-Four (KidSave Accounts).
-Week Twenty-Five (Latinos and Social Security).
-Week Twenty-Six (AmeriSave).
-Week Twenty-Seven (Cost Of Doing Nothing).
-Week Twenty-Eight (Chile).
-Week Twenty-Nine (Entitlement Spending Out Of Control).
-Week Thirty (Reform Better Deal Than Status Quo).
-Week Thirty-One (Social Security As A Labor Cost).
-Week Thirty-Two (Social Security And Dependence On Government).
-Week Thirty-Three (Social Security, Currently A Bad Deal For African-Americans).
-Week Thirty-Four (Longer Life Expectancies Straining Social Security).
-Week Thirty-Five (Howard Dean & Salami).
-Week Thirty-Six (Growing Numbers of Beneficiaries Draining Social Security).
-Week Thirty-Seven (The Crisis Is Now).
-Week Thirty-Eight (Disability Benefits).
-Week Thirty-Nine (Broken Benefit Calculation Formula).
-Week Forty (German Social Security Disaster).
-Week Forty-One (Crumbling Pyramid Scheme).
-Week Forty-Two (Overpromising, Globally).
-Week Forty-Three (Demographic Wave).
-Week Forty-Four (The Jerk Store).
-Week Forty-Five (Defined Benefit Plans).
-Week Forty-Six (Even The Empty Promises Are A Bad Deal).

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

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 February 2006 01:43 PM · Comments (5)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 277 -- Democrats Cozier With Lobbyists Than Republicans.

Culture Of Hypocrisy-

Democrats are staking their 2006 fortunes on their ability to convince voters that there is an unprecedented culture of corruption in Washington today, instigated solely by Republicans.

It's not going to work, because it makes no sense whatsoever, and people know it.

The culture of hypocrisy is alive and well, though. Our friends on the left are engaging in a bit of psychological projection, as well as denial.

It's projection, because the claim is that Republicans only enact legislation if big money (perhaps from a lobbyist) lines their pockets. In other words, Republicans have no principles and just act as coin-operated automatons, serving whichever special interest master puts in the most quarters.

What is so odd about this argument is that the GOP is clearly more of a cohesive ideological and philosophical unit, with some definite exceptions, while the Democratic Party is far more of a hodge-podge amalgamation of contradictory and conflicting special interests.

It's also denial from the Democrats, because they get so much more "big money" than Republicans do. The GOP fundraising advantage comes from lots of relatively small, hard-dollar donations from middle class folks. A thousand here, fifty there, a couple hundred there. Lots of them. And they add up. Republicans also get donations from special interests, to be sure, but these campaign dollars pale in comparison to the special interest money on the other side of the aisle.

Democrats, meanwhile, rely on ridiculous amounts of soft-dollar help from a few ultra-wealthy individuals, funneled through 527 organizations. Money from labor unions and trial lawyers also provide the backbone of the DNC money magnet.

Labor unions:

Okay, so, yeah, unions force their members to give to left-wing causes. Honestly, I am only outraged at this sort of thing commensurate with the level of hypocrisy Democrats display about GOP campaign money.

Lawyers & Lobbyists:

Some people, though, don't view "big trial attorney" money the same way they view lobbyist money. So how about a breakdown of lobbyists, exclusively.

Just Lobbyists:

Indeed, Democrats have zero room for rhetoric on lobbyist money, on soft money, or any other kind of special interest money:

Since the 1990 election cycle, Democrats have accepted more than $53 million from lobbyists while Republicans have taken more than $48 million for their election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Data provided by the nonpartisan group also shows that when Democrats controlled Congress in the early 1990s, they consistently hauled in more than 70 percent of the town's lobbyist money....

When the Democrats were in charge, they were getting an incredibly higher amount of lobbyist money compared to Republicans," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "Now that the tables are turned there is parity between the two parties."

Last year, for instance, Republicans took in 55 percent of the lobbyist money, which roughly corresponds to their majority share in Congress.

That's a pretty reasonable argument. Lobbying dollars have obviously gone up substantially in recent years, but it is interesting that the percentages of dollars going to Republicans since the 1994 takeover of Congress are often not even as high as the percentages of Republicans in Congress. For example, the lobbyist money broke down like so:

2004 campaign cycle: 48% Democrats, 52% Republicans.
2002 campaign cycle: 51% Democrats, 49% Republicans.
2000 campaign cycle: 49% Democrats, 51% Republicans.
1998 campaign cycle: 51% Democrats, 49% Republicans.
1996 campaign cycle: 50% Democrats, 50% Republicans.
---***---GOP TAKEOVER---***---
1994 campaign cycle: 75% Democrats, 25% Republicans.
1992 campaign cycle: 70% Democrats, 30% Republicans.
1990 campaign cycle: 74% Democrats, 26% Republicans.

When Democrats ran the place, they took in lobbyist money (not even counting trial lawyer money) in proportions far exceeding their majorities. Now that Republicans run the place, they don't even take in as much cash, relative to their majority status.

Just to be fair to the Democrats, let's look at "big oil," the source of all big money evil if we are to believe Nancy Pelosi and friends:

Oil & Gas:

1. How many Democrats represent oil and gas producing regions (think Texas, Louisiana, Alaska, Oklahoma, California, etc.) in Congress? Probably less than 25%.

2. Notice how small the oil and gas industry's political money footprint is compared to labor unions and trial attorneys.

For that matter, notice how small lobbyist money is in comparison to labor and legal money. The "culture of corruption" assertions from Democrats are hilarious, in that they are clearly projecting their own insecurities about their own "big money" onto the GOP. The large donations the Democrats receive simply dwarf the donations the GOP receives.

Denial is more than a river in Egypt. It's also the source of the "culture of hypocrisy" the Democrats have taken to a whole new level with regards to this "culture of corruption" business.

Source:

The Washington Times & The Center for Responsive Politics.

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

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Health Care Spending WAY Up.

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 February 2006 10:50 AM · Comments (4)

Kool-Aid Is For The Kos Kult

Harriet Miers.
Immigration reform.
Budget deficits.

I guess we can add giving the United Arab Emirates control over six U.S. ports to the list of issues proving that Republicans are not hypnotized by the supposed 'cult leader' George W. Bush.

But then, this message is not for you Republicans, because of course you know better.

Rather, this is a slapdown to liberals such as Glenn Greenwald, who has been pulled into the orbit of the Kos Kult, a real cult centered at the Blog-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named, where the slightest dissent is met with gales of hatred, filthy language and playground logic. Just try to suggest that Howard Dean is anything less than the messiah or that the War on Terror has accomplished some good things, and see how long you last outside of the kult kompound.

With Republicans however, principles always come first, and especially before mere personality. I happen to think George W. Bush is charismatic, and I may very well be in a minority in this view even among Republicans who are loyal to him. I have not been 'charmed' into following him however: I follow him because he is clear on his ideals, adheres to them, and uses them to guide his leadership. His leadership is solid because it is grounded in good principles, such as not bowing to expediency, continuing to do what you know is right in spite of huge political obstacles, not falling for the bait laid out by your political opponents, and not worrying about being liked (which is the huge personal failing that kept Bill Clinton from ever being anything other than president-lite).

I feel perfectly comfortable criticizing those I admire in my party. No Kos Kid can claim this, because their movement is not about ideas and principles, but rather is based in paranoia, helplessness and insecurity. Prime candidates for cults, in other words. If they dare criticize their leaders, they risk being cast into the wilderness of reality.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 22 February 2006 08:23 PM · Comments (7)

Puppy Propaganda

Will it take silliness to get people to take this issue seriously?

Thanks to Hoodlumman for putting the idea in my head, from his comment in this post introducing the world to Heidi Franklin, the wonder puppy that just might save Social Security!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 22 February 2006 04:28 PM · Comments (6)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 276 -- Spending Cuts.

Schmending Cuts-

Earlier today, I was watching a few minutes of Fox News, and a political advertisement came on claiming that the administration is trying to drastically cut spending on health. The poor, the elderly, and so on would be hurt. Yadda yadda. A woman dressed as a nurse appealed to viewers to contact Congress and tell them to stop the administration's spending cuts that would hurt America's health.

What a crock.

Spending on health care is skyrocketing upward:

Since 1990, health spending on the poor has more than doubled from 3.3 percent to 7.6 percent of all federal spending. In that time, the Medicaid population has increased from 25 million to 55 million, while the average (inflation-adjusted) payment per beneficiary increased from $3,839 to $4,873.

Since 2001, Medicaid has added 10 million par­ticipants to its rolls and increased spending by 40 percent to $182 billion. Spending for the new State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) has increased by 39 percent while insuring 4.4 million Americans.

The facts don't lie. Spending just can't continue going up this way, or we're going to drive our economy into the ground:

Indeed, anti-poverty spending is WAY up in this country over the past few decades. The Bush administration has in no way radically scaled back spending, as the rhetoric would suggest. In fact, much of the spending is considered "mandatory," rather than discretionary, meaning the entitlements were promised long ago, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

That fake nurse on that political ad should be ashamed of herself. Spending is up at an unreasonable and unsustainable pace. Cuts, schmuts.

Source:

Heritage.

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

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Kyoto.

Posted by Will Franklin · 22 February 2006 03:59 PM · Comments (1)

The Fifth Mainstream Melee.

It's a non-blog adventure.

I.

OpinionJournal.com: "Ports of Politics: How to sound like a hawk without being one. "

Super Succinct Synopsis-

The demagoguery over the UAE port deal is a perfect chance for Democrats to score cheap political points.

Super Succinct Snippet-

...the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference....

As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare opportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and they can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well.

This whole thing started as a ridiculous union/Lou Dobbs type of story, a total non-issue that a few people got riled up about. Once Bill Frist and other Republicans sided with the faux-populist idiot brigades, it gave the Bush-hating media a chance to pounce. Unfortunately, the Bush administration, believing correctly that this is a complete non-issue, didn't realize how irrational and zany this story would become and thus failed to develop a rapid-response communications strategy to explain why there is no downside to this deal at all.

This deal is not even newsworthy. The fact that it could become such an issue is almost enough to make one become cynical about politics.

Almost.

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

II.

Washington Examiner: "Bashing Wal-Mart: No One Gains"

Super Succinct Synopsis-

Wal-Mart may not be perfect or even good, but the orchestrated campaign against them is more left-wing nonsense than genuine economic concern.

Super Succinct Snippet-

New Labor Department data show that from 1987 to 2004, labor productivity rose an astonishing 7.6 percent a year in the part of retail trade in which Wal-Mart operates, well over double the increase in the economy as a whole. One of the leaders of the anti-Wal-Mart legislation, the UFCW union, represents workers primarily in a sector of retail trade, grocery stores, which had only a miniscule (0.2 percent) annual productivity advance. Thus this effort might be viewed as an attempt by persons in a stagnant and declining sector of retailing to thwart their more efficient and successful competition.

The "Wal-Mart is evil" notion is the reason why the Dubai/UAE port brouhaha even became a brouhaha in the first place. Unfortunately, and unlike with Wal-Mart, it spread to the mainstream largely due to misformation and disinformation.

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

III.

Forbes: "Gutierrez: Pirated Software 'Unacceptable' "

Super Succinct Synopsis-

China, you better shape up. These winds of economic nationalism that are blowing in this country may lead to a political situation where this administration, or a future administration, must take actions against your comfortable little set-up you've got right now.

Super Succinct Snippet-

The administration is not satisfied with China's progress in cracking down on rampant piracy of American copyrighted material, and one of the biggest offenders is the Chinese government, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

Seriously, China. Police yourself, because your flaunting of the rules of global capitalism will be a lot worse than you realize.

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

IV.

The Weekly Standard: "Revenge of the Panda Hugger: The Bush administration's China policy is hardening. "

Super Succinct Synopsis-

No, really. Don't make us pull this car over.

Super Succinct Snippet-

Fifteen months ago, just two days before George W. Bush's reelection, the Chinese government's English-language mouthpiece, China Daily, reprinted a blast by senior diplomat Qian Qichen against a "Bush Doctrine" marked by "cocksuredness and arrogance." President Bush no doubt believed, in the last days of an extremely tight race, that Qian's comments were an attempt to influence the result of the election, or at the very least an attempt to ingratiate Beijing with John Kerry, then slightly ahead in the polls. Upon his reelection, President Bush was apparently not amused.

Since then, his China policy has evolved away from its once-cautious optimism that Beijing might possibly, somehow, be persuaded to join Washington in maintaining a rules-based world order on such issues as nonproliferation, trade, human rights, energy, environment, and health policies. The official U.S. agnosticism about where China's rise will take it--and the world--seems to be ebbing. Instead, the administration seems ready to conclude that China is not going in the right direction and that the United States must hedge its bets.

China, we've given you plenty of chances, plenty of subtle warnings, and plenty of forgiveness for wrongdoing. Now it's time to straighten up. Americans obviously wouldn't mind sticking it to you, economically. Just don't force us to do so.

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

V.

The Economist: "Japan, land of the rising indicators"

Super Succinct Synopsis-

Remember when it was popular to buy American to stick it to the Japanese? Remember when everyone worried so much about Japan taking our jobs and ruining our economy and so on? Well, after 15 years of weakness in the Japanese economy, the signs are finally pointed in the right direction. Let's celebrate, because we need an economically strong Japan.

Super Succinct Snippet-

...at long last, those Japan-watchers are starting to believe that the country may have turned the corner on its long stagnation.

Root for Japan's economic reforms, spearheaded by Bush buddy Junichiro Koizumi, to succeed. A strong Japan is good for the United States, economically, as well as geopolitically.

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

The previous Mainstream Melee.

WILLisms.com and many other blogs sometimes focus too much on our fellow bloggers, while excluding well-done professional journalism from our posts.

The Mainstream Melee is a quick survey of five non-blog sources, coming atchya at completely random intervals. The stories are either underreported, particularly well-written, interesting, or otherwise important to the big picture. But generally there will be a theme of some kind in the choices.

Posted by Will Franklin · 22 February 2006 03:10 PM · Comments (2)

Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 44.

This week's WILLisms.com Caption Contest photograph:

The actual caption:

Newly selected House Majority Leader John Boehner, R- Ohio, right, whispers to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., prior to President Bush signing bill S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 in the East Room of the White House in Washington Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2006. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Surely there's a better caption for this photograph.

Entries will remain open until 11:59 PM, Central Standard Time, Tuesday, February 28. Submit your captions in the comments section, or email at WILLisms@gmail.com.

Last week's photo:

Winners from last week:

1.

Hoodlumman:

At little Billy's bar mitzvah, the ventriloquist was poorly recieved as everyone could clearly see his lips moving.

2.

John:

After an extraordinarily successful 5 year secrecy campaign, President George W. Bush reveals his conjoined twin, Pepe.

3.

DaveD:

"Ladies and gentleman, Michael Feinstein here certainly has a curious way of dancing cheek to cheek."

Honorable Mention #1

Cox:

Sensing something awry, Mike Feinstein glances down just before he's tackled by a Secret Service agent. Unfortunately, the agent was too late to protect the President from a "bad touch."

Honorable Mention #2

Rodney Dill:

(in Tiny Tim Falsetto)

♫ Tiptoe to the window, by the window that is where I'll be......
Come tiptoe through the tulips with me! ♫

Honorable Mention #3

Rob B.:

George Bush seemed to have no problem but Michael Feinstein struggled in the newest edition of "Skating and Debating with the Stars."

Captioning is high in fiber and has zero trans-fat.

Enter today!

Posted by Will Franklin · 22 February 2006 10:17 AM · Comments (20)

Christopher Hitchens Has A Great Idea

Stand Up For Denmark:

And there remains the question of Denmark: a small democracy, which resisted Hitler bravely and protected its Jews as well as itself. Denmark is a fellow member of NATO and a country that sends its soldiers to help in the defense and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. And what is its reward from Washington? Not a word of solidarity, but instead some creepy words of apology to those who have attacked its freedom, its trade, its citizens, and its embassies. For shame. Surely here is a case that can be taken up by those who worry that America is too casual and arrogant with its allies. I feel terrible that I have taken so long to get around to this, but I wonder if anyone might feel like joining me in gathering outside the Danish Embassy in Washington, in a quiet and composed manner, to affirm some elementary friendship. Those who like the idea might contact me at christopher.hitchens@yahoo.com, and those who live in other cities with Danish consulates might wish to initiate a stand for decency on their own account.

Via RealClearPolitics.

P.S. Was just thinking, would not a solemn, civil, respectful demonstration or vigil on behalf of Denmark be an excellent counterpoise to all the irrational nonsense being directed at Denmark and other western nations? Would it not be doubly excellent if a great many rational, thoughtful muslims joined in?

Cross posted from Say Anything.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 21 February 2006 07:51 PM · Comments (4)

400,000 Visitors.

The ole sitemeter, which I added to my site sometime in March of 2005, ticked upward beyond 400,000 today.

If I only had a dollar for every visitor, I could finally afford that baker's dozen of bungalows on beaches in third world countries all over the world.

Previous hundred grands:

December 7, 2005: 300,000.
September 12, 2005: 200,000.
June 26, 2005: 100,000.

UPDATE:

The chart that I should have made.

Posted by Will Franklin · 21 February 2006 03:03 PM · Comments (12)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 275 -- Kyoto.

Climate Change-

How is that little Kyoto environmental experiment going?

Not that great:

The Kyoto Protocol requires industrialized countries to cut carbon dioxide emissions by an average 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. But 13 of the 15 original members of the European Union have increased their emissions since 1990, not reduced them. New data by the EU's own European Environmental Agency show that by 2010, the 15 nations' emissions collectively will exceed 1990 levels by seven percent.

Meanwhile, the economic growth costs are not to be ignored:

Handicapping Kyoto's future is the fact that the treaty is economic suicide, and most European nations know it. According to the Brussels economic research organization International Council for Capital Formation (ICCF), the UK's gross domestic product will fall more than 1 percent in 2010 from what it otherwise would be, Italy's by more than 2 percent, and Spain's by more than 3 percent as a result of Kyoto's emissions targets. The UK, Italy, and Germany each would lose at least 200,000 jobs; Spain would lose 800,000.

There is a better way, however:

Enter the Asia-Pacific Partnership, a new coalition of Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and the United States, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the development of new, clean technologies. The gang of six, who first met officially last month in Sydney, will invest in new R&D promoting cleaner sources of energy and work with China and India to utilize them. By comparison, Kyoto failed to sign up China and India, the emerging industrial giants that together emit over 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gases.

Think about that. The ever-revered Kyoto Protocols did not even include these two heavy-polluting countries. As China and India grow, their increased emissions will dwarf the hypothetical decreases Kyoto demanded. But European countries are not even close to meeting their goals.

There's a reason why the United States Senate voted 95-0 during the Clinton administration to reject Kyoto.

Indeed, Kyoto forgot to include the entire developing world, while handicapping its signatories, economically. And for what?

This, apparently:

Why on earth should the United States have signed up for such a lose-lose contract? And why does anyone still listen to European leaders when they whine about America's carbon emissions?

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

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Our Complex Tax Code.

Posted by Will Franklin · 21 February 2006 10:51 AM · Comments (4)

Quotational Therapy: Part 75 -- Washington Is Questioning Your Patriotism.

President's Day-

George Washington-

George Washington's farewell address, on September 19, 1796:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens."

I think the original G.W. is calling out about 80% of the modern Democratic Party. I think he's even questioning their-- gasp-- patriotism.

Happy President's Day to all, and to all, a happy President's Day.

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

Previous Quotational Therapy Session:

The Gipper, On Government.

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

Posted by Will Franklin · 20 February 2006 06:34 PM · Comments (4)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 274 -- Our Complex Tax Code

These Costs Aren't Chump Change-

Because the tax code has gotten so complex, the cost of complying has become ridiculous:

In the last century the cost of tax compliance has grown tremendously. This is due partly to the inherent difficulty of taxing income, but also because of growing non-economic demands lawmakers place on the tax code. As Congress debates the tax reform recommendations of the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, Members should address this growing compliance burden, and work to reduce it through tax simplification and reform.

In 2005 individuals, businesses and nonprofits will spend an estimated 6 billion hours complying with the federal income tax code, with an estimated compliance cost of over $265.1 billion. This amounts to imposing a 22-cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects. Projections show that by 2015 the compliance cost will grow to $482.7 billion.

The costs are growing because of the necessity of tax planning, the inevitability of audits and lawsuits, and the complication of tax preparation:

Interestingly, these costs represent a fairly high percentage of taxes collected by the federal government:

Imagine a simple tax code. With lower, flatter rates. Not as much rigamarole. Simple. Straightforward. No H&R Block or Turbo Tax necessary. Why not?

Source:

The Tax Foundation (.pdf).

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

Previous Trivia Tidbit: Our Congressional Districts Are Getting Huginormongous.

Posted by Will Franklin · 20 February 2006 11:54 AM · Comments (3)

Pundit Roundtable

Hi folks! After a hiatus of a few weeks, we are back with the PUNDIT ROUNDTABLE, and I am your host, Ken McCracken.

We have a special treat this week, a mini-interviews with Dean Esmay of Dean's World, who is in fact our very first interviewee, and Will Franklin.

Dean's blog is one of my daily stops in the blogosphere. He if often pegged, incorrectly in my view, as a hard-right blogger. In fact, his blog, and his co-bloggers, reflect a much broader perspective than that, and I don't think Dean would ever characterize himself as a party-line Republican. I think this erroneous view comes from his uncompromising stance on the War on Terror.

Here we go:

How did you get into blogging?

In the late 1990s I had my own domain, syndicomm.com, for a business I used to run. On that site I would occasionally write essays, because I always had the writing bug (see, for example, this and this). That got to be too much hassle, and I eventually sold the business and the domain and gave up writing on the internet. But, the bug wouldn't leave me, so I started up a mailing list of friends to mail essays to. I would post occasionally to Usenet too, but I just didn't like doing that as much, it was too chaotic.

Right around the turn of the century, my buddy Jerry Kindall started telling me I needed to get a blog. I didn't know what that was and was short on time so I blew him off, until one day he purchased a domain name for me, and set up a blog on it for me, and handed me the keys. I took to it like a duck to water and never went back. I wish I hadn't waited so long!

Do you have a favorite topic you like to post about?

Nope. I write about the war effort mostly out of a sense of duty and obligation. I prefer otherwise to write about philosophy, science, history, and current events (if usually from a historical or political science perspective). I also like turning my skeptical guns to conspiracy theories, scientific crackpottery, and showing where the professional press tends to get things wrong.

What fulfills you the most about blogging?

Learning from my audience.

What are the downsides to blogging?

Being the subject of harassing and nasty behavior from people who don't like what you have to say.

Do you have any blogging goals you want to achieve?

I wish to continue helping America toward victory, to help the spread of liberal values through the world, and to make Dean's World a place people visit because they find it entertaining, challenging, and interesting. If I can keep doing that I'll be happy.

What is the best thing you have achieved so far?

I helped found Operation Give and am still officially a board member.

Is there a statement of purpose you could point us to, or would you like to make one?

"Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy."

Ken adds: See? Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy. Does that sound like a hard-right ideologue to you? We righties often forget what the broad term liberal really means, and today's 'liberals' too often seem to have forgotten it as well . . .

---

We also have a mini-interview with Will Franklin, whom you all know as the founder of WILLisms.com. You might be wondering why I would be interviewing Will, considering that I blog with him, but I really didn't know how he would respond . . .

What are you trying to achieve with WILLisms.com?

I want to educate, motivate, entertain, inspire, elucidate, and occasionally upset my readers. I am a conservative. I am a Republican. Hopefully my readers can win the heck out of arguments with lefty colleagues and friends and family members. Hopefully my readers can put things in perspective. Hopefully WILLisms.com will help more tax-cutters, more Social Security-reformers, more freedom-lovers, and so on be able to articulate WHY lower taxes are better, WHY Social Security reform would be a good thing, and a bunch of other WHYs. Hopefully WILLisms.com can help the right kinds of candidates get elected, as well. This being an election year, WILLisms.com might change focus slightly toward the game of politics. We'll see.

Is it a lot of work?

It can be. And it can be tedious. Some posts take 10-20 minutes (or less). Some take an hour or two. Staying abreast of the latest blog trends can consume quite a bit of time, as well. Doing the graphics can also take a lot more, or a lot less, time than I estimate. It just depends. Over the past year, it's gotten a lot easier, and I have gotten much faster and whipping out graphics. Unfortunately, the available time is increasingly sporadic and rare.

One thing about blogging is that I could probably spend 8-10 hours a day, produce essentially the same quantity and quality of commentary found on major news websites. But I would get burned out after a few days of that. Or, I could probably sit down at my computer several times a day and find something funny or interesting, then post it. Wham. 10 minutes to find something. 2 or 3 minutes to post it. Several times a day. But I want to provide the sorts of details that are often unavailable elsewhere. Quality over quantity, for the most part.

Then there's the maintenance if the software malfunctions. Administrative things are a pain. I am not one of those guys who can sit down and write/debug a computer program in half an hour. And even if I were, I wouldn't be the kind of guy who would enjoy doing that. So the computing side, the coding, the fixing problems... all of that is tedious.

A lot of bloggers must spend hours every day promoting their sites, too. Or maybe it just