« July 2006 | WILLisms.com | September 2006 »

United Nations: You Have No Right To Self-Defense

Glenn Reynolds points to a UN report that attempts to minimize the most basic and premier human right of all: self-defense -

20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.

If a guy breaks into your house with a gun, and you shoot him, you are 'violating his rights' according to the UN, not engaging in your right to self-defense. The UN's notion that there is "inadequate legal support" for the idea that self-defense is a human right is an agenda-driven wilful misreading of texts on the issue. The right to self-defense is the first among all human rights. Even Thomas Hobbes recognized that "summe of the Right of Nature" is "by all means we can, to defend our selves." Enlightenment literature and legal thought is replete with the concept of self-defense as the cornerstone of all natural rights. As an example, the Pennsylvania Declaration of 1776 stated that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." In criticizing the UN report, the Claremont Institute points out that the very founders of international law itself, who would count for something at the UN one would think, Grotius and Emmerich de Vattel both recognized the concept.

The UN is most eager to deny that self-defense is a right, because this would obligate the UN to defend the concept of individual self-defense. Since unarmed self-defense in a world full of weapons is too often meaningless, this puts the UN in the position of having to defend the individual right to bear arms. Quelle horror! Is there anything more vulgar to a silk-suited euroweenie diplomat than individual gun ownership? This should not baffle you - the UN and its supporters are proponents of a single world government, under the ludicrous belief that a unitary government would hold a monopoly on all arms throughout the world, thus abolishing violence. Then, once violence is abolished the UN may disarm itself and the glorious new age of peace, love and rainbows can ensue.

The report goes out of its way to clear up any silly confusion about self-defense for States, including totalitarian regimes, as somehow also applying to lowly individual human beings:

"Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to the States acting in self-defence against armed attacks against their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situations of self-defence for individual persons."

How ironic, that the preeminent human rights organization in the world, the UN, gives the full panoply of protections and immunities under international law to someone like Kim Jong-Il, whereas if you engage in self-defense you are 'violating the rights of another.' This goes to the heart of an entire belief system rampant in the world today that thinks that all violence is bad regardless of circumstances and context, and that the problems of violence are caused by weapons and not those that wield them. We saw this in the 80's with the unilateral disarmament movement. They believed that reducing nuclear arsenals somehow reduced the chance of war breaking out. If we have an arsenal of 10,000 warheads and we reduce that arsenal to 5,000 warheads - voila! - we have reduced the chance of war by 50%! As if each warhead was just itching to detonate itself, so the fewer the better. And so it is with guns. Every gun is just waiting to go off, and so reducing the number of guns will somehow reduce violence. And as we all know, the mere possession of a gun causes the urge to violence in otherwise perfectly sane and law-abiding owners. So, if everyone just put their guns down, and put their full faith in sovereign government instead to protect them, we can begin to initiate the Reign of Peace.

Anyone see any holes in this logic?

P.S. As for the unilaterial disarmament argument, proponents of the argument that fewer warheads make war less likely get it exactly backwards. Fewer warheads makes it easier for an enemy to destroy those warheads, thus actually inviting attack. Shrinking nuclear arsenals can actually be destabilizing. Is this, then, an argument for more weapons?

An armed society is a polite society.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 31 August 2006 09:38 PM · Comments (13)

The Gaza War Continues

Michael Totten delivers another corporate-free dispatch from the Middle East, this time from a kibbutz in Southern Israel, where he proves that the Israelis are tough! To paraphrase Nietzsche, "whatever doesn't kill me, only makes garden art."

Posted by Ken McCracken · 30 August 2006 04:57 PM · Comments (5)

Questions About The San Fran SUV Rampage

Omeed A. Popal, 29, was arrested yesterday after a vehicle rampage straight out of Grand Theft Auto. He is an Afghani, and Muslim, and his attacks took place in a 'jewish' neighborhood of San Francisco, ending up in front of the Jewish Community Center at Presidio and California streets.

Is this a potential act of 'terrorism'?

The Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

It is possible for a lone deranged wacko to be found guilty of terrorism - there need not be an organization or a coherent plan for it to be a terrorist attack. You may remember the case of Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian who shot and killed two Israelis at the El Al counter at the Los Angeles International Airport on July 4, 2002. Hadayet was killed by a security guard. The FBI did a thorough investigation of the attack, and determined that this lone gunman had in fact committed an act of terrorism. One report concluded that " Hadayet hoped to influence U.S. government policy in favor of the Palestinians."

KTVU in San Francisco televised a report including a statement from a witness that Popal said he was a terrorist. However, a cousin of Popal's reported that he had "recurring nightmares about someone coming to kill him", and another that Popal was stressed about his recent arranged marriage in Afghanistan. So, is he a terrorist, a crazed paranoid, or a stressed-out newlywed? Or all three?

Another question people are asking is whether this is a 'hate crime' under California law. The California hate crime statute is defined as follows:

As defined in California Penal Code section 422.55, hate crime means “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”

'Hate crimes' in California are not crimes in and of themselves, but are sentence enhancements of 1-3 years imprisonment for other crimes that are found to include one of the elements noted above.

There were 137 hate crimes convictions in California in 2005, with anti-Jewish crimes being the most common among crimes based on the victim's religion.

If Popal indicates to the authorities that anti-Jewish sentiment was at all responsible for his attacks, he will most likely spend extra time in prison when he is convicted. And convictions look assured at this point.

Hate crimes are a bad idea. As odious as it would be for Popal to have committed these attacks out of racial hatred, this does not make his victims any more dead or injured than if he just did it for laughs. Or because he wanted to try driving on the sidewalks of Liberty City.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 30 August 2006 01:25 PM · Comments (0)

Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 68

This week's WILLisms.com Caption Contest photograph:

Here is the actual caption:

Pakistan's Captain Inzamam-ul-Haq adjusts his padding as he bats against England during their Twenty20 international cricket match at the county ground in Bristol, south-west England, August 28, 2006.

Oh sure, that's what they want you to think is going on here. Please help us write a proper caption.

Entries will remain open until 11:59 PM, Central Standard Time, Tuesday, September 5. Submit your captions in the comments section, or email at mccracken.ken@gmail.com.

Last week's photo:

Winners from last week: 1. Hoodlumman

The road to hell is not paved with relaxed men.

2. Sedosi:

Duck, Duck, Duck.....Goose!!!!!

3. Jim Rose:

A recipe from the Idi Amin cookbook.

Honorable Mention #1 Rodney Dill:

Adnan Hajj produces more pictures of the Lebanese holocaust

Honorable Mention #2 Radio Free Fred:

"This Will Be The Last Time We Complain About Pot Holes."

Honorable Mention #3 Sgt. Fluffy:

This is another fine mess you've gotten us into Ollie....

Captioning is the cure for what ails. Enter today!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 30 August 2006 11:44 AM · Comments (22)

The Long Knives Come Out

Simply delicious . . .

I've noted on multiple occasions the whiny tendencies of Rahm Emanuel. Rather than running on a progressive winning set of messeages [sic], Rahm has decided that primping before the press as 'Rahmbo' while whining about progressives will give him a win-win. If we win the house, he's a hero. If we lose the House, it's because of bloggers/Al Sharpton/Lamont/ Moveon/Soros/Pelosi. [snip]
And I hear a lot that even though progressives don't agree with him, he's at least a strategist. Let me just say that no he is not. Party strategists do not scream at major donors in public to journalists, because if they do then they create a disincentive for participation. Party strategists do not attack progressives in a progressive year and create policy platforms that immediately discount Democratic ability to accomplish anything. Party strategists do not race-bait against African-American leaders. Party strategists force candidates to do a good job, not to hire the right consultants. Party strategists do not call a right-wing Independent that needs Republican votes to win in Connecticut a 'Democrat'.

Rahm Emanuel is not a party strategist. He is an extremist ideologue, a Bourbon Democrat, and he will be a huge problem for progressives moving forward. Progressives would do well to develop our own set of strategic coordinators, rather than thinking that someone like Rahm Emanuel is at this point anything but destructive and selfish.

From the would-be Robespierre of the Nutroots Revolution, Matt Stoller of MyDD (as condensed by RealClearPolitics). Hey Matt, Rahm Emmanuel at one time worked in the White House because, you know, he helped Clinton win an actual presidential election to get there. Meanwhile, your buddy Kos probably won't even get Lamont out of Connecticut and into the Senate.

What's in your portfolio other than a lot of whining?

No, I am not defending the execrable Rahm Emmanuel here, just sitting on the sidelines enjoying the crap out of your little catfight, to which I say: more!

A pox on both your houses.

P.S. Tom Bevan at the RCP link above rightly notes the irony of Matt Stoller, of all people, calling Emmanuel an 'extremist ideologue'. Heh, I am scratching my head over that one. Surely Stoller isn't claiming that Emmanuel is to his left, is he? Or . . . is he implying that by not drinking the Kos Kool-Aid, Emmanuel must be some kind of neocon . . . ? I know it makes no sense, but look at who is making the accusation. Maybe Stoller means that Emmanuel is a centrist, which would make him an extreme right-winger among Democrats these days, wouldn't it.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 28 August 2006 09:40 PM · Comments (1)

Biden: Vote For Me, I'm From A Slave State!

Poor Joe just can't help himself, can he.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 28 August 2006 06:19 PM · Comments (4)

Hell Freezes Over

. . . but even more cataclysmic, Al Franken gets published at National Review Online.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 28 August 2006 05:35 PM · Comments (3)

Cycle Of Terror And Tragedy

Graydon Parrish painted this interpretation of the 911 attacks as a commission to memorialize the tragedy.

Quite stunning technique, and a very dramatic depiction. Parrish was trained in the French academy atelier style, which is why this painting looks so 19th century. Parrish pulls it off with respect without falling into sentimentalism. Very impressive.

Details of the painting further down here.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 28 August 2006 03:28 PM · Comments (2)

YouTube Fun

Why should Dean Esmay have all the YouTube fun? Dean worries about whether he links to too many YouTube movies, to which I say as long as they are good, interesting or entertaining clips - what's to complain about?

Here's a favorite song of mine, GANGSTERS by The Specials!

Heh, see if anyone can tell me what is going on in this video. I guarantee you it is not really that exciting, but if you are patient you might learn something.

 

We live in an age of marvels.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 24 August 2006 02:54 PM · Comments (5)

Mark Steyn Hosting Rush Today

Rush's audience won't know what hit 'em.

Steyn is every bit as entertaining and informative live as he is in print, and he is the one guest host who might be able to properly fill Rush's big golf shoes while he is gone.

You can hear it all online at Rush's flagship station, WABC New York, starting at 12:00 pm. EST.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 24 August 2006 10:34 AM · Comments (1)

Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 67

This week's WILLisms.com Caption Contest photograph:

Here is the actual caption:

People enjoy mud therapy at a nursing home in Anshan, east China's Liaoning province August 21, 2006. The mineral mud is believed to be able to alleviate pain from rheumatoid arthritis, sequela of traumatisms and peripheral nervous system diseases. Picture taken August 21, 2006.

I don't know about you, but I don't trust these Reuters captions! Tell us what you think it should really say.

Entries will remain open until 11:59 PM, Central Standard Time, Tuesday, August 29. Submit your captions in the comments section, or email at mccracken.ken@gmail.com.

Last week's photo:

Winners from last week: 1. Julie:

No matter how positive a spin they tried to put on it, they both knew the communist knockoff light saber was a piece of crap.

2. Hoodlumman:

Hugo chuckles as he shows that Fidel was roughly two quarts low.

3. Jim Rose:

Coming this Fall: "Brokeback Mountain II: Ride 'em Comrade!".

Honorable Mention #1 Adjustah:

For you, Excellency. A gift from your supporters in Miami...

Honorable Mention #2 Rodney Dill:

Now you know what happens if you don't seek immediate medical attention after 4 hours.

Honorable Mention #3 Mr. Right:

HUGO: "Geez, Fidel! No wonder your intestines were bleeding!"

Captioning may well be the most important thing you do all day. Enter today!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 23 August 2006 01:42 PM · Comments (19)

Facing the real foe

One of the more disturbing aspects of social change over the fast few decades has to be the depersonalization of responsibility. The trend has been, more and more, not to blame people for their actions, but the objects they use in the commission of their misdeeds.

I initially thought this was a partisan phenomenon, but the longer I considered the matter, the more I came to realize that it pretty much crossed party lines – the difference is in how it is expressed.

Let’s start off with drugs. We have very strong, very strict drug laws in this country. Manufacturing, transporting, selling, possessing, and using illegal drugs all have very strict penalties attached to them.

Speaking strictly personally, I have never been harmed by cocaine (just to pick one drug). I have nothing against it, and it has never hurt me. The reason for that is simple – I’ve never taken it. I have no interest in cocaine whatsoever, so it is utterly harmless to me.

I am far more concerned with the actions of addicts than their addiction itself. If treating their addiction will reduce the crimes they commit, then wonderful. But the vast majority of addicts first tried their substance of choice willingly, and the consequences of that choice should solely rest on their shoulders.

Another odd byblow of the war on drugs is the idea of the government filing charges against inanimate objects. “The United States vs. $125,000 in various bills” is one such case going around, when people found to be transporting large sums of cash have it taken from them. Other cases I can recall involve buildings and motor vehicles.

The obscenity of this practice is only surpassed by its absurdity. I simply don’t understand how any halfway competent lawyer hasn’t embraced the silliness and destroyed the practice through sheer ridicule.

“Officer Jones, you were the arresting officer who took this briefcase of money into custody?”

“I am.”

“When you arrested it, did you read the cash its Miranda rights?”

“Um… yes, sir.”

“And did the cash indicate that it understood these rights?”

This doesn’t even begin to address the issues of the accused pile of money being given its other rights, such as the right to choose its own counsel, the right to confront its accusers, and trial by a jury of its peers. I also wonder if the accused cash could offer up a portion of itself as bail.

On the left, we have the fascinating issue of gun control (or, as some 2nd Amendment advocates are starting to call it, “victim disarmament”). The idea seems to be that guns are inherently evil and dangerous, and the instant they touch human flesh they transform the person into a psychotic killing machine.

Again, like cocaine, guns have never harmed me. I’ve held a few, even shot them a few times, and I am no better or no worse off for the experience.

Firearms, though, unlike drugs, are Constitutionally protected. Which makes it a trifle more difficult for the nanny-staters to take them away from law-abiding citizens before they are transformed into unfeeling killing machines.

Finally, we have the item that prompted my recent thoughts: the banning of most liquids from airline flights. The reasoning is sound, on the surface – there is strong and compelling evidence that some people in England were planning to bring down several airliners with liquid explosives, smuggled aboard in carryon packages disguised as ordinary, harmless liquids. In the wake of that, all sorts of liquids and gels – drinks, shampoos, cosmetics -– were banned from the cabins and banished to the holds.

This was done, they say, in the interests of safety and fairness. We should not and dare not exempt anyone from these measures, so everyone gets treated equally –- and all are equally scrutinized.

This is not just wrong, it is wrong-headed.

To repeat my earlier point, no airliner has ever been destroyed by a bomb. They have been destroyed by terrorists who used bombs, but the bombs themselves bore no malice and had no intent. Just as no hammer ever built a house and no computer ever created a virus, the bomb was a tool, a simple means to an end.

We have focused far too much of our effort on finding the tools, and skimped on seeking out the tool’s user. That is purely a defensive strategy, and the danger of such an approach is that the attacker can try again and again with impunity –- and only has to succeed once. The defender has to be perfect each and every single time, for a single slip-up can be fatal. And there is no provision for ending the attacks.

And so that is why it is time to start looking not just for bombs, but bombers.

“Profiling” has acquired such an ugly reputation among many, and that is unjust. Profiling, in its truest sense, is evaluating known common characteristics of past perpetrators and using them to identify others who may be likely to commit (or have committed) the same offense. It’s also known as “good police work,” “noticing,” or simply paying attention.

So far, the vast majority of terrorists have fit a certain profile: Middle-Eastern men, ages 18 to 45, of the Muslim faith.

Of course, I am NOT calling for the mass roundup of everyone who might fit that description. But I think it is no great violation of our Constitution if people like that, especially if coupled with suspicious behavior, get a little extra attention from security officials.

Profiling may not be pretty, but it can work. I speak as a single white male in his late 30’s who is a bit of a loner -– no family connections, very few friends. If there’s ever a serial killer here in Manchester, I fully expect the police to give me a looksee. And if that were to happen, I would cooperate with them as fully as I could to eliminate myself as a suspect, so they could get on with finding the real killer.

Some critics of the profiling approach say that it will become useless, as the terrorists will find more people like Richard Reid or John Walker Lindh, neither of whom readily fit the profile, to commit their deeds. But that is oversimplifying the problem.

The vast majority of the terrorists do fit that profile, and xenophobia –- fear of strangers -– is a key element of their theology and ideology. For all their proclamations of how Islam is the great equalizer, how all people are the same in the eyes of Allah and all Muslims are brothers, they still have some very bitter prejudices that show through. The different denominations of Islam are quite virulent when it comes to the violent extremists. There are also tribal and nationalistic differences that can lead to very unpleasant friction.

Toss in one final element: they know that they are hunted, and at every opportunity their enemies (us) are looking to infiltrate them. With all those factors calculated in, their success in finding, recruiting, training, and using non-profiled individuals is quite slim –- and our opportunities for discovering and infiltrating them goes up accordingly.

We must never forget that we are not fighting bombs, or bullets, or hijackings, or missiles, or rockets, or even box-cutters. We are fighting human beings who use those items as tools to wage war. If all we do is to continually disarm them, they will continue to find new weapons and keep fighting.

And as the attacker, they can fail a hundred times, a thousand times, for each success, and still declare victory.

Posted by Jay Tea · 22 August 2006 12:00 PM · Comments (11)

Quote Of The Day

The inimitable James Lileks:

I’m not going to defend McCarthy, because he was a brute and boor and a butter-eating drunk who set back the anti-Communist cause four decades. To say that he was sorta right, in the sense that there were Commies about, is like saying that J. Robert Oppenheimer had a salutory effect on Japanese urban renewal. I’m not interested in those debates right now. I’d just like to point out that it’s a little late in the game to trot out a play about the mean old witch-hunts. The bravery of the scrappy idealists! The piggish philistinism of the anti-commie brutes! The smothering wet quilt of Conformity that held America motionless until it was thrown off by the undulating hips of Elvis! (Did you know they didn’t show him below the waist on TV, at first! True! It was horrible, the Fifties; no one had sex without weeping in shame afterwards. Sometimes during.) It's just interesting how Westerners think that that Red Scare was a historical event of such towering proportions it trumps the tales of the Soviet Union in the same period. US version: communist sympathizers frozen out of screenwriting jobs, justly or unjustly. USSR version: actual communists killed in ghastly numbers by a parody of a legal system underwritten by brute force and an industrialized penal system built on slave labor. Why is the latter ignored, and the former celebrated?

Right on, man!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 21 August 2006 02:15 PM · Comments (4)

ACLU v. NSA Blowback

The reaction to this week's opinion by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in the ACLU v. NSA case has been lopsidedly negative, except among those who care not a whit about legal reasoning and are happy to see the rule of law trashed in order to embarass President Bush.

Check out some of these criticisms:

"Yes, sure, it is true that the judicial opinion issued yesterday is very weak, in places borderline incoherent, in its reasoning with regard to some issues. Anyone can see that. Most everyone who commented on it, including me, pointed that out."

"Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful."

The opinion "isn't quite ready for prime time".

These are responses from Glenn Greenwald, the Washington Post editorial board, and Orin Kerr respectively, three who have criticised the legality of the program in the past. Nearly everyone who has read and understands the opinion, left, right and center, all agree that it is a mediocre and unreasoned opinion. Hell, even at least one Kos diarist thinks it was an awful opinion. (h/t Powerline).

Scott Johnson at Powerline delivers the coup de grace - "anyone who knows what legal analysis and legal argument look like -- anyone who knows the requisites of legal reasoning -- must look on the handiwork of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in the NSA case in amazement. It is a pathetic piece of work. If it had been submitted by a student in my second year legal writing class at the University of St. Thomas Law School, it would have earned a failing grade."

Folks, lawyers criticizing a federal judge for this lack of intellectual power is nearly unprecedented. This type of language is reserved for the truly horrid opinions in American law, such as the Dred Scott decision or Korematsu now relegated to the jurisprudence Hall of Shame.

ACLU v. NSA now resides there as well.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 19 August 2006 10:21 AM · Comments (4)

Social Security Reform Thursday: Week Sixty-One -- Entitlement Spending Versus Defense Spending.

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:

Social Security (& Other Entitlements) Are Outpacing Defense Spending.

I recently had the pleasure of spending a bit of time around a few hundred young liberal activists. One refrain I heard over and over again was that the military-industrial complex in the United States was growing larger than it has ever been, taking into account the entire course of American history. Creeping toward totalitarian fascism, we apparently are.

Well, not quite. In fact, military spending is as high as it has ever been. But the American economy is also as high as it has ever been. As a percentage of the American economy, military spending today is not particularly outrageous:

Although the U.S. spends far more-- and more per capita-- than ever before, on the military, the trajectories of entitlement and defense spending are diverging as a percentage of GDP:

In other words, as entitlements become 10%, then 11%, then 12%, then 13%, then 18%, then 20%, then even more of our economy, it will impair our ability to retain a military advantage over emerging threats, without much economic pain at home. Then again, maybe that's actually another reason why the Lamont Democrats are so vested in allowing Social Security and other entitlement programs to grow into such a gargantuan portion of the American economy. They want to tie our hands behind our backs with Social Security (and Medicare, and Medicaid) rope, so we can't afford to defend ourselves against Islamist terrorism.

It's time for reform.

The clock is still ticking:

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

Read More »

Posted by Will Franklin · 17 August 2006 09:51 PM · Comments (6)

Free Speech Rights For Terror Suspects?

The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan today granted partial summary judgment to the Plaintiffs in the ACLU v. NSA wiretaps case, stating that the NSA wiretap program violates the Administrative Procedures Act, the Separation of Powers doctrine, the First and Fourt Amendments, and FISA. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims in regard to data-mining.

I just want to focus on one aspect of the opinion here. In order to bring a case such as this, the plaintiff has to prove that they have standing to bring the case. Not just anyone can bring any case - you must prove that you have been harmed in some way. So check out the court's reasoning for granting such standing -

"Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside the United States . . . [plaintiffs] indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations."

Get it? Ivory tower intellectuals having unfettered communication with terrorist suspects is more important than preventing these terrorists from murdering people apparently. The court then laments the increased financial burdens and 'inefficient' means of communication that our all-important eggheads must now endure, all due to mere speculation that someone might possibly be tracking their call. Mind you, the plaintiffs never proved that any such thing was going on, but the mere whiff of suspicion that it might be happening is enough to justify bringing the entire program to a crashing halt. And it isn't really that the free speech of the plaintiffs has been chilled - oh no, the problem is that it chills the terrorist suspects from communicating with learned professors! Heaven forbid!

I am actually being unfair here. The entirety of the case does not rest on the critical need of scholars to communicate with suspected terrorists. This issue of standing was only one of many that the court addressed, including the state secrets doctrine, the separation of powers and so on. But . . . to read the priorities the courts assigns here is to wonder if they followed a white rabbit down the hole in deciding that the chilled free speech of terror suspects should be the deciding factor in the critical Standing argument.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 17 August 2006 02:58 PM · Comments (8)

The Original Islamofascist

A documentary about Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and his collaboration with the Third Reich and his incitement to the Holocaust.

It contains actual film footage of the odious Husseini.

(h/t LGF)

Don't Watch That Video!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 16 August 2006 05:58 PM · Comments (7)

Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 66

This week's WILLisms.com Caption Contest photograph:

Once again, there is no actual caption for this photo . . . but man, it sure screams for one! From a series of photos entitled Unforgettable afternoon between brothers, published by Granma.

Entries will remain open until 11:59 PM, Central Standard Time, Tuesday, August 22. Submit your captions in the comments section, or email at mccracken.ken@gmail.com.

Last week's photo:

Winners from last week: 1. Ironman:

Star Wars fans were thrilled today as dazzling computer generated scenes from the upcoming sequel "Attack of the Cloning Tool" were released to the Reuters news agency....

2. Sgt. Fluffy:

(Reuters)Israeli Air force jets once again attacked Lebanon using Microsoft Flight Simulator 2005. After IDF programmers added more buildings and a darker hue to the hue to the Lebanon.mod file the devastation was horrific.

3. Chris:

The international community condemned recent Israeli actions which are clearly contributing to global climate change. We offer this proof of the Zionist plot to control the weather. It may be fake, but it's accurate. Really, we mean it. Come on, you can trust us.

Honorable Mention #1 Rob B.

While the "hide behind civilians and Iranian assistence feature add to the experience of this new "Grand Theft Auto: Hezbollah Hammering" the repetitive backgrounds and poor smoke object rendering really distract from the game play.

Honorable Mention #2 Buckley F. Williams:

Jack Bauer wuz here.

Honorable Mention #3 Charles Austin

Hizbollah wishes to remind everyone of the dangers of second-hand smoke; and third-hand smoke; and fourth-hand smoke; and fifth-hand smoke; and sixth-hand smoke; and seventh-hand smoke...

If we don't caption, the terrorists win. Enter today!

Posted by Ken McCracken · 16 August 2006 09:37 AM · Comments (30)

Fearful victory

Today marks the 61st anniversary of "V-J Day," the surrender of the Empire of Japan, that signaled the end of World War II.

"Victory." Such a simple word, yet so hard to define.

It's not an easy word to define. And I've found the best way to understand it is to grasp its antonym, "defeat."

In any conflict, if there is a victor, there must be one that is defeated.

Defeated, meaning "forced to acknowledge that one's goals are not achievable, and one is utterly at the mercy of one's enemy."

The key element in defeat is not physical, but psychological. It is the acceptance of defeat, the giving up of one's goals and aspirations, the sublimation of one's wishes to those of your conqueror.

In World War II, there were clear winners and losers. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were crushed, wiped out of existence, their leaders deposed and killed or imprisoned, nearly all traces of those governments eradicated, and the nations rebuilt in the image and to the wishes of the Allies.

Other wars weren't won so decisively.

World War I ended with an armistice, a humiliating treaty that the Central Powers signed to preserve their own existence, at great expense. The leaders who started the war were allowed to remain in power, but at the price of degrading and crippling concessions. It brought peace for almost two decades, but fed German resentment until Adolf Hitler rose to power -- his support largely fired by those feelings -- and helped bring about World War II.

In Korea, we fought the North Korea (and their sponsors, the Soviets and the Chinese) to a standstill, then signed a treaty suspending hostilities. That agreement has largely held for almost 50 years, but even to this day North Korea remains not only a regional threat, but with its nuclear ambitions more of a danger than ever before.

In Viet Nam, we again signed an agreement that ended the hostilities. That signature was barely dry before it was violated, and we were driven out -- a defeat that left long scars on our nation, and our international regard.

And in the first Gulf War, our defeat of Saddam Hussein might have been definitive, but the terms of his surrender -- and the inept and lackadaisical enforcement thereof -- led to cheating and corruption on a tremendous scale, and eventually led to the 2003 invasion that finally deposed Saddam and his thugocracy.

On the surface, it seems simple: war is bad, fighting is bad, and stopping it as quickly as possible, minimizing those killed and that damaged, is a good thing.

But like so many things, our instincts may be misleading us and the right answer could be counterintuitive. Cutting tax rates should not lead to increased tax revenues. Giving stimulants to hyperactive children should be a recipe for disaster. And ending a conflict quickly should be a good thing.

Some times, it is. But some times, it is not. It is the greater mercy to allow the fighting to conclude on its own, to allow the fighting parties to settle the matter once and for all, to bring a finality and sense of closure to the conflict.

In the Middle East, Israel has fought war after war after war for its right to existence. And each time the pattern has remained the same: when Israel's enemies are on the ropes, outside forces intervene to pressure the combatants to end the fighting.

Israel has a tenuous peace with some of her neighbors. Egypt and Jordan, having been beaten in war, have been relatively good neighbors to Israel. Syria, on the other hand, has been an unending source of trouble, both for Israel and the West in general. The major difference I can see is that Israel decisively beat both nations, while Syria has never been fully brought to account for her aggression.

There's an old saying: "he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." It's advice often given to the one losing the struggle, to persuade them that retreat is not an unthinkable option, and losing a battle doesn't necessarily mean the war is lost. But it is also a good reminder to the other side; an opponent driven off, but not defeated, can (and very often will) return again, rested, re-armed, and ready to resume the fight -- perhaps to win this time.

The anti-war crowd is tragically short-sighted. To them, ongoing war is the greatest of evils. They cannot conceive of the notion that they are not averting tragedy, but merely postponing it -- and making the next round far bloodier than the carnage they averted today.

"Justice delayed is justice denied." And, sometimes, war averted today is war multiplied, magnified, maximized tomorrow.

Posted by Jay Tea · 15 August 2006 08:00 AM · Comments (15)

It's the Tax Cuts Stupid

The mid-term elections in 2006 will answer one fundamental question--Are the American people so upset about Iraq that they forget about the Economy? Will 4-5% GDP Growth, Massive Deficit Reductions, Sustained Job Growth, and Rising Wages and Productivity be thrown out the window over Iraq. Ultimately, a better question is--Are you willing to repeal the tax cuts and stagnate the economy in order to implement a cut and run strategy in Iraq.

Clearly, Americans feel safe right now. The stock market was essentially unmoved by the terror news from London. Terror arrests don't mean much. Terror attacks do. Egyptian students who overstay their visas--meaningless. London plot to blow up jetliners--meaningless. Detroit men buying thousands of cell phones--don't care, too busy worrying about Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton. Economy humming along, so what?

As if catching terrorists, passing the Patriot Act, the tax cuts, economic growth, etc., mean absolutely nothing to the average American, but the wellbeing of 135,000 VOLUNTEER MILITARY MEMBERS who continuously vote overwhelmingly Republican and who are enlisting and re-enlisting at numbers far exceeding goals and expectations is the only issue that matters. Just ask Ned Lamont. Throw out well respected politicians and throw away things like tax cuts, the Patriot Act, and protecting the nation with programs like SWIFT so that we can cut and run.

It is important that the folks realize that this election is about more than Iraq. Sure, the war is polarizing and many just want it to be over. At the end of the day, the folks advocating cut and run are the same that advocate tax and spend and that advocate things like Universal Healthcare, higher Estate Taxes, higher Dividend Taxes, and ignoring Social Security.

Consistently, the Democrats go to the bait and switch tactic.

Q. "Chairman Dean, today's economic numbers exceeded expecations for the umpteenth consecutive quarter. Does this indicate President Bush's taxcuts are working?"
A. "Ask that of the Soldier's wife whose husband just died in Iraq. Ask her how the tax cuts are going to help send her orphaned children to college and pay for the rising tuition costs."
Q. "Senator Reid, Social Security is a looming crisis and your party has said repeatedly that privatization is not the answer. How do the Democrats in the Senate propose to save Social Security for today's workers?"
A. "President Bush has spent $200B on the War in Iraq. We propose to end this spending and use the money at home for programs to save social security, feed the hungry, provide caregivers to pet puppies and kittens, and cure the bird flu."
Q. "It has been 5 years since 9-11. What has changed that has helped keep America free from terror attacks since 2001."
A. "America may not have had a terror attack, but Spain and Great Britain had major attacks on Madrid and London. And Al Qaeda has said repeatedly that their reason for attacking these nations is their participation in the War in Iraq. Clearly the world is not any safer now based on terror attacks across the globe as well as in Iraq. We need new leadership to ensure that the entire world is safer."

Q. Is the sky blue?
A. War in Iraq.
Q. What year did Columbus sail the ocean blue?
A. Iraq.

Same old routine and same old tired media failing to report the economic, jobs, and domestic War on Terror issues facing us. Over and over are stories from Iraq. While it would be nice to be at peace and live in September 10th perpetually, we don't anymore. And while the Dems promise to get us out of Iraq, they were handed their collective political asses in 1994 for a reason. Economic policies do matter. Higher Taxes and Government Red Tape as well as national security (besides the Iraq War) matter.

What remains to be seen is whether Americans are so angry over Iraq that they not only return to September 10th, but to October 1994.

Posted by Justin B. · 14 August 2006 03:18 PM · Comments (2)

What Does It Say About Our News Media?

That this information is relegated to the "Opinion" section:

This year... the deficit will be $260 billion, or $111 billion less than the CBO estimated in March. For 2006, the government deficit will be 2 percent of gross domestic product, down from the old baseline prediction for 2006 of 2.6 percent. On Aug. 17, when the more extensive annual Update of the Budget and Economic Outlook appears, that 2 percent figure is likely to show up more definitively. But neither the budgeteers' news nor the prospect of a confirmation of it is generating much discussion.

This is surprising. The Economic Report of the President shows the federal deficit for 2004 was 3.6 percent. A narrowing of more than 1 1/2 percentage points in such a short time is itself a story.

The U.S. deficit is worth comparing, for starters, with the data for European nations. In the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, European leaders set a deficit goal of 3 percent of GDP. EU member countries have had trouble meeting that target since.

A shortfall of 2 percent of GDP is also news in the U.S. context. Sure, there was the surplus in the second half of the 1990s. But 2 percent is below the average for the federal deficit between 1980 and 1995.

Tax cuts stimulated an ailing economy. A robust economy has delivered record tax revenues. Indeed, although nobody can question President George W. Bush's tax-cutting credentials, he's technically raised taxes. "The rich" are paying more, post-tax cuts, than they did before. And although the American economy has been booming for the past three years now, tax revenues as a percentage of the economy are also higher than they were before the President's tax relief:

Extra corporate taxes also flowed in and are 27 percent higher than in the year-earlier period. Overall, the data suggest that tax revenue as a share of the economy for 2006 will be 18.4 percent of GDP, above the average for the past 30 years.

Had spending been kept in check, we'd have room for even more much needed tax relief. However, if we lump all spending into one big category, we're obfuscating the real story. Even if we had halted entirely the growth of non-military discretionary spending over the past half decade, we'd be in essentially the same fiscal position we are in today.

It's the end of the false peace dividend of the 1990s, coupled with the outer bands of the Baby Boom hurricane beginning to whip the shoreline, that have produced the bulk of government spending increases. Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) that are mostly on auto-pilot are responsible for deficits (that are either "record highs" or historically lower than average, depending on how you measure) we have today. Unreformed entitlement programs will be responsible for actual record deficits-- and potential government bankruptcy, even with staggering tax increases-- tomorrow, if we fail to modernize and reform them.

What does it say about our news media that we so rarely hear about any of this? And when we do, it's classified as mere "opinion."

I would just direct you back to this post from February, with this graph and accompanying information:

Since 2001, annual pork spending has gone up by several billion dollars.

Since 2001, annual Social Security spending has gone up by $121,782,000,000.

Since 2001, annual Medicare spending has gone up by $125,603,000,000.

Since 2001, annual Medicaid spending has gone up by $62,960,000,000.

Pork is bad for its own reasons. It is corrupting. It is wasteful. It breeds a sense of government having an expensive answer for every minor problem, anywhere. It is unfair, often going to states and cities for political, rather than policy, reasons. Pork confuses the spending issue, directing attention away from the fundamental fiscal crisis we face, onto more symbolic spending abuses. Pork is awful. But eliminating pork-- and stopping the growth of discretionary spending, overall-- wouldn't change the seismic demographic forces at play in America.

We've got to tackle entitlements. The fate of future tax rates depends on it. The fate of our economy depends on it. The fate of capitalism itself depends on it.

Our media have failed to tell these stories, about tax relief producing record tax revenue; about "the wealthy" paying more in taxes now than before; about how many among "the poor" pay little, no, or even negative taxes; about dramatically smaller-than-expected short-term deficits; about our resilient and robust economy itself; and about the potential for gargantuan long-term deficits in the absence of entitlement reform.

All of this is par for the course for this media establishment. It will be funny to hear how shocked, confused, and surprised folks in the media will be when, in the near future, we once again have federal budget surpluses without tax hikes. It won't be so funny to hear how shocked, confused, and surprised folks in the media will be when the Baby Boomer retirement tsunami hits and we have genuinely out-of-control federal budget deficits, with tax hikes.

Fortunately, we make our own destiny, and I wouldn't blog about this stuff if I thought the situation was hopeless. We just need a bit of economic literacy in our news media and the United States Congress.

Posted by Will Franklin · 13 August 2006 12:12 PM · Comments (4)

Vince Young vs. Reggie Bush -- Round II

Will posted last year about Vincy Young being the right pick for the Heisman. I, well, disagreed, but it was just after Reggie Bush lit my ASU Sun Devils up for 150 yards and SC came back from being down 21-3 at halftime and my sunburn from sitting in the North endzone at Sun Devil Stadium had still not healed.

Texas Quarterback Vince Young (a junior) is unquestionably the best player in college football and the only serious candidate worthy of the Heisman trophy. USC all-purpose dynamo Reggie Bush (also a junior) is certainly fun to watch, and he's definitely important to his team, but his prodigious and ubiquitous Heisman hype in the media is entirely unwarranted.

Well, they ain't seniors this year, so we don't get to see them dueling for the Heisman, but we did get to see the Number 2 and Number 3 overall picks playing some football tonight against each other.

Bush 6 carries for 59 yards (including a highlight reel Sportscenter play)
Young 4/11 for 56 yards

Now I am not going to claim this demonstrates anything more than that it is much more difficult to learn Norm Chow's offense for a Quarterback than a Running Back. Chow had the chance to draft a player he personally coached in college (and whose number 7 Cardinals Jersey I am currently wearing), Heisman Trophy Winner Matt Lienert, but instead the Titans went with Young. Bush and Young will forever be linked in much the same way Peyton Manning and San Diego Charger draft pick Ryan Leif are still linked. OK, bad comparison.

But the point of all of this--IT IS FOOTBALL SEASON! I just got back from watching Arizona play Pittsburgh at the brand spanking new indoor stadium in Glendale, Arizona, that features a retractible natural grass FIELD to go along with the retractible roof. It was 100 degrees walking up to the stadium, but I almost needed a light jacket for the 68 degrees inside.

So since Will is slacking on his posts, I guess I better say "hook'em Horns" and let's see what Texas has to replace Vince Young. And let's hope that the Houston Oil...er...the Titans get better play from VY. TGIF--S as in Football Season.

Posted by Justin B. · 13 August 2006 02:23 AM · Comments (4)

The Woes of Being a Moderate Democrat

It seems that the best chances the Republicans have of remaining in power and expanding the Majority are to take back Congressional and Senate Seats in the Red States that have "moderate" Democrats in office. Most Red State Democrats are scared to get too far out on the moonbat fringe with the Pelosis since they still have to win elections at home. So, for Republicans, places like Montana with Baucus or Nebraska with Nelson or even North Dakota are good targets,despite the fact that they are not particullarly competitive in the races due to the porkbarrell power of incumbency. What we saw with Daschle was indicative of winnable battles for Republicans. Far more difficult is beating Blue State Democrats out of office.

So we have two things going on. First, Republicans by nature are targetting Moderate Democrats in Red States as these are our easiest victories. Second, moveon.org and others are targeting Lieberman and other moderate Democrats in Blue States in the primaries.

It is a bad time to be a Democratic Moderate. Think about it for a second. Support the troops and the War and Moveon is gonna get you. Fail to support the troops and the war, and you lose all Red State appeal. Finally, even if you support the WOT as a Democratic moderate, the direction your party is moving and the national impression of the cut and run strategy is so severe that it casts doubt even on the strongest Democratic military backers.

Conversely, I think it is a fairly good time to be a Republican Moderate. First, Republicans continue to cut taxes. Republican Moderates vote for tax cuts. Republican Moderates that question "STRATEGY" and "EFFECTIVENESS" of the War in Iraq can question the handling of the war and distance themselves from the Administration, yet still ultimately support the War. They are not being picked off by Extreme Right Wing Republicans in primary elections for questioning the direction the war is heading. Republican Moderates often tend to be Fiscal Conservatives, but Social Moderates, supporting Stem Cell Research, Abortion, and maybe not taking a hard line stance on Gay Marriage, etc. The Religious Right is not targetting these folks in Primaries.

This bodes well for the Republican Party in 2008. The Presidential Primary will have a dozen candidates encompassing the entire spectrum of Republican beliefs. RINO's like McCain. Moderates like Rudy. Conservatives like Frist and Allen. A diverse group of ideas and candidates. On the Democratic Side, there will be plenty of voices, but no diversity. They will be screaming and screeching in unison things like Bush Lied Kids Died and No Blood For Oil. Lieberman is gone from the Party like a moderate cancer and when the purge finishes, the face of the party will further alienate Red State Voters and may result in folks like Baucus and Conrad and Nelson having a tough time choosing between siding with the party nationally or losing elections at home.

Posted by Justin B. · 13 August 2006 02:02 AM · Comments (3)

Senator Ben Nelson Looks Like A Character From One Of Those Rankin & Bass Christmas Specials.

Ben Nelson must be feeling a bit neglected these days. With so much attention on Joe Lieberman as "every Republican's favorite Democrat," Nelson's probably wondering how he was so suddenly dethroned from that position. To win as a Democrat in Nebraska, you MUST be every Republican's favorite Democrat.

Well, I'm here in Nebraska, where Senator Ben Nelson debated Republican Pete Ricketts this weekend. Unfortunately, although Nebraska is as Republican as they come, it's hard to see Ben Nelson (who is probably to the right of Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and a few other GOP Senators) getting knocked off this fall.

Anyway, I've always thought Ben Nelson looked familiar. I finally know why. Watching his head bob around as he spoke, it's clear to me that Ben Nelson is actually one of those animated puppet characters from the old TV Christmas movies.

I really couldn't find the particular images I was thinking of on the interweb in order to prove my point, but here's some proof:

Posted by Will Franklin · 12 August 2006 07:29 PM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 349 -- Tax Revenue Growth Continues To Outpace Spending Growth.

Tax Relief Can Produce Strong Tax Revenue Growth-

In 2005, tax revenue growth far outpaced spending growth in government, because of (or in spite of, for some) President Bush's tax relief. Just for reference, that's the same tax relief nearly all Democrats a) voted against and b) want to turn back the clock on.

In 2006 so far, tax revenue growth has once again outpaced spending growth, according to the very latest Monthly Treasury Report (.pdf):

Just for reference, although three major categories saw actual declines in spending, and a few other categories showed microscopic growth rates, the bulk of spending increases from last year to this year came mostly from (in millions of dollars):

1. Net Interest: 34,773
2. Medicare: 30,762
3. Community & Regional Development (Katrina): 29,479
4. Social Security: 25,433
5. National Defense: 23,883

There are also other Katrina-related expenses that show up on the ledger. But it's mostly the kind of spending that just automatically happens, without a lot of discussion, debate, or deliberation. Combine the two major entitlements on the top five list, and their growth dwarfs everything else. Next in line are interest payments, with miltary spending just behind.

We also spent more, in total, on Social Security (460,916 million dollars) than anything else, by a healthy margin (second place was National Defense, at 434,489 million dollars).

Despite the continued breathtaking growth of entitlement spending, tax revenue growth still won. Without tax increases.

We need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and we need to build on those tax cuts. If you have been a disgruntled Republican voter on overspending or immigration, there's still room to hop back aboard the bandwagon. Taxation is too important an issue to sit this election out. We need to send a message that tax cuts are more than good policy, they are good politics.

Folks, it's no secret that nearly all Democrats (and a small number of Republicans) want to raise tax rates. They want to let Bush's tax cuts expire. They want to invent new kinds of taxes, on new categories of Americans. Democrats, being the Marxists they are, love more and higher taxes. On rich people. On middle class people. On success. On entrepreneurialism. On anything and everything they can get their regulatory hands on.

We cannot afford to allow Charlie Rangel, who would become the Ways & Means Committee Chairman if Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, near our nation's tax policy.

It's time for Republicans to rally on the issue of taxes. Stand up and declare that President Bush's tax cuts have worked. Stand up and demand that they become permanent, and then some. We need more tax relief, not less. We need to build on our successes. We have the facts on our side. Tax cuts grow the economy. Tax cuts flood the Treasury with revenue. It's time that we defended low taxes, and fought against the high taxes Democrats would force on us, vigorously, in the political arena, together.

Because here's the deal: President Bush can and will veto tax hikes. But he can't veto inaction; Bush cannot veto the lack of an extension of tax cuts. Bush can't sign more-- or permanent-- tax cuts if they never come to his desk.

Disgruntled (and formerly disgruntled) Republican voters ought to be at least somewhat heartened by the victories of Tim Walberg and Doug Lamborn this week. It proves that the anti-incumbent sentiment out there, manifested by the Lieberman and McKinney losses, is not proof of a political shift to the left in this country.

What's happening out there is that Republicans want Republicans to act like Republicans. Democrats want Democrats to act like Democrats. And the former middle has been consumed and subsumed by Republicans and Democrats.

When Republicans act like Republicans and Democrats act like Democrats, Republicans win. Every single time. Our ideas are better than their ideas.

Fact:
There are more conservatives than liberals out there in America.

Fact:
There are more traditionalists than progressives out there in America.

Fact:
There are more libertarians than socialists out there in America.

We're all willing to vote for Republicans when they act like Republicans. Now that Democrats are finally talking about actual ideas (albeit bad ones), Republicans need to stop reacting, stop playing defense. We need to put our ideas back on the offense.

We need to defend the War On Terror (foreign AND domestic), rather than allow Democrats to unilaterally declare American retreat and defeat.

We need to defend against socialized Hillarycare, fight against frivolous lawsuits, and promote market-based solutions, including Health Savings Accounts, to health care.

We need to continue fighting for Social Security and other entitlement reform.

We need to remind people that judges matter, and it's possible that we'll see another retirement or death of someone on the Supreme Court in the next couple of years. Justices Roberts and Alito are proof that elections matter in judicial appointments.

These issues are all major winners for Republicans. These are all issues with which we can and should play offense. Ultimately, though, the Republican coalition is built around tax cuts. Want to excite the conservative Republican base?

Put tax cuts on the ballot this fall.

Tax cuts work. They are good policy. They are great politics. Everybody knows it. It's high time that Republicans started talking about them.

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

Previous Trivia Tidbit: The Awful Sar-Box Is Just Awful.

Posted by Will Franklin · 10 August 2006 04:56 PM · Comments (7)

Social Security Reform Thursday: Week Sixty -- Declining Rate Of Return.

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:

Social Security Has An Increasingly Abysmal Rate Of Return.

Just a quick reminder about Social Security's underlying demographic crunch, from Heritage's 2006 Candidate Briefing Book:

More retirees. Fewer workers. People are living longer. Benefit increases have outpaced inflation. Long-term structural forces have contributed to an untenable entitlement system. To fix Social Security temporarily, Congress-- at various points in time-- has pushed the retirement age back, raised the tax rate, and expanded the tax base.

Social Security's problems go much deeper than that. The fix is not as easy as soaking the rich... or the middle class.

Social Security needs structural reform. It needs strengthening. It needs modernization. It needs a radical transformation. Social Security needs to move beyond 1935. It is outrageous-- and a bit awe-inspiring (and not in a good way)-- that the shortsightedness of policymakers more than a century before my retirement could continue to have such a deleterious impact over so many trillions of dollars.

It's even more outrageous that we now, in 2006, are missing a clear opportunity to transform Social Security from a malfunctioning Depression-era relic into a wealth-generating powerhouse for Americans of all income levels.

It's sad that so much of America's Gross Domestic Product is being siphoned off into such an inefficient boondoggle. It's a shame that so many dollars of American income (1 of every 8 dollars earned, for many working Americans) are being footled into a program with such a poor investment return:

Those dollars ought to be growing. Compounded. Into real wealth. Into significant, substantial, Republican-creating wealth.

Americans deserve a better deal. We deserve a modern Social Security system. In a global economy, we can't afford anything less.

It's time for reform.

The clock is still ticking:

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

Read More »

Posted by Will Franklin · 10 August 2006 12:00 PM · Comments (3)

Closed Primaries and the Lieberman Effect

Joe Lieberman is certainly not a conservative. He is barely a "moderate" in this new Era where the definition of a "moderate" is someone that does not believe Bush and Cheney to have started a war for oil, Haliburton to be the root of all evil, and the Bush administration to be behind the collapse of the twin towers. But Lieberman stands behind the invasion of Iraq. And as of yesterday, he is no longer a member of the Democratic Party.

What happened in Connecticut is this--of the entire registered voter population, 33% are registered Democrats. Of those Registered Democrats, approximately 45% actually came to the polls and voted. And of those, Lamont was able to get 52% to vote for him. That means that 52% of 45% of 33% = approximately 7.7% of the total voters in Connecticut determined the candidate for the Democratic Party. Let's break that down a little bit. Of the 2M registered voters in Connecticu, 702,000 are registered Democrats. Less than 350,000 voted. Of those who voted, Lamont won by 52-48%, by 10,000 votes.

We have a two party system where there is no middle ground in part because primaries allow both parties to elect candidates that represent their ideological bases, and further, that represent the most appealing candidate to the small segment of the population that votes in the primary. The 15% of the total registered voters that vote in primaries are usually not the fence leaning moderates. Daily Kos and the far left may not control the majority of any particullar electorate, but they certainly can appeal to the most active and radical 10% of the far left wing of the Democratic Party. And when motivated in a primary, these folks can control the party. If you want to win primaries, you better pander to Daily Kos. That means not compromising one inch on your hatred of ChimpyMcHitlerBurton. That means being a Progressive and a Liberal and a Pacifist. Again, that means running as far left of center as possible. If the Radical left controls just 10% of the total registered voters in Connecticut, this percentage was sufficient to throw out Lieberman.

This is a dangerous precedent for the Democratic Party, just as consistently electing ideologues like Pat Buchanan would be for the Republicans. Or electing someone like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Rush or Hannity or Ann Coulter. And trust me, these folks could win primaries. Just not the general elections. And again, that is the problems the Democrats face. Candidates such as Lamont do not have national appeal. Candidates from California and Massachussets and now Connecticut are at the helm of the Party. What is gained in fear and motivation for the existing members of the Party that now are scared to death to cross Kos and Moveon is lost by the offset voters that are scared by the new faces of the party and the new agenda.

But why are we sitting debating whether Joe Lieberman signals the end of the Democratic Party, etc., or acting like Lamont is a far left wing radical that is unprecedented when the Democratic Party Apparatus has been taken over by Howard Dean and when Dennis Kucinich actually got votes in the Democratic Primaries in 2004. Democrats are now held hostage by closed primaries where 52% of 45% of 33% of the voters in a state can throw an incumbent out of office. It is clearly an indication of the way the closed primary system works. Independants do not count and in Connecticut and often do not count nationwide. There is no third party. And as the Democratic Party moves from center-left toward the far left, the middle ground and room for compromise in DC is disappearing. And consequently, the room to attract moderate voters in Red and "purple" states is also disappearing.

This is not our war as Republicans. This is a civil war much like Iraq is "supposed" to turn into. This is a Quagmire. The Democratic Party has huge potential for implosion because of the competing factions within it. How does big labor reconcile their need for high paying jobs with the environmental wing? How about the race baiting wing? The anti-WTO, Communist wing reconcile with the slightly business friendly wing? We have seen that the Progressive Radical Left can influence Primaries. They can influence the direction of the Democratic Party. Now it remains to be seen if this change in the Democratic Party can influence the direction of entire elections or of the nation.

Updated because I realized that not only can't I type, but I am incoherent before my morning coffee.

Further update. A second set of eyes at Say Anything (thanks Rob) asked me to clarify the percentages again. I fixed the grammer and spelling. I think my wife dropped me on my head last night because I am barely literate today.

Posted by Justin B. · 9 August 2006 11:41 AM · Comments (4)

Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 65

**SPECIAL EDITION**

This week's WILLisms.com Caption Contest photograph:

There is no actual caption - this photo has been killed by Reuters! As if we can believe anything they'd put in the caption anyway. Tell us what Reuters should have put in the caption if they were, you know, honest.

I admit this will be a hard one to caption, but maybe you can win acclaim for writing the definitive caption for the most infamous photo of all.

Entries will remain open until 11:59 PM, Central Standard Time, Tuesday, August 15. Submit your captions in the comments section, or email at mccracken.ken@gmail.com.

Last week's photo:

Winners from last week: 1. Rodney Dill:

He may be keeping the stiff British upper lip, but other features required closer scrutiny.

2. Mr. Right:

Prince Charles was determined to find his last shred of dignity, even if it took resorting to the most drastic of measures!

3. Sedosi:

An elated Prince Charles reacts to news that the fine print in his wedding agreement allows for concubines.

Honorable Mention #1 DaveD:

Worth a look, but still not king size.

Honorable Mention #2 SgtFluffy:

Now that he has found his willy again, Prince Charles will now go forth and finally consumate his marriage.

Honora